A coalition of 15 environmental organizations has released a joint statement explaining why they can't get behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act, a.k.a. Waxman-Markey. They complain that it:
sets targets for reducing pollution that are far weaker than science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change. The targets are far less ambitious than what is achievable with already existing technology. They are further undermined by massive loopholes that could allow the most polluting industries to avoid real emission reductions until 2027.
All of which is true. There's a lengthy, detailed and compelling argument in favor of Waxman-Markey at Joe Romm's site, but there's no getting around the fact that the bill represents a disappointment to countless climate change activists. It will take a lot of rhetorical wizardry to bring many of them around. "This is what's politically feasible, so let's hop aboard the bandwagon and worry about the shortcomings later" doesn't do the trick for everyone.
I sympathize. But here's a thought. Back in the 1776, Thomas Jefferson's first draft of the Declaration of Independence of the United States of American included a stirring denunciation of the king's embrace of slavery:
he has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither.....
The paragraph from which that was excerpted was removed from the final document in order to satisfy objections from southern states. It was a political compromise deemed necessary at the time. The signers of the Declaration could swallow the loss of that paragraph on slavery. It wasn't easy for some, but I don't think there are many today who would argue they made the wrong decision. It was a critical moment in history, and waiting for the South to abandon slavery wasn't an option. Besides, even then, the writing was on the wall for slavery. The South was in denial, but everyone knew it was only a matter of time.
Similarly, we all know that sooner or later, the physical reality of climate change will compel even West Virginia and Wyoming to close down their coal mines. The question is, can we wait? Just as it was 233 years ago, the answer is no. Climate change is a global phenomenon that threatens the very habitability of the planet. Waiting until we've passed one or more thresholds beyond which mitigation is no longer an option is not a sane decision.
Yes, Markey-Waxman is flawed. As currently drafted the chances it will accomplish what needs to be done is next to zero. I am particularly troubled by the fact that the formula it uses to get greenhouse gas emissions down to save levels relies heavily on carbon offsets at the expense of genuine emission cuts. But we can change that later, if we don't wait too long.
We'd all love to see a better bill. But these things take time, and rejecting this compromise in hopes we can get something better in time for the December conference in Copenhagen doesn't seem all that realistic to me. And if the U.S. goes to Copenhagen without the president's signature on climate change legislation, it seems unlikely that anything meaningful will emerge, setting back progress another two or three years. Time we don't have.
- Log in to post comments
If we don't have two or three years, how is spending all of our climate-change political capital on a bill that essentially promises that the next Administration will do something an improvement?
Every time Congress sets a target for ten or fifteen years down the road, it's an excuse to do nothing until it becomes "someone else's problem." Then, as the deadline approaches, the goalposts get moved again. It's a formula for placating troublemakers while continuing business as usual.
I have read an argument that the seeds of civil war were present from the beginning. Slavery was just one of the friction points between South and North. What the founding fathers did, according to this argument, was wheel and deal, do politics, and compromise to successfully delay the actual civil war until the nation was strong enough to survive it. Would we have a nation today if the civil war had started in 1800, or 1820, for example? I think not.
Do not let the perfect become the enemy of the good.
This is a classic in debate. Because solution X does not completely solve every aspect of every problem, we cannot implement X. The problem is that without implementing X, imperfect as it is, nothing at all gets done.
The last time health care reform came up we saw similar arguments. Numbers made up, but gist is right. A solution that covered 75% of uninsured children might be rejected because it did not cover 100% of uninsured children. People would be, justifiably, concerned about the 25% without insurance. The problem is that by doing nothing and throwing the problem back to committee to die, 75% of children go without healthcare.
This isn't to say that people should just give in and compromise on their ideals. Looking back, Jefferson was a hypocrite and a coward for not supporting freedom for all. But given the political reality of the time, the solution wasn't as bad as it could have been. Imagine if the country had split into a free north and slave south in 1780. The slaves in the south wouldn't have been better off and slavery probably would have existed in the south into the 20th century.
Unless you are a benevolent dictator(I'd take the job if offered) compromise is going to have to happen. It doesn't mean you stop fighting though.
thanks
My take is that the bill makes it possible for Obama to do what's needed, but does not mandate it. Note among other things that a lot of implementing regulations will have to be written under the law, that to the extent that the Clean Air Act exemptions are a problem the Clean Water Act regulatory process (relating to ocean acidification) will provide the needed flexibility, and that the new grid can be configured to favor solar and wind over coal.
Also, what we're looking at isn't at all the final bill. Certainly the Senate will make it worse, but after that it goes to conference, and there is no rule saying that legislation can't be strengthened at that stage. If by then (probably just before Copenhagen) there's a deal with the Chinese, the bill can be changed to reflect those commitments.
It's pretty obvious that it isn't going to work (at all). Think about it. It was this difficult to get this much (next to nothing) and it took this long.
This will create the view that we've done enough, at least for now, when the data shows that we do not have any more time left to delay serious reductions. But the political will power will have been spent and so will public interest. We've seen this before, many, many times.
Then, when we get hit with REALLY scary data and effects and it FINALLY wakes a few more people up to our predicament, it'll already be too late, even if we somehow got more political interest at that time.
This isn't something we can do AFTER, as many claim, after is too friggin late. This was something we had to do before, which is definitely not something our political plantation owners were inclined to do (ever).
Basically, the Waxman bill has killed us all, pure and simple. Those that endorsed it and those that settled for it fired the bullet from the gun and it's traveling right towards it's target unimpeded.
If you don't think Waxman-Markey is enough, you're right. If you expect that scrapping it and starting again will produce anything better, you're wrong. Not passing it is equivalent to doing nothing. Passing it merely MAY be equivalent to doing nothing.
Lesser of two evils. Pass it and push it. Build on it. Lobby hard to strengthen it. Oppose further changes that weaken it. Do your damned democratic duty instead of just complaining that the world isn't always going your way.