So...there is talk that Lieberman-Warner will be coming up again soon in the Senate, which kinda baffles me.
There are a whole host of reasons why it would be far better to have a climate change bill pass Congress in 2009, rather than during this election year. In my latest Daily Green column, I rattle off a few of them:
The politics of this issue are changing rapidly and dramatically, expanding the sphere of what's possible - and you can bet that by 2009, an even stronger bill will be able to pass. Between now and then, after all, we are probably going to just get worse and worse news from the climate system, and the sense of alarm and the need for action will only increase.
Meanwhile, we currently have a president who is intransigent on climate change; but in 2009, in all likelihood, we will have a president who wants to lead on the subject, and who can bring all of the considerable resources of the federal government to bear in enacting change. Indeed, we'll have a president who can put in place an entire government dedicated to greenhouse action - implementing a cap-and-trade regulatory regime to cut emissions, preparing climate change adaptation measures, investing in new energy technologies - the works.
And there's still another consideration. Dealing with global warming requires a two-pronged approach, encompassing both domestic action and international action. The latter will not occur until late 2009 at the earliest, when the successor to the Kyoto Protocol will be negotiated in Copenhagen. Ideally, the United States should go into those negotiations with the momentum generated by a president's whipping all of the country, including Congress and the federal government, into climate action; securing a political victory' and then taking the precedent set domestically abroad so that the entire world then falls behind the United States - including India and China.
So, let's elect the right president now, and let that president lead on climate change--rather than trying to ram something through with Bush still in Washington.
- Log in to post comments
Agreed. This could even get accomplished if a Republican (McCain) gets elected President. But certainly not Romney or Thompson.
Much as it pains me to admit that delaying legislative action on climate change makes sense, Chris' argument is a good one.
In addition to picking the right president, let's push to get climate change on the agenda, so the candidates make some consequential pledges about concrete actions -- pledges that go beyond 42-year goals.
There is yet another reason to wait till 09. With all the recession fears now, the argument "do nothing that hurts the economy" will have more than the usual appeal this year.
So, let's elect the right president now, and let that president lead on climate change--rather than trying to ram something through with Bush still in Washington.
If it is any consolation, maybe we can get it now, and later get a beefed up version added on?
Dave Briggs :~)
At first I thought it would be better to get something, anything passed right now, to get things moving, and then we could fix it all later. But Lieberman-Warner has features like the big carbon credit giveaways that can't be "fixed" later. Once we give those up to the corporations we can't get them back.
On the other hand, trying and failing to get Lieberman-Warner could be used as a campaign issue, which may be why we are hearing talk about it now.