Climate change activists dismayed by some of bill's provisions
-
-
- JanforGore
- added this
But instead, many green groups seem to be supporting the bill -- now stuffed with benefits for emitters such as utilities, manufacturers and farmers -- while holding their nose.
"We're not saying, 'Kill the bill,' " said Frank O'Donnell, of the group Clean Air Watch. "But we're saying it sure as heck ought to get better in the Senate, or it's going to be a sorry day."
Already today, at least two liberal House Democrats have criticized the bill for going too easy on polluters, raising the threat that party leaders might have to whip in votes from the left as well as the right.
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Tex.) issued a statement saying he couldn't support the bill as written: "This energy bill's fine print betrays its laudable purpose. . . . It is too weak to greatly spur new technologies and green jobs."
And Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio) said on the House floor that the bill remained too favorable to the coal industry, by providing legal room for new coal-burning plants to continue to be built. An aide said that Kucinich has not formally said how he will vote on the bill, which is expected to be voted on this afternoon.
Some environmental groups -- notably, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth -- have said they oppose the bill, calling it fatally weak.
Many other national groups have not given up their support for the bill's passage but still say it is too friendly to polluters.
Among their objections: The bill allows for widespread use of carbon "offsets," which are credits for either preventing emissions or using plants to take them out of the air. The bill would allow many offsets to be issued for credits overseas, and allow the U.S. Agriculture Department to supervise them on U.S. farms.
"Is a ton of [offsets from] a forest in Uzbekistan really going to be equal to [an offset from] a ton of emissions reductions from a dirty power plant here?" said Dave Hamilton of the Sierra Club.
But Hamilton summed up his organization's attitude this way: They are ambivalent about the bill as currently written, but unambiguous about the need to pass it in the House.
That way, Hamilton said, environmental groups could push the Senate to alter it to their liking.
"Do, at some point, we try to bank what the politics allows?" Hamilton said. "Our judgment in this case is that we're going to keep trying with the bill" in the Senate.
The need to find 60 votes in the Senate, though, might make it difficult to make the bill much stricter on polluters.
-
- groups:
- Community, Politics, Green, Earth and Science
-
- tags:
- News, Politics, Green, Earth and Science, 5 more
-
-
JanforGore
-
"And can i say that the fact that the democrats cant pull their shit together and have 60 votes ready and waiting is fucking pathetic? they could take a page from the republican handbook on that one."
As much as I may be absolutely opposed to some facets of this bill, I have to agree with you on that. They can then use the excuse that they once again "couldn't get the sixty votes" to pass it" if it fails in the Senate. And as far as Obama is concerned, he makes it look as if he knows what is going on with this but from what I had read he actually wanted 14% reductions by 2020, not even 17. He isn't a climate scientist either, so we really don't know what he knows. But it is all about political tactics, backbiting, and revenge. How many who voted for this last week only did it to piss off Republicans without even reading it, or vice versa?
And Republicans most assuredly do that as well. This is why I think it will be impossible to get the bill we need out of this Congress, and why I think states should start putting together their own bills to reduce emissions by 25-40% by 2020. But now I don't even know if this bill will supercede state emissions plans even though Obama originally stated he would let states decide on that. I would hope not.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
Sumbodyswatchin
-
This bill is clearly one written to be a "foot-in-the-door" kinda deal. While i'm glad that these issues are at long, long last beginning to be addressed if you are someone who pays attention to current and factual scientific studies, you will know that this is nowhere near where we should or need to be.
I'm on the fence about Obama here. I'll assume he has access to accurate information and is able to grasp what is going on here. Now bearing that in mind i'll make another assumption and say that he realizes that this bill, at least in my opinion, does not have what it takes to make any sizeable difference.
I find it very similar to the half-hearted standards set for the automotive industry. 35mpg average by 2016? Give me a break! My Accord does that TODAY! These guys could have 50mpg tomorrow if they wanted! It is my belief that the aquistion of money at any cost is a large factor in building shitty cars. And with the industry literally begging for money so their corrupt businesses didn't collapse he could have set standards and deadlines that really could have made a difference. But he didnt.
Honestly i think we should have let all these businesses fail. Every single one. In part to show that cowboy capitalism doesnt work, in part to give the ceos exactly what they earned- nothing. the reason why we bailed out all these institutions is because Mr. Obama felt it was more important to prevent thousands upon thousands of people from losing their jobs either directly or indirectly. This in all likelyhood would have lead to a second great depression. HOWEVER, this would have been a perfect opportunity to say exactly what brought us here, who is responsible and start with a clean slate. But Mr Obama doesnt want to look at the past, just look to the future. Which is bullshit. If you dont learn from the past you are doomed to repeat its mistakes. Anyone with a fucking brain in their head knows this essential truism.
Make no mistake THE BAILOUT WAS A POLITICAL MOVE and nothing else. this was so that republicans wont have a "the depression is your fault" stick to beat over his head in the next election. Dont deny it, you know they would,(and probably will anyway) even though it wasn't his fault by any stretch of the imagination and he would be laying down groundwork for a fantastic future. But the American people are too dumbed down to follow that. Unfortunately you cant explain long term cause and effect to scared sheep nor to chest-beating apes.
Right now i feel it is vital to American society have an aggressively progreesive president to pull us back from the precipice the neo-cons have dragged us oh so dangerously close to. An Anti-Reagan if you will. And as of yet Mr Obama has failed us.
And can i say that the fact that the democrats cant pull their shit together and have 60 votes ready and waiting is fucking pathetic? they could take a page from the republican handbook on that one.
But i might just be nuts.
- 2 years ago
-
Sumbodyswatchin
-
-
RFWtv
-
350.org
- 2 years ago
-
RFWtv
-
-
JanforGore
-
Absolutely. Take that 60 billion and give it in direct subsidies for solar and wind and start that today. This is not the bill I envisioned and I am actually tired of getting e-mails from groups telling me to call my rep or Senator to tell them to pass this without telling us ALL of it. I like many have waited a long time to see this government do something constructive about tackling climate change and to see this happen to a bill that had such potential is actually heartbreaking, though called historic. Especially for those of us actually following the scientists regarding what is happening globally and the trends we are setting.
And even should this bill pass as is just so they can have a piece of paper to bring to Copenhagen, nothing will happen between now and December. And then after Copenhagen how long before they have an actual treaty signed by all nations? We may not see anything even beginning for a couple more years especially with this so called "cap and trade" mechanism needing to be put in place. And even then, I can envision abuse of it and corporations doing all they can to find loopholes. They think planting a few trees in Indonesia (that we wont know for sure was even done) will absolve them for continuing to spew out the same emissions while covering it up. We needed quick definitive action now that penalized polluters and rewarded consumers.
Very disappointing to think this is the best they can do after having years to do something to avoid us getting to this point.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
SeaJade
-
The only two pieces of information I caught in a busy week about this side of the bill were the post from Leahl ( http://current.com/items/90269406_why-you-should-be-mortified-about-the-waxman-m... ), and another from Working Assets/Credo whose statement I have included here below. I had many emails from "environmental" groups that were asking their mailing list to ensure this bill got through by contacting their representatives without questioning the down side...
From Credo: "Unfortunately, since Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey introduced their landmark global warming bill The American Clean Energy and Security Act (or HR 2454), it has only been weakened — often dramatically so — and none of the calls to strengthen the bill has been heeded. We cannot support this legislation.
For example, the legislation now:
Slashes requirements for renewable energy;
Reduces the targets for CO2 emissions;
Subsidizes the coal industry to the tune of $60 billion!
Eliminates EPA's power to further regulate CO2 emissions from any industry covered by the bill; and
Removes EPA from oversight of carbon offsets that relate to farming.
The way Congress works, a weak bill becomes the basis for negotiations within the Senate, which is even less concerned about global warming than the House. If this is the best we can do in the House, it will only get worse in the Senate.
The sad truth is that the coal, gas, oil, auto, and farming interests are much more powerful than environmentalists. Corporate polluters have managed to take decent legislation and turn it upside down so that it will help them more than the planet.It serves nobody to pretend that this is not true. If you are like me, you have received dozens of requests from environmental groups in recent weeks asking you to help strengthen and then pass this legislation. Ask any of them if the strengthen part has happened on any of our demands. It has not.
Fortunately, if Congress cannot enact comprehensive legislation this year, great progress can and should be made using EPA's powers along with narrower bills on such matters as a nationwide renewable standard." end of quote....
Subsidizing the coal industry for $60 billion??? So they can be sure to take out all of our mountains in Appalachia for example? Why not take the $60b for truly clean energy resources for example and provide better jobs for people this way without destroying the planet in the process... (rhetorical question)
Not too late to take action and bring more awareness to the public... what does it take to understand we are poisoning ourselves terribly and it doesn't have to be this way.... (another rhetorical question).
- 2 years ago
-
SeaJade
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
Message from Friends of The Earth.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
JanforGore
-
-
Maybe this will help make the point better.
- 2 years ago
-
JanforGore
