Cross-Posted from: HERE
Here in the United States, environmental groups are all over the place regarding their stance on the Waxman-Markey bill in Congress. Some say thumbs up, others say it’s better to pass it than pass nothing, and others either cannot support the bill, or want a no vote from liberal Democrats. I explain my position and rationale here. I saw an article in the NY Times today which made me think a lot about the dilemma faced here. On one hand, the 17% target in the Waxman-Markey bill will most likely not lead to a desirable treaty in Copenhagen. On the other hand, what if we show up to Copenhagen with absolutely nothing? One thing I think people overlook is the fact that Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are two of the most progressive lawmakers in the US Congress. They know energy, and they aren’t a bunch of pansies when it comes to global warming. Their bill is as strong as the political system in the US will tolerate.
Australia faces a similar situation. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ran on a platform that included taking action on climate change, and he’s put forth a cap and trade plan, but it’s only 5% reduction below 2000 levels by 2020. Australia is willing to go as far as 25% if other nations step up in Copenhagen. It’s passed out of Australia’s House, but is facing huge problems in the Senate. The labor party can’t pass the law on its own, and the conservatives are vowing to fight it and kill it. However, in Australia they have a 3 party system, and the 3rd party is the Greens party, which is strongly pro-environment. If the Greens party teams up with Labour, they can pass the bill. However, the Greens are saying that 5% is too weak, and they cannot support it. Right now, their position is 25% or bust. If this position holds, we’re going to see a very comparable result as we would see in the United States if the liberal members of the Democratic party listened to their base and voted no because the bill wasn’t strong enough. Would the result be a stronger bill, or an empty sheet of paper in Copenhagen? Of course, Australia has an advantage in that if their bill fails twice, they can call elections and have the people kick out the troublemakers. Let’s see what happens to the bill. In my opinion, it will give a good indication of what would happen here. I highly recommend reading the NY Times article.
I accept that the bill is as strong as the political system in the US will tolerate. The thing that too many people overlook is the fact that the political system in the US is dependent on the level of activism in the US. There are other options on the table, such as the McDermott bill (HR 1683), it would just take a different level of activism to pass legislation that strong. But does anyone really think that Congress wouldn’t pass real legislation in the face of a national student strike, a national labor strike, and/or frequent and sustained civil disobedience? Does anyone think that Europe would doubt America’s commitment to stopping climate change if we were in the midst of a national strike before Copenhagen?
Whether or not we support ACES is not a question of what we think Congress is capable of, but what we think we are capable of.
I agree Tim, if we can great more grassroots pressure on Congress, we can get a better bill. I’m pushing for such a thing, and in Maryland we’ve done a good job so far in driving some of our representatives to push for stronger standards. If activists could do this kind of thing in the coal-heavy districts that would be great. I would love to see the level of pressure you’re talking about nationwide, but unfortunately it hasn’t come close to that yet.