Zeno Swijtink
06-16-2008, 01:20 PM
Will the Tide on Capitol Hill Shift Enough on Global Warming to Ignite Real Change? (https://www.alternet.org/environment/87219/)
By Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation. Posted June 5, 2008.
The debate over the Climate Security Act shows how the next Congress, and the next President, will address the most urgent issue facing us.
A day before Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, his colleagues in the Senate began preparing for the biggest global warming vote in Congressional history. America's Climate Security Act would for the first time impose large mandatory cuts on greenhouse gas emissions. The bill is not expected to become law, if only because of George Bush's promised veto. But the Senate debate could reveal a lot about how the next Congress and the next President, whether Obama or John McCain, will address the most urgent issue facing humanity.
In contrast to Bush, McCain and Obama recognize climate change as a top-priority threat that requires action now. Environmentally, Obama's proposals are stronger. The Democrat favors what science says is necessary: an 80 percent cut in emissions, from 1990 levels, by 2050. Obama would achieve this through a "cap and trade" system that sells corporations permits to emit greenhouse gases and then invests the revenue in green energy development and rebates to Americans hit with higher energy prices.
McCain, who co-sponsored the last important climate bill, in 2005, supports a 60 percent emissions cut by 2050. But it is doubtful that McCain's approach would actually deliver such large cuts, since his cap-and-trade system would give most permits away free, a provision environmentalists attack as a corporate giveaway. Obama, by contrast, proposes to sell all emissions permits at auction. Obama is also much less enthusiastic than McCain about nuclear power as a response to climate change.
The Climate Security Act -- whose cap-and-trade system aims to reduce emissions by 19 percent by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050 -- goes further than McCain's proposal but falls well short of Obama's. It also confronts both candidates with a political minefield. With gas hovering near $4 a gallon, politicians are wary of any measure that could raise prices even higher. Further complicating matters is an explosive new study that says that reversing climate change will require a swift end to burning coal. Neither candidate seems likely to endorse that idea (though Obama's website says he'll consider it) since it would all but doom his chances in Appalachia and other coal regions in November.
The coal ban recommendation comes from James Hansen of NASA, the dean of America's climate scientists. In April Hansen co-wrote a study that found that global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut much more sharply than anyone previously assumed if humanity wishes to avoid the worst scenarios of climate change. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 385 parts per million and climbing 2 ppm a year. Alarmingly, Hansen's study concluded that 350 ppm is the maximum compatible with a livable planet. In other words, humanity is already in the danger zone and must reverse course rapidly.
"We need a moratorium on the construction of traditional coal-fired power plants by 2010 and a phaseout by 2030," Hansen told me. This farewell to coal "has to be global," he added, and include China and India, which insist that burning coal is essential to lifting their people out of poverty. Yet eliminating coal burning is not unthinkable. Already about sixty of the 150 US coal plants planned a year ago have been canceled and another fifty are being contested. Moreover, a recent article in Scientific American suggested that solar thermal power could supply all of America's electricity. A self-described conservative, Hansen blames "special interests" for blocking these and other green energy solutions. "There's no reason we can't make the changes necessary except that the fossil fuel industries are determining governments' policies," he said.
The Climate Security Act is a case in point, argue Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, which have urged defeat of the bill if it is not strengthened. Contrary to the bill's stated goal of 71 percent emissions cuts by 2050, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it would deliver cuts of just 25 percent. Why? Largely because the bill gives away 49 percent of the emissions permits, thus reducing the incentive for corporations and consumers to switch to greener energy sources. Nevertheless, most environmental groups and former Vice President Al Gore support the bill while urging that it be improved.
At press time, it remained unclear what role Obama and McCain would play in the Senate debate. But whatever the outcome, the fight for a new policy on climate change is just beginning. The real showdown comes next year, when a new Congress and President tackle the issue afresh. Despite its weaknesses, the Climate Security Act marks a decisive shift; its rhetorical commitment to 71 percent emissions reductions goes well beyond what was considered politically realistic even a year ago. But the earth does not compromise. If Hansen is right, the government will have to take much larger steps, and soon, if we are to salvage a livable planet.
Mark Hertsgaard, the environment correspondent for The Nation, is the author of five books, including "Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future." His next book is called, "Living Through the Storm: How We Survive the Next 50 Years of Climate Change."
*****
"Science-based" Legislation Sought in Global Warming Fight (https://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6988/1/339/)
By Joel Wendland
6-10-08, 9:19 am
After the failure of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act in the Senate last week, climate change activists are calling for a stronger "science-based" bill that will meet minimum standards needed to maintain a livable climate. Though Senate Republicans killed the bill with "poison pill" amendments and procedural votes, advocates of swift and comprehensive action on reducing carbon emissions shed few tears and are already looking to the next congressional debates on the issue.
The Lieberman-Warner bill would have created a "cap-and-trade" system* of controlling greenhouse emissions, but, according to some estimates, would have only succeeded in reducing carbon emissions by half of what is necessary to halt the worst effects of climate change and would have taken decades to have much impact.
Opponents of the weak measures in the Lieberman-Warner bill, who otherwise support "cap-and-trade," say that due to the current climate situation, emissions should be restricted much more quickly.
According to top experts on climate change, including James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who pioneered climate change science, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must be at or below a level of 350 parts per million in order to reduce global warming and halt climate change. Studies indicate that the carbon dioxide levels are already higher than that.
Environmental writer, David Roberts of Grist.org, said, "We've already passed 350. We're somewhere around 380. Being passed 350 is already highly perilous. We've got to get back down below 350 as fast as humanly possible."
"We have to cut back greenhouse emissions much more than anyone thought ... if we want to avoid the kind of catastrophic climate change of the worst scenarios," said Mark Hertsgaard in a recent interview on Radio Nation with Laura Flanders, citing a study Hansen had authored in April. "The policy implications are literally staggering," said Hertsgaard.
In response to the failure of the Lieberman-Warner bill to pass, Hansen expressed disappointment that a stronger bill has not yet been introduced or debated in the Senate. "We need a much stronger bill that is more strategic and puts a halt to coal plants," he told reporters. Hansen has called for a complete phase out of coal within two years in North America and Europe, and globally by 2030.
Likewise, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, recently emphasized the urgent need to cut emissions 25-40 percent by 2020, while the results of Lieberman-Warner would have fallen far short of that, perhaps as little as half.
The Lieberman-Warner bill, though it had the backing of some major environmental organizations like Sierra Club (with principled criticisms) and many Democrats, simply failed to meet these basic, but urgent requirements, according to a coalition of environmental justice and advocacy groups called 1Sky.
“This bill failed on two fundamental measures,” said Betsy Taylor, president of the 1Sky campaign’s board of directors, in a recent press statement. “It would not have reduced carbon emissions as deeply or as quickly as the world scientific community says is necessary to address global warming."
In addition, "it would have given more money to the bloated fossil fuel industry, and left ordinary Americans paying too much for rising energy bills," she asserted.
Gillian Caldwell, 1Sky’s Campaign Director, would have liked a bill without a lot of pork for fossil fuel industries. “It is unconscionable that so many Senators pandered to the oil companies and did nothing to tackle the greatest threat to our children's future,” she noted.
“Lieberman-Warner was the first round,” said Caldwell, “We are preparing for the real fight now, to actually do what it will take.”
1Sky is favorably disposed toward what it calls a "a more comprehensive bill": the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act, introduced in the House of Representatives in late May by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). This bill, iCAP for short, calls for reducing emissions by 85 percent by 2050 for greenhouse gases covered by the bill, starting in 2012. The iCap also calls for a moratorium on traditional coal plants.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also backed the Lieberman-Warner bill but worked to strengthen it. UCS spokesperson Alden Meyer expressed support for iCAP, saying, “It builds on the best practices of cap-and-invest programs and sets a strong framework to dramatically cut global warming pollution. It would auction 100 percent of carbon allowances by 2020, making polluters fully accountable for their emissions.”
The Sierra Club also supports the Markey bill, noting in a recent press statement that “this legislation gets the science right while protecting working-class Americans. We strongly support the bill’s emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy."
After the failure of Lieberman-Warner, the Sierra Club noted that though the bill had bi-partisan support, it was essentially killed by a coordinated effort on the part of Senate Republicans who added amendments to the measure to weaken it or to ensure that it would fail. Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, accused the Republicans of "feigning" support for the bill but actually deploying "theatrics" in order to kill it.
For example, Republican presidential nominee John McCain insisted that he could only support the measure if it included massive pork for the nuclear industry. But when a compromise version of his demand was added, McCain failed to show up in the Senate to vote on it or to show leadership by urging other Senate Republicans to back it. So much for breaking with the Bush administration's policies.
Notes
* A cap and trade system, basically put, is one that assigns "caps" on carbon emissions by certain industries over a certain time frame (caps that are lower than current emissions by those industries). Permits a divvied up and sold to corporations, individuals or other groups who want to participate in that industry. If one corporations wants to pollute more than is allowed by its permits it can "trade" for more pollution permits from other groups or corporations who may not use theirs. The main criticism of Lieberman-Warner by environmental advocates is that the caps were to slow and too small. Caps in iCAP are larger and imposed more quickly.
--Reach Joel Wendland at [email protected]
By Mark Hertsgaard, The Nation. Posted June 5, 2008.
The debate over the Climate Security Act shows how the next Congress, and the next President, will address the most urgent issue facing us.
A day before Barack Obama clinched the Democratic presidential nomination, his colleagues in the Senate began preparing for the biggest global warming vote in Congressional history. America's Climate Security Act would for the first time impose large mandatory cuts on greenhouse gas emissions. The bill is not expected to become law, if only because of George Bush's promised veto. But the Senate debate could reveal a lot about how the next Congress and the next President, whether Obama or John McCain, will address the most urgent issue facing humanity.
In contrast to Bush, McCain and Obama recognize climate change as a top-priority threat that requires action now. Environmentally, Obama's proposals are stronger. The Democrat favors what science says is necessary: an 80 percent cut in emissions, from 1990 levels, by 2050. Obama would achieve this through a "cap and trade" system that sells corporations permits to emit greenhouse gases and then invests the revenue in green energy development and rebates to Americans hit with higher energy prices.
McCain, who co-sponsored the last important climate bill, in 2005, supports a 60 percent emissions cut by 2050. But it is doubtful that McCain's approach would actually deliver such large cuts, since his cap-and-trade system would give most permits away free, a provision environmentalists attack as a corporate giveaway. Obama, by contrast, proposes to sell all emissions permits at auction. Obama is also much less enthusiastic than McCain about nuclear power as a response to climate change.
The Climate Security Act -- whose cap-and-trade system aims to reduce emissions by 19 percent by 2020 and 71 percent by 2050 -- goes further than McCain's proposal but falls well short of Obama's. It also confronts both candidates with a political minefield. With gas hovering near $4 a gallon, politicians are wary of any measure that could raise prices even higher. Further complicating matters is an explosive new study that says that reversing climate change will require a swift end to burning coal. Neither candidate seems likely to endorse that idea (though Obama's website says he'll consider it) since it would all but doom his chances in Appalachia and other coal regions in November.
The coal ban recommendation comes from James Hansen of NASA, the dean of America's climate scientists. In April Hansen co-wrote a study that found that global greenhouse gas emissions must be cut much more sharply than anyone previously assumed if humanity wishes to avoid the worst scenarios of climate change. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is now 385 parts per million and climbing 2 ppm a year. Alarmingly, Hansen's study concluded that 350 ppm is the maximum compatible with a livable planet. In other words, humanity is already in the danger zone and must reverse course rapidly.
"We need a moratorium on the construction of traditional coal-fired power plants by 2010 and a phaseout by 2030," Hansen told me. This farewell to coal "has to be global," he added, and include China and India, which insist that burning coal is essential to lifting their people out of poverty. Yet eliminating coal burning is not unthinkable. Already about sixty of the 150 US coal plants planned a year ago have been canceled and another fifty are being contested. Moreover, a recent article in Scientific American suggested that solar thermal power could supply all of America's electricity. A self-described conservative, Hansen blames "special interests" for blocking these and other green energy solutions. "There's no reason we can't make the changes necessary except that the fossil fuel industries are determining governments' policies," he said.
The Climate Security Act is a case in point, argue Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, which have urged defeat of the bill if it is not strengthened. Contrary to the bill's stated goal of 71 percent emissions cuts by 2050, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it would deliver cuts of just 25 percent. Why? Largely because the bill gives away 49 percent of the emissions permits, thus reducing the incentive for corporations and consumers to switch to greener energy sources. Nevertheless, most environmental groups and former Vice President Al Gore support the bill while urging that it be improved.
At press time, it remained unclear what role Obama and McCain would play in the Senate debate. But whatever the outcome, the fight for a new policy on climate change is just beginning. The real showdown comes next year, when a new Congress and President tackle the issue afresh. Despite its weaknesses, the Climate Security Act marks a decisive shift; its rhetorical commitment to 71 percent emissions reductions goes well beyond what was considered politically realistic even a year ago. But the earth does not compromise. If Hansen is right, the government will have to take much larger steps, and soon, if we are to salvage a livable planet.
Mark Hertsgaard, the environment correspondent for The Nation, is the author of five books, including "Earth Odyssey: Around the World In Search of Our Environmental Future." His next book is called, "Living Through the Storm: How We Survive the Next 50 Years of Climate Change."
*****
"Science-based" Legislation Sought in Global Warming Fight (https://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/6988/1/339/)
By Joel Wendland
6-10-08, 9:19 am
After the failure of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act in the Senate last week, climate change activists are calling for a stronger "science-based" bill that will meet minimum standards needed to maintain a livable climate. Though Senate Republicans killed the bill with "poison pill" amendments and procedural votes, advocates of swift and comprehensive action on reducing carbon emissions shed few tears and are already looking to the next congressional debates on the issue.
The Lieberman-Warner bill would have created a "cap-and-trade" system* of controlling greenhouse emissions, but, according to some estimates, would have only succeeded in reducing carbon emissions by half of what is necessary to halt the worst effects of climate change and would have taken decades to have much impact.
Opponents of the weak measures in the Lieberman-Warner bill, who otherwise support "cap-and-trade," say that due to the current climate situation, emissions should be restricted much more quickly.
According to top experts on climate change, including James Hansen, the former NASA scientist who pioneered climate change science, the carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere must be at or below a level of 350 parts per million in order to reduce global warming and halt climate change. Studies indicate that the carbon dioxide levels are already higher than that.
Environmental writer, David Roberts of Grist.org, said, "We've already passed 350. We're somewhere around 380. Being passed 350 is already highly perilous. We've got to get back down below 350 as fast as humanly possible."
"We have to cut back greenhouse emissions much more than anyone thought ... if we want to avoid the kind of catastrophic climate change of the worst scenarios," said Mark Hertsgaard in a recent interview on Radio Nation with Laura Flanders, citing a study Hansen had authored in April. "The policy implications are literally staggering," said Hertsgaard.
In response to the failure of the Lieberman-Warner bill to pass, Hansen expressed disappointment that a stronger bill has not yet been introduced or debated in the Senate. "We need a much stronger bill that is more strategic and puts a halt to coal plants," he told reporters. Hansen has called for a complete phase out of coal within two years in North America and Europe, and globally by 2030.
Likewise, Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, recently emphasized the urgent need to cut emissions 25-40 percent by 2020, while the results of Lieberman-Warner would have fallen far short of that, perhaps as little as half.
The Lieberman-Warner bill, though it had the backing of some major environmental organizations like Sierra Club (with principled criticisms) and many Democrats, simply failed to meet these basic, but urgent requirements, according to a coalition of environmental justice and advocacy groups called 1Sky.
“This bill failed on two fundamental measures,” said Betsy Taylor, president of the 1Sky campaign’s board of directors, in a recent press statement. “It would not have reduced carbon emissions as deeply or as quickly as the world scientific community says is necessary to address global warming."
In addition, "it would have given more money to the bloated fossil fuel industry, and left ordinary Americans paying too much for rising energy bills," she asserted.
Gillian Caldwell, 1Sky’s Campaign Director, would have liked a bill without a lot of pork for fossil fuel industries. “It is unconscionable that so many Senators pandered to the oil companies and did nothing to tackle the greatest threat to our children's future,” she noted.
“Lieberman-Warner was the first round,” said Caldwell, “We are preparing for the real fight now, to actually do what it will take.”
1Sky is favorably disposed toward what it calls a "a more comprehensive bill": the Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act, introduced in the House of Representatives in late May by Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.). This bill, iCAP for short, calls for reducing emissions by 85 percent by 2050 for greenhouse gases covered by the bill, starting in 2012. The iCap also calls for a moratorium on traditional coal plants.
The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) also backed the Lieberman-Warner bill but worked to strengthen it. UCS spokesperson Alden Meyer expressed support for iCAP, saying, “It builds on the best practices of cap-and-invest programs and sets a strong framework to dramatically cut global warming pollution. It would auction 100 percent of carbon allowances by 2020, making polluters fully accountable for their emissions.”
The Sierra Club also supports the Markey bill, noting in a recent press statement that “this legislation gets the science right while protecting working-class Americans. We strongly support the bill’s emphasis on energy efficiency and renewable energy."
After the failure of Lieberman-Warner, the Sierra Club noted that though the bill had bi-partisan support, it was essentially killed by a coordinated effort on the part of Senate Republicans who added amendments to the measure to weaken it or to ensure that it would fail. Sierra Club Executive Director Carl Pope, accused the Republicans of "feigning" support for the bill but actually deploying "theatrics" in order to kill it.
For example, Republican presidential nominee John McCain insisted that he could only support the measure if it included massive pork for the nuclear industry. But when a compromise version of his demand was added, McCain failed to show up in the Senate to vote on it or to show leadership by urging other Senate Republicans to back it. So much for breaking with the Bush administration's policies.
Notes
* A cap and trade system, basically put, is one that assigns "caps" on carbon emissions by certain industries over a certain time frame (caps that are lower than current emissions by those industries). Permits a divvied up and sold to corporations, individuals or other groups who want to participate in that industry. If one corporations wants to pollute more than is allowed by its permits it can "trade" for more pollution permits from other groups or corporations who may not use theirs. The main criticism of Lieberman-Warner by environmental advocates is that the caps were to slow and too small. Caps in iCAP are larger and imposed more quickly.
--Reach Joel Wendland at [email protected]