How Important is a United Front on the Climate Bill?

As fans of clean transportation and sustainable development join the push
for a strong climate change bill to emerge from Congress, it’s worth
remembering that not all environmental groups support the approach
congressional Democrats have chosen.

091103_Rockefeller_ap_297.jpgSenate Commerce Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) (Photo: AP)

Friends of the Earth (FoE) joined Greenpeace in opposing
the House climate bill as too weak and deferential to polluting
industries, and FoE president Erich Pica has just issued a statement on
today’s passage of the Senate version that makes clear his view hasn’t changed:

the bill reported out of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee today is in some ways better than the bill that passed the
House in June … it remains a woefully disproportionate response to
the tremendous economic, security and public health threats posed by
global warming.

The bill’s backbone is a poorly regulated
carbon trading scheme that entrusts the Wall Street bankers who brought
us the current economic crisis with the responsibility to solve global
warming. The bill showers polluting corporations with billions of
dollars, but doesn’t require them to reduce pollution fast enough to
avoid devastating climate change impacts. And it contains massive
carbon offset loopholes that would allow U.S. polluters to keep
polluting by paying for often-non-existent pollution reductions
overseas. Other loopholes, such as excluding pollution from bioenergy,
also undermine the bill’s intent.

Plenty of folks in the green advocacy world are more open to working within the Senate’s framework — the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund, and Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection, to name a few. But the lack of a unified front from environmental advocates, which reared its head
during the House climate debate over the summer, risks amplifying the
lack of a unified front among the very same Democrats who must help
bring the bill over the finish line.

The Senate is a
singularly cautious place that often seems tousled by the slightest
shift in the political winds; witness Senate Commerce Committee
Chairman Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), who hails from coal country and mused yesterday
that he doesn’t "think people in my state are going to stand up and
start cheering about Copenhagen," where global pollution reduction
talks will open next month.

Simply put, the more schisms
begin to show in the Senate climate debate, the more lawmakers such as
Rockefeller may push to de-emphasize the issue.


Senate Poised to Move on Climate Bill

Barbara Boxer (D-CA), chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, isn’t yet ready to start debating a long-term transportation bill — but she is reportedly prepared to move on climate change legislation that includes targets for diminishing auto dependence and encouraging transit use. Boxer’s panel will begin debate on its climate bill during […]

White House Staying Quiet for Now on Transit’s Role in Climate Bill

Delivering his climate-change message to Congress yesterday, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood warned that fuel-efficiency advances secured by the Obama administration would not be enough to reduce emissions from transportation — not without encouraging Americans to drive less. Transportation Secretary LaHood said today he’ll weigh in later on climate-change money for transit. Photo: HillBuzz But when […]

Boxer Delays Senate Climate Bill Until September

This was supposed to be a big week for action on climate change in the Senate — but it’s ending with Republicans rubbing their hands in glee as the Environment and Public Works Committee delays its unveiling of legislation on carbon emissions. Senate environment committee chairman Barbara Boxer (D-CA) (Photo: AP) As Reuters reports this […]

Transportation Allowances in the Climate Bill: A Tale of Two Modes

To understand why the climate change bill is a top priority for urbanists, it’s crucial to understand the emissions allowances that the legislation distributes. The allowances essentially put the "trade" in "cap-and-trade" — whichever industry or state government holds them can benefit from their monetary value or use them to emit pollution under the "cap." […]