-
-
related tags:
tagged w/ concessions
-
MAINSTREAM GREENS CAVE IN ON CLIMATE: Dangerously Allow Industry to Set Agenda
Note: This commentary has been endorsed by renowned climate scientist Dr. James Hansen, who adds the following comment:
“Governments will not put young people and nature above special financial interests without great public pressure. Such pressure is not possible as long as big environmental organizations provide cover. So the best hope is this — individuals must demand that the leaders change course or they will lose support.”
——————————————————————————
“Our friends have become the planet’s worst enemies"- Dr. James Hanson
With climate scientists warning that we are in a global emergency and tipping points leading to runaway catastrophe will be crossed unless carbon pollution is rapidly reduced, one would expect groups identified as environmental defenders to be shifting into high gear. Instead, we are witnessing the unspeakably tragic spectacle of a mainstream environmental movement allowing itself to be seduced and co-opted by the very forces it should be vehemently opposing. At the very moment when moral leadership and courage are needed the most, what we see is a colossal failure of both – with potentially irreversible consequences for our civilization.
If Congress chooses an inadequate response to the crisis, policies can get “locked in” which virtually guarantee that these tipping points are crossed. These organizations are using their significant financial resources to create a public impression that the “environmental community” has given its “stamp of approval” to this policy and to marginalize the voices of the genuine grassroots activists who represent the heart and soul of the climate movement. With nothing less than the future of the planet at stake, these groups must now be publicly challenged and held accountable for their actions.
The stage has been set for this necessary debate by publication of Johann Hari’s excellent commentary entitled “The Wrong Kind of Green” ( link: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100322/hari/single ). In this piece, Hari provides important insight into some of the relevant history. He describes how in the 1980s and 1990s some of the larger environmental groups began to adopt a policy often called “corporate engagement”. The basic idea was that by participating in “partnerships” with corporations – some involving receipt of monetary contributions – there would be opportunity to exert positive influence.
It is not possible to look into the minds of those who promoted this shift. Perhaps there was a sincere hope that corporations would be moved toward more responsible behavior. Whatever the case, the critically important task at this time is not to evaluate possible motives but rather the real life consequences. To do so honestly, all self-interested blinders must be set aside.
The truth is that this policy has created a “slippery slope” leading to severely compromised stances – nowhere more apparent than in regard to the over-arching issue of climate. In 2007, a coalition was formed between corporations and environmental organizations called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, or USCAP – whose purpose was to influence U.S. climate legislation. Some of the large groups that joined were Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Nature Conservancy, and National Wildlife Foundation. In January 2009, USCAP presented its proposals and these became the framework of the Waxman-Markey bill.
The physical context is that previously projected worst case scenarios are already being surpassed and humanity is running out of time. Ice is melting far more rapidly than expected, releasing the “albedo effect” where open water absorbs more heat and accelerates further melting. The normally quite cautious National Science Foundation is ringing alarm bells about the methane – a greenhouse gas over 30 times as powerful as CO2 – now venting from the Siberian seabeds (NSF press release: http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=116532&org=NSF&from=news ) . According to the NSF statement: “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.” These are only two examples of “reinforcing feedbacks” that can significantly move the process closer to tipping points.
Within a context so dire that in reality a war-time level of mobilization is needed, what kind of legislation is being offered? First of all, the emission reduction targets themselves - apart from the theoretical strategies for achieving them – categorically ignore the science. The goals do not even aim at stabilization at 350 ppm (let alone the lower figures more likely to be necessary) and the time frame for enacting meaningful reductions is not even remotely close to the speed needed to prevent disaster.
Beyond the issue of targets is that of reduction strategies. USCAP would like to see a trillion dollar carbon market put into place, where traders can claim “pollution rights” to the sky and seek profits from the exchange of such “rights”. Such a system – which would determine whether life-supporting ecosystems survive or collapse – would be placed into the same manipulative hands on Wall Street that brought on the financial meltdown. As this commentary goes to press, several traders in the European carbon market (the world’s prototype) have been arrested in connection with a massive fraud estimated at $6.75 billion. ( http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62T44K20100330 ) While some of us lay in the street in nonviolent civil disobedience to block this immoral atrocity (including one of the authors, 5 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHJOOiyZR_s ), NRDC and EDF are sending their own people to promote it at carbon trade conferences.
continuedNote: This commentary has been endorsed by renowned climate scientist Dr. James... more-
- JanforGore
- added this
- 2 years ago
- |
- 2 comments
-
-
Paying off the climate bills
The House voted in favor of the most ambitious climate-change bill in history but will the long list of concessions cripple it’s best intentions?
According to the New York Times, Representaitve Henry A. Waxman of California, co-authored the revolutionary climate bill but was forced to coerce the delegation with billions of dollars in promises in order to get the votes he needed to pass the bill through.
Utility companies seemed to make out the best from the hundreds of pages of special favors written into the bill. Big Coal made an especially big haul as they were granted the go-ahead to build new coal-burning power plants without shouldering new costs. They also walked away with billions toward free pollution permits and the development of carbon capture technology to help meet future pollution targets.
While President Obama agrees the bill isn’t an exact science, he does believe it represents an extraordinary step for the nation.
For a close examination of the new climate bill, check out some of the following links:
House passes bill to address threat of climate change (NY Times)
With something for everyone, climate bill passed (NY Times)
Obama: “Cynical claims” attacking energy bill (Associated Press)
Photo by The Official White House PhotostreamThe House voted in favor of the most ambitious climate-change bill in history but will... more-
- Greenpointer
- added this
- 2 years ago
- |
- 4 comments
-
-
Yankees, Cowboys Team Up in Hospitality Business
The New York Yankees and the Dallas Cowboys hope they've created something legendary.-
- ebindelglass
- added this
- 3 years ago
- |
- 0 comments
-
