The recent spurt of discussion and debate over the Climate Security Act on IGHIH illustrates how seriously individuals and organizations are wrestling with the merits of this bill. Though our strategies may differ, we are all working to ensure that Congress passes strong legislation to stabilize the climate, protect vulnerable communities and ecosystems, and revitalize our economy. It’s also great to see that Ranger Rick still inspires so much passion – and in that vein – we’d like to respond to some of the requests for more background on National Wildlife Federation’s support for the Climate Security Act.
For many who thought the movement was just biding its time until the next administration, the upcoming vote on the Climate Security Act has hit like the jolt of a cold shower. We are now confronted with the possibility of creating a bridge from a land of lawless greenhouse gas emissions to the first ever U.S. legislation to regulate global warming pollution. This is an opportunity to fill a gaping hole in federal policy.
The trek to this bridge has been long, demanding our utmost determination to fight back well-heeled corporate lobbyists and members of Congress seeking to liquefy coal, prevent higher fuel efficiency standards, and wring oil from the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Now that we are finally here, there is hesitation: “What kind of future will the Climate Security Act lead us to? Do we cross this bridge to a safer place or we stand at the edge and wait, demanding an Eden on the other side?”
These are the questions National Wildlife Federation and every other group has had to weigh in deciding whether or not to support the bill. This important debate has yielded two basic options — 1) “Fix or ditch” or 2) “Strenghten and pass”. After lengthy analysis and dialogue, and faced with the urgency of the climate crisis, NWF is working to strengthen and pass the Climate Security Act. The Climate Security Act is not perfect, but it’s a really good start. And even if it doesn’t pass, the debate on the Senate floor will provide important momentum for passing strong climate legislation in 2009.
Here are a few reasons why NWF supports the Climate Security Act:
The Act reduces emissions: Unlike past votes in Congress for measures that would have merely stopped emissions from growing, the Act puts us quickly on the downward trajectory of cutting emissions from large emitters by 2% per year from current levels. U.S. emissions would be 18% lower in 2020 than they are today.
Recharges America’s economy: The Act will help accelerate America’s transition to a clean energy future. It funds renewable energy, energy efficiency, advanced vehicles, and mass transit. By 2050, $190 billion is used to fund green jobs training programs and help affected workers transition to the clean energy workforce.
Assists small businesses and low-income families: Polluter payments are used to help consumers reduce their energy consumption through efficiency upgrades. More than $1.7 trillion in tax relief and other assistance would be available to small businesses and low-income families. The Climate Security Act ensures that the costs of clean energy are paid by polluters and do not burden working class Americans.
Protects wildlife and natural resources: The natural resources and systems that we all depend on are already being impacted by global warming. By 2030, a total of $137 billion is allocated to help vulnerable species and ecosystems survive global warming.
We cannot afford not to act. The longer we delay, the more greenhouse gases build in the atmosphere. Waiting just two years to pass climate change legislation will mean that we have to reduce emissions 4% per year, rather than 2% per year, to achieve the same cumulative cuts by 2020.
So there is much good riding on this vote — the process officially begins on Monday, June 2nd. We’d love your support, of course, but whatever your view, perhaps what is most important to take away from this historic vote is the need to continue building a diverse and powerful grassroots base that will turn the tide on global warming. We won’t get the legislation we want until we really drum up some noise and pressure our members of Congress. As the generation that will be most affected by global warming, we have a particularly important role to play in creating the future climate we want to inhabit. From the lobby visits at Powershift to state victories, young people have been instrumental in shaping climate policy and influencing key votes. Starting this summer, NWF and its partners in the Energy Action Coalition are ramping up our efforts and working with thousands of leaders across the the nation to run PowerVote — a campaign to build the youth climate movement to one million strong, to push candidates to take a stronger stance on climate and to elevate the issue in election races across the country. We’re all in this together and together we are changing history.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Thanks for writing a response of sorts to my post criticizing the Lieberman-Warner Bill.
[Dirty energy in the name of climate protection – http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/13/lieberman-warner-bill-dirty-energy-in-the-name-of-climate-protection/
A few questions:
1. Is there a recognition / acceptance that the system set up in L-W will have to be overhauled to meet the IPCC numbers, if not in this bill in a subsequent one? Assuming yes, I’m curious what NWF and others supporting this bill see as the timeline and process for revisiting this?
- When do you think is a good time for 100% auctions to start?
- When (if ever) do you think the inclusion of the 350 “red line” should be integrated into this or subsequent bills replacing this bill ?
- When (if ever) do you think the phasing out of offsets — that have been widely criticsed as ineffective by economists, academics, environmental justice groups, etc.?
– Also, what do your allies in Congress think about all of these “fixes” and your timeline for fixing them?
2. Is NWF initating an anti-nuclear or anti-”clean coal” campaign to offset the huge growth in the nuclear industry and clean coal promissed by this bill?
- What is NWF’s position on using Nuclear Power and clean coal to address climate change?
- How do you feel about the Campus Climate Challenge’s “Youth Statement of Principles on Climate and Energy” which specifically opposes this? see http://climatechallenge.org/about/principles
3. If the bill passed, do you forsee no difficultly in the long range plan L-W would establishes (which includes subsantial and long-range rewards to and incentives to various parties) being re-written mid-stream (or a year or two from now) to the tune of trillions of dollars in changes?
Thanks for writing a response of sorts to my post criticizing the Lieberman-Warner Bill.
[Dirty energy in the name of climate protection – http://www.itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/05/13/lieberman-warner-bill-dirty-energy-in-the-name-of-climate-protection/
A few questions:
1. Is there a recognition / acceptance that the system set up in L-W will have to be overhauled to meet the IPCC numbers, if not in this bill in a subsequent one? Assuming yes, I’m curious what NWF and others supporting this bill see as the timeline and process for revisiting this?
- When do you think is a good time for 100% auctions to start?
- When (if ever) do you think the inclusion of the 350 “red line” should be integrated into this or subsequent bills replacing this bill ?
- When (if ever) do you think the phasing out of offsets — that have been widely criticsed as ineffective by economists, academics, environmental justice groups, etc.?
– Also, what do your allies in Congress think about all of these “fixes” and your timeline for fixing them?
2. Is NWF initating an anti-nuclear or anti-”clean coal” campaign to offset the huge growth in the nuclear industry and clean coal promissed by this bill?
- What is NWF’s position on using Nuclear Power and clean coal to address climate change?
- How do you feel about the Campus Climate Challenge’s “Youth Statement of Principles on Climate and Energy” which specifically opposes this? see http://www.climatechallenge.org/about/principles
3. If the bill passed, do you forsee no difficultly in the long range plan L-W would establishes (which includes subsantial and long-range rewards to and incentives to various parties) being re-written mid-stream (or a year or two from now) to the tune of trillions of dollars in changes?
Well, you can drop either coal or nuclear, but I cannot imagine how you can drop both (over 70% of the US electric capacity) and not have the US public scream about electricity supply and rates. My reading of the data indicates that nuclear, despite its controversy, is better than coal and the best candidate to supply baseload (still leaves renewables to supply a hefty swing and peak load) in a post-greenhouse world for the interim until we can figure out if you can make an all renewable/energy storage grid cheap enough.
“And even if it doesn’t pass, the debate on the Senate floor will provide important momentum for passing strong climate legislation in 2009.”
As this bill is not going to pass and the President already said he won’t sign it I hope NWF and others keep the pressure on congress to come up with policies strong enough to actually solve the problem. It’s hard to get excited about half-measures when it’s our future at stake.
” Waiting just two years to pass climate change legislation will mean that we have to reduce emissions 4% per year, rather than 2% per year, to achieve the same cumulative cuts by 2020.”
Who cares about a somewhat steeper curve to the 2020 cuts- they just need to get us to the 2050 stabilization target. If all the targets are too weak then how does passing a bill now help us?
It’s like climbing halfway up the mountain- I’d rather take the time to get to the top.
Finally, what’s all the deficit-reduction language doing in the auction revenue section? That seems totally inappropriate for a climate bill- why aren’t more people talking about it? We need this money to build a clean energy infrastructure that doesn’t exist today.
Hi R Margolis – check out Nuclear and Fossil Fuel free by 2050.
While I don’t agree with all it’s reccomendations (for example, I think we should set our goals much higher for reducing consumption in the wealthy nations via public transit, education about conservation / shopping addiction, localization, etc.) the book lays out how both coal and nukes could be non-existant by 2050 (or somewhat sooner) in detail.
http://www.ieer.org/carbonfree/CarbonFreeNuclearFree.pdf
Brian -
I have read this report before. It is still based on energy storage technology not yet proven on large scale. They acknowledge this, but their fallback plan is to use coal with CCS. I have never seen any major study claiming that coal is safer than nuclear. My humble guess is that some nuclear will be needed to keep electric rates reasonable during the transition away from carbon.
Brian—I appreciate your passion for protecting the planet and communities and want to respond to your questions at length (see paragraph headings). Let me reiterate that NWF’s approach has been to strengthen and pass the bill, not merely to accept its current provisions. From lobby visits to communications with our members, we are actively working to address a number of concerns you raise. NWF works on both sides of the aisle with a range of constituents to build support for strong climate legislation. The upcoming congressional debate on global warming would not be happening if not for environmental groups pushing forward. Without these efforts, there would be no serious global warming debate for the entire 2008-2009 Congress and no opportunity for citizens to demand the bold legislation we need. Still, we should all be angry that this debate and legislation are moving so slowly.
Politics: The Climate Security Act is the vehicle that is uniting proponents of strong action to make their case and win converts from the ranks of our opponents. You may recall that, in 2005, only 38 Senators voted for climate legislation. Only 4 senators thought it was too weak (in that case, because of subsidies to nuclear power). The reality in Washington is that the votes are still with the “go slow” and “do nothing” camps who think the Climate Security Act is far too aggressive and will argue next week that it will wreck our economy. We are fighting uphill, but fortunately gaining ground and building support from labor unions, business leaders, social justice groups and faith communities.
Emissions Targets: NWF seeks a steeper cut in emissions that would get us to at least 80% by 2050, a reduction of roughly 2% per year that scientists and the IPCC say is necessary to prevent temperatures from rising more than 2ºC and avoid the worst impacts of global warming. Chairman Markey of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming just introduced the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act (ICAP) that will reduce emissions 85% by 2050. NWF also supports a stronger scientific review process that facilitates scientific updates and prompt course corrections to respond the latest studies.
Allowances: I agree that we need to pay attention to the allocation of allowances to regulated industries. In the latest version of the bill, nine percent of the money in this bill goes to regulated industries (2012-2050). It is reasonable that some resources should go to energy intensive industries to help the transition in the early years so they don’t flee to other countries and to ease in the energy bill impacts for working class families. The rest of the money in the bill goes for purposes such as helping consumers, promoting energy efficiency, accelerating the development and deployment of clean technologies, getting additional emissions reductions beyond the cap-and-trade system, assisting poor nations with clean energy technologies and with adaptation, providing worker training for green jobs, protecting our natural resources threatened by climate change, to reward states who have moved forward with their own climate plans, and to provide other resources to states and tribes.
Coal: The technology money alone amounts to a ten-fold increase over the entire federal energy budget today for energy technologies. Of the technology money in the bill, five times as much money is dedicated for renewable energy, energy efficiency and mass transit as goes to technologies to reduce emissions from coal. Working with partners, we have successfully strengthened this bill at every stage of the process. According to Friends of the Earth’s analysis of the revised bill unveiled last week, the most recent draft cuts funding for coal technologies by 77%, and the total money for carbon capture and storage totals 2% of the total amount of money in the bill. NWF will oppose amendments to increase the share of money for developing CCS technologies.
National Wildlife Federation believes that renewable energy and energy efficiency are the most promising technologies for a clean energy future. The Climate Security Act will not encourage more coal use, but instead will fund renewables to make them more competitive. But we also believe time is running out to cut emissions quickly, and these technologies alone may not slash emissions quickly enough to reach emissions targets. We believe that carbon capture and storage should be explored, and health and safety rules established by EPA, to see if we can more quickly phase out emissions from the existing fleet of coal-fired power plants, which account for 40% of U.S. CO2 emissions. In the absence of legislation, coal use would significantly increase for decades to come and outstrip gains in efficiency and renewables, according to the U.S. Department of Energy. Instead, the bill is expected to hold coal use relatively flat for the next several decades. If carbon capture technology does not turn out to be cost-effective or if there are unexpected advances that further reduce the cost of renewables, the CSA will actually decrease the use of coal and yield significant improvements in mercury and other air pollutants while decreasing mining impacts.
Nuclear: There are no dedicated subsidies for nuclear power in the Climate Security Act. There is a pot of money for low- and zero-emission technologies for which nuclear is potentially eligible. According to Friends of the Earth’s analysis of the substitute, the amount of money for these purposes was reduced by 86% in the new bill, and amount now totals about one percent of the total pot of money. National Wildlife Federation will oppose amendments to add subsidies to build nuclear reactors, and we believe that money is better spent on renewables and efficiency. We believe, however, that improvements are needed in the safety and security of America’s large fleet of nuclear plants, and we should explore those opportunities in the legislation.
Offsets: You also raise concerns about offsets. Like the other points you raise, offsets deserve scrutiny. We support limited use of offsets, which can be a critical part of the global warming fight – deforestation contributes 20% of global greenhouse gas emissions.
Campus Climate Challenge: For three years NWF’s Campus Ecology program has been an active member of the Energy Action Coalition and the Campus Climate Challenge. We are deeply committed to the Principles of Anti-Oppression adopted by EAC and working towards a more just energy future. We support the Youth Statement of Principles on Climate and Energy and will continue to actively support students who are fighting for clean energy and against dirty energy on their campuses and in their communities. We help campuses identify and implement efficiency and renewables projects that reduce emissions without burdening human health or natural resources.
Conclusion: Unfortunately, we do not believe legislation will be signed into law this year. We believe the best way to get strong 2009 legislation is by rallying behind the supporters of action now and showing that sufficient votes will be there after the elections to pass strong laws, and to hold those who are opposed to strong action accountable this fall.
That’s why the campus efforts are so important – we demand action from our legislators and hold the bar high. National Wildlife Federation is not asking students to support the bill or even NWF’s strategy. But we do think everyone should weigh in the next week to let Senators know we are paying attention. Together, we are building a movement, and we work together toward a common vision, but everyone should express themselves as they want. Let’s stay focused on waking up those who are unwilling to take action because they fear a rapid transition to a clean energy future.