Sounds controversial at first, doesn’t it? Perhaps you’re thinking ”Why would anyone be so foolish as to attempt to stop the first piece of climate-oriented legislation produced by the U.S.?” While some think this is madness and counter-productive, others argue that to the passage of this bill is insanity- the absolute worst decision we could make environmentally. And if the major corporations like it, we should be suspicious…
Climate SOS is a new and expanding network of individuals and organizations concerned with ensuring that U.S. climate legislation effectively rises to the challenges we face from global warming.
The propagandizing around the ACESA climate bill, with its host of corporate giveaways and its deliverance of a carbon trading regime is summarily described best by James Hansen:
[ACESA would] do more harm to the environment than doing nothing at all.
ClimateSOS and its members are extremely disturbed by the inadequacies of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed by the House, which contains numerous provisions that lead us to conclude that such a bill would be worse than doing nothing and set us on a path to failure.
Given the primary responsibility of the U.S. in causing global warming, ClimateSOS feels that Americans must also take responsibility both in doing what is necessary to avert the worst, and to fulfill our obligation to the world as we all face the consequences. Our aim is to first prevent disastrous “false” legislation from being passed, and then to replace it with visionary measures that will be truly effective and adequate in setting us on the path to avert global climate catastrophe.
Presently Duff Badgley, a national organizer of Climate SOS, is engaged in a cross-country tour to promote awareness and opposition (both public and Senatorial) to the flawed bill. ”Now is the time for nonviolent civil disobedience, office occupations, and nationwide protest.”
For more information on ACESA, ClimateSOS, and how to get involved- please visit www.climatesos.org
The following quote embodies the trajectory of declining expectations that have accompanied the U.S. climate legislation process.
First we were told not to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Then we were told not to let the good be the enemy of the mediocre. Then we weren’t to make the mediocre the enemy of the awful. And now we must not be purists who turn the awful into the enemy of the completely disgusting.
–Anonymous/unknown
We reject this line of reasoning entirely because our lives depend upon it! Instead, we aspire to a climate bill that rises to the challenges we face, because science, and our obligation to the future demands nothing less.
In recognition of the severity of the climate crisis we are facing, we believe that the U.S. must adopt truly groundbreaking and historic legislation to address global warming. This legislation must take the scientifically sound, yet, often politically difficult steps needed to avoid the catastrophic impacts we will otherwise experience. To meet this challenge, key features are essential, features that were not reflected in the recent House version of climate legislation, Waxman-Markey’s “American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA).
The Climate SOS Platform lays out the key issues, reflected in the House “American Clean Energy And Security Act” (ACESA), that must be changed to put us on track towards meaningful and effective legislation with a real chance of leading us into a viable future.
Our goal is to clarify what is needed, and demand it of our representatives and policy makers. Now is the time we must call on our leaders to do not just what is politically or economically feasible according to the many competing vested interests, but what is necessary to ensure a future for life on earth!
Current members of Climate SOS’s growing movement of opposition to ACESA are listed below:
- Beehive Design Collective
- Biofuelwatch
- Carbon Tax Center
- Climate Change Action Group of CNY
- Climate Crisis Coalition
- Coalition For A Safe Environment
- Eco-Justice Collaborative
- Ecolaw Massachusetts
- Enviro Show
- Energy Justice Network
- Global Justice Ecology Project
- Green Delaware
- Indigenous Environmental Network
- Institute for Local Self-Reliance
- Institute for Social Ecology
- Jamaica Plain Greenhouse
- Little Village Environmental Justice Organization
- Massachusetts Forest Watch
- Massachussetts Coalition for HealthyCommunities/ SecureGreenFuture
- New York Climate Action Group
- One Earth Climate Action Group
- Progressive Democrats of America
- Rising Tide North America
- Ruckus Society
- UIC Ecocampus
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I understand your concerns (I hold many of the same), but I disagree. As you state, the primary reason for opposition is that you see the ACES bill doing more harm than good. This misses out on a critical element – the massive political advance that ACES provides in the legislative process and the potential for improvement and the assistance it provides in allowing for an international agreement in Copenhagen.
This bill is hated by the conservative fringe as well as major industries. This is not a bill that coal or big oil are excited about, which is why they are launching an all out offensive on the Senate version. An attack by any group is usually seen by the mainstream media and the general public as an attack against taking action.
The way I see it, if we can pass climate legislation, even week, it changes the entire political landscape of what is possible on climate as a whole. Take a look at who we have in office right now in the house – we aren’t going to get a better group of champions to push something through anytime soon. If this is all they could get passed in the house, then it is our fault, the organizers, for not building a broader base of support before it went to a vote. Some may disagree with this point, but Waxman, Markey, Pelosi, and Obama are all amazing advocates for our cause (even if forced to make sub-par decisions due to political reality).
That said, I think ACES is far too weak – no question. My problem is with where energy is spent going forward. I want us, as a movement, to focus on bold new solutions to the climate crisis. I want us to engage an increasingly diverse segment of the American public. I want us to transform how people see the issue of climate change. This can be done whether you agree with ACES or not.
I don’t think the best way to move forward is siding with Glenn Beck in smearing the already passed house climate bill.
It’s clear the Climate SOS group has thought through a lot of this and I like the evolution their messaging has taken over the summer, but I think the energy and talent invested in fighting cap-and-trade and ACES is better spent elsewhere.
-Matt
Hi Matt,
I hear your points. But, it’s not that ACESA is “too weak” – it’s that it actually does harm: it is a strong bill in that regard: it locks in a destructive cap and trade scam that will take decades to try to undo, when it fails as it inevitably will. That’s just one example of the way this 1,300 page law does harm.
A specific concrete example is biomass burning. Under the Renewable Electricity Standards of ACESA, burning just about anything – trash that should be recycled, state and national forests, landfill gas loaded with methane, construction and demolition debris containing asbestos, lead paint and mercury – can be burned and called “renewable energy”. Americans will pay billions to subsidize the construction of incinerators to burn this stuff to make electricity.
Best part about biomass burning: it emits 50% percent more carbon dioxide than burning coal, but that CO2 is not covered by the cap or regulated by EPA.
We are for strong climate bill that actually addresses climate change, not one that makes Americans pay for things like incinerators disguised as clean and green. When the promoters of the bill push green jobs, many of those will be jobs stoking fires in incinerators so we can have lights. Sort of like the cavemen.
Check out http://www.nobiomassburning.org, http://www.massenvironmentalenergy.org
Well written Matt, and with glowing intention!
I agree that the landscape is primed for a shift right now. I do beg to differ, though, on the assertion that industry is against this and that any shift would be positive. While the industry may outwardly appear to be irritated by the Bill’s implications… ACESA would also guarantee a long-term foothold for their longevity. Carbon Capture and Sequestration equates to the prolonging of dependence on Coal. Mentions of Biomass allude to the branding of horrible energy sources (like waste incineration) as ‘renewable’– not to mention the implications for a devastating agriculture-as-fuel acceleration which consequently does NOTHING to reduce fossil fuel dependency (fertilizers, shipment, etc).
Worst of all, the crown-jewel horror of ACES is its potential to lock the United States into a regime of carbon trading. This comment form isn’t long enough to encapsulate all the dire implications of that. I think it would be an ultimate travesty for this country to label a step backwards as progress, and to encourage an international community at Copenhagen to stagger drunkenly towards the abyss of carbon trading (for that I’d like to direct you to http://www.carbontradewatch.org )
These are not solutions, and people are being salaried right now to develop false ones that will maintain a status quo under the guise of a new paradigm.
Incidentally, I’m near you! Just over in Machias, ME – stop on over at the Beehive sometime
-d