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

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

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