We have entered a new phase of global warming politics, where policies are being fought over at a federal level that will have serious ramifications on the economy, environment, and the viability of various industries. Unfortunately, the current vehicle and the way the debate has been framed has been divisive within the climate movement. The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act has been fracturing many of the traditional green groups, but in something we haven’t been noting as much - it has also been fracturing many in the corporate and business world.
The Climate Security Act, as it stands now, does not meet scientific tests or climate principles - such as the 1Sky Principles. The green groups know this - but they have divided along various lines - some fighting from the outside to make it much stronger or kill it and return next year with something better (such as Friends of the Earth and their Fix or Ditch Campaign), while others are trying to use their advocacy teams to strengthen it from within (Such as NRDC). This is how politics are played…but politics without principle isn’t worth much.
Recently, there have been some very bitter debates, within this community and elsewhere, around issues such as carbon capture and sequestration, the role of emissions allowances, and the targets of the bill.
However, if we can rally around some common principles that we can agree to fight for, even if we take different strategies - perhaps we can cool down a little bit.
Comprehensive Climate Policy should (IMHO - please comment if you want to modify them):
- Solve the Problem: Meet Science-based reduction levels
- Fund the Future: Promote the development and deployment of clean technology and design
- Green Justice: Create green collar jobs in communities that have been marginalized
- Economic Justice: Not be an undue burden upon low-income and working families
- Environmental Justice: reduce complementary pollutants and impacts from dirty energy
There are many forces at play in federal climate policy and the big green groups that have been fighting a rearguard action for years are scared but excited at the progress they have made over the last few years. We need to shift the political reality on the ground, because we aren’t going the get the change we need in Washington without a political shift.
What I think we worry about is if in the political meatgrinder that is Washington DC (which I have had around 20 years of experience in) will cause our advocates on the hill to compromise too much, too early, and set us back for precious years we don’t have.
However, the schedule is getting tight and despite what many groups say…the simple fact is that any bill worth a damn will get vetoed by bush. The real value of Lieberman-Warner is that we are finally realizing that climate legislation is complex and getting these issues aired is essential. But it will only be valuable if we can rally around a common set of principles and decide instead of fighting all the time and casting suspicion at each other - we can have different roles and that we should build some trust among each other.
A Side Note on “Clean Coal”
Now, I also think our CCS debate is a little overheated. CCS isn’t viable yet. Legislation that includes both of the following clauses cancel each other out, unless we get one of those ‘magical’ breakthroughs: No New Coal that emits carbon pollution and is cost-competitive with new renewable energy capacity. Renewable Energy is plummeting in cost and deployment, while CCS will only raise the price of coal power, as it keeps soaring in price.
What do you think?
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Excellent post, thank you. I think we all CAN agree on those principles. A quote I think is appropriate here is, “Be against nothing and for something.” The more noise we make about real solutions the less attention all the false ones are going to get until we simply drown them out with our overwhleming roar. Easier said than done, but a good attitude to keep in mind.
We have to add one more:
“Eliminate Loopholes. Don’t use methods that haven’t worked to reduce emissions or that contain loopholes.”
I guess you could include that in “solve the problem” but what we’ve seen in Europe is that emissions are going up despite targets being set because the system they’ve put in place is full of loopholes. Scientficly robust targets are patently useless if you can appear to meet targets while actually exploiting the rules of the system to skirt the requirements.
This isn’t some side issue of concern folks! Inaction masquerading as action has been the dominant feature of climate action in most of the industrialized world.
Sadly, most some of the big environmental groups are supporting policies like the Lieberman Warner bill that have these loopholes - both here and (to a much lesser extent) in Europe.
I think all of us agree to these principles like these in theory, but in practice, many groups consistently ignore them. We do have differences in values across the specturm I think lack of COMMITMENT to even lowest common denominator values like these (in the face of perceived political expediency) is much more of a problem.
Example: In the anti-war movement you don’t have rallies and email calls-to-action for “50% out of Iraq!”. Yet parts of the climate movement do the same for “50% of IPCC targets!”….
dont compromise. we have too much to do too fast to compromise on anything. CCS still requires mining and transport, is potentially risky, and is the darling of one Goliath in the arena who is trying to maintain business as usual for logner than the planet can tolerate. dont compromise!
What is the energy source that will replace carbon oxidating fuels? Why not push for a total ban on jet transportation?
Because jet travel is still a fairly small minority of carbon emissions, but has enormous ramifications for the global economy. Reducing the need for jet travel, increasing efficiency, and developing bus and rail routes to replace short haul flights would be more effective and not lead to instant backlash.
These are great principles Richard.
Re Justice/Equity … I’d encourage you to add an international component. It seems like the focus of your language is on U.S. families/workers — but an important component of climate legislation in a wealthy, industrialized country like the U.S. is also living up to our responsibility as a nation that has done much to create this problem. That means we should be setting aside funds we can use to assist other nations as they adopt clean technologies and prepare for climate changes.