More

Sierra Club Forcefully Opposes Key Cap-And-Trade Compromise

First Posted: 06/24/10 11:02 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 05:50 PM ET

Sierra Club Director

One of the leading environmental groups in the country offered its most forceful opposition yet to a leading compromise on climate change legislation, raising questions as to whether there is a broad enough coalition to get even a watered-down bill passed.

Michael Brune, Executive Director of the Sierra Club, said on a conference call on Thursday that a cap on greenhouse gas emissions that only affects the utility sector would fall short of both the president's goals and the definition of effective reform.

"A utility-only bill does not meet the standard that the president set in Copenhagen last year," said Brune. "We feel it will not produce the emissions [standards] the planet needs to begin to address the threat of climate change. Moreover it misses an opportunity to address more clean energy jobs... The Sierra Club does not support a bill that is limited in scope to utilities."

Brune's comments are far more direct than those offered just days ago by the director of the Seirra Club's global warming division, David Hamilton, who said he wanted to wait for additional details before weighing in on the merits of a utilities-only cap. And they suggest that the main compromise being proposed on the key sticking point of climate change legislation faces stern opposition itself.

To this point, 60 votes in the Senate have not materialized in favor of a full cap-and-trade system. The White House floated the utilities-only approach last week as a means of pacifying conservative critics. But much like a watered-down version of the public option for insurance coverage, progressives seem poised to air opposition before any deal is struck. Whether they'll drop that opposition for the good of passing some piece of legislation remains to be seen.

On Thursday, Brune, alongside officials for VoteVets.org and the SEIU, announced that they would be launching a massive $11 million ad campaign targeting Democratic and Republican senators alike on reform. The coalition of groups did not say whether they would engage senators on the issue of cap-and-trade. The first round of ads, instead, would focus on a recent vote to remove authority from the EPA to regulate carbon emissions (a vote that failed).

The groups did not unveil the ad itself. That will come next week, said Brune, when four to five individual senators will be targeted (respectively in positive and negative spots.)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

One of the leading environmental groups in the country offered its most forceful opposition yet to a leading compromise on climate change legislation, raising questions as to whether there is a broad ...
One of the leading environmental groups in the country offered its most forceful opposition yet to a leading compromise on climate change legislation, raising questions as to whether there is a broad ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 207
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
04:29 PM on 06/29/2010
I favor a good ole American carbon cap and dividend plan, too! Why?

Because it's pretty much like the carbon/oil dividend that Sarah Palin doled out to her good citizens of Alaska. I.e., fossil fuel companies produce and emit, AND we get a chunka change for them doing so. I'm all for it!

I even read somewhere that Palin's family was collecting over $40K/year in Alaskan oil dividends and that her hubby Todd, the secessionist (but only during the GW Bush years), had worked for BP for 18 years. But that was years before Sarah said about the Gulf disaster that we shouldn't trust BP and other "foreign" oil companies.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tom Czubernat
Seeking answers in a time of belief
12:25 AM on 06/29/2010
There is no real effort without cap and trade. Time has come when we all have to face the real cost of fossil fuels. In America, we don't pay what it costs to extract, refine and burn the stuff, per purchase. The government subsidizes it with everyone's money. They hide the costs from us.

Not to mention the costs associated with site clean up, health issues arising from people breathing city air, toxic waters, etc.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger!
10:39 AM on 06/28/2010
Next the Sierra club needs to take a mindful watching of 'Gasland' and pull back their support for Natural Gas.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
10:50 PM on 06/25/2010
RMorr2002: "we just went through one of the Coldest Winters in History!"

Uh, no.

You almost couldn't be more wrong.

This winter (Dec-Feb) was the Fifth Warmest Winter on Record:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=2&submitted=Get+Report

Remember: it's Global Warming, not back-yard warming.

In related news:

* This May was the Warmest May on Record.

* This spring (March-May) was the Warmest Spring on Record

* This has been the Warmest Jan-May on Record

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global&year=2010&month=5&submitted=Get+Report
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:42 AM on 06/26/2010
Ka-ching!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Netflyer
Tree Hugger!
10:38 AM on 06/28/2010
Yeah, and the problem with being an armchair 'backyard' warming expert and using it as a representation of global warming: Considering this summer has started out blistering (at least here in the DC area) you would have to say, 'Ut Oh, it's back on now!' ... Some folks have a very hard time understanding that we are talking about average temperatures and not local. Now, those average temps will change local climates, no doubt, but it may not be the 'logical' change people would expect. Average warming may, for instance cause more moisture in the air which might explain why we had a wetter than average cold winter for instance. So another factor may have been due to warming and not the actual temperature. Yes, the average temp has only risen a bit more than 1 degree over the last century, that doesn't seem like much but 3-4 degrees and we are pretty much toast...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
I DO NOT pity the fool
11:07 AM on 06/25/2010
Congratulations to the Sierra Club for their efforts to fight for energy reforms. Please visit their website for ways to help their efforts by signing the petitions to our legislators.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
08:53 AM on 06/25/2010
Did everyone miss the Coal Ash spill in Tennessee ?????????

The Coal Ash has some many toxic chemical in it we should be praying Power Plant switch to Natural Gas and soon !!!!!!!
09:20 PM on 07/06/2010
Thank you for mentioning the coal ash! It fell off the radar too quickly, didn't it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dadw5boys
Disabled Vietnam Vet
08:51 AM on 06/25/2010
With our Economy as weak as it is making any move to improve the Enviorment has to be a good one. Coail burning power plants for electric power is the best in my opinion becuse it would force people to turn towards solar and wind power more.

It will also press electric power producer to use more Natural Gas. I know all the propaganda some of the power plant owners put out and yes it will cost the power plant owners money to switch to natural gas .

Natural Gas is used to produce power, is a lot cleaner and the people who live down wind of the power plants don't have to deal with so much mercury !!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
I DO NOT pity the fool
11:10 AM on 06/25/2010
We are all paying for pollution in the high costs of health care to treat these illnesses. Also the transportation costs and pollution for the delivery of fossil fuels add to their costs.
02:46 PM on 06/25/2010
without toxic environmentally deadly Fracking,

we would have a shortage of natural gas...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
NWBrunette
Blessed Girl
07:54 AM on 06/25/2010
Cap and trade, as it's been proposed, is a joke. Finally an environmental group has seen the light and come out against it. Way past time.
11:37 PM on 06/24/2010
Just like with the Health Care bill, the progressives bloat their effectivness in the Cap and Tax bills floating around the hallowed halls of Congress.
06:51 PM on 06/24/2010
F- the Sierra Club! They have done some good, but they are getting as lo-oney as PITA
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chrisd3
Inconceivable!
07:47 AM on 06/26/2010
"getting as lo-oney as PITA "

You mean PETA (but they certainly can be a PITA at times).
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
06:38 PM on 06/24/2010
Lets be sure to get one important fact _perfectly_clear:_ The Sierra Club is not now and has not been for more than two decades a progressive organization. In fact, it is _mostly_ in the tank for big business - it's a shield for status-quo folks to _look_ like they're green when they are not.

Now, the Sierra Club is made up of quite a few people, and _some_ of them are real tree-huggers, but the vast majority are not. And, it's very disappointing.

In this case, I have the distinct impression that "it's not green enough" is mere cover for preventing any progress.
11:40 PM on 06/24/2010
The " mark is right next to the enter key on the key board.
photo
TheBaffler
a long the riverrun
12:00 AM on 06/25/2010
The bill has clearly been so watered down as to be pointless. When even the milquetoast Sierra Club says it's weak, it must be pretty damn weak.
05:11 PM on 06/24/2010
Considering there is existing effective authority to regulate transportation emissions via mileage standards.

Considering that electrical energy generation is a domestic unexportable(mostly) activity. Considering that developing the technologiers to effectively deliver less reliable green energy to market will force develop technologies adaptable to other sectors. Considering tax treatment could easily subsidize even cleaner cars into the market benefitting consumers pocketbooks. Considering the economic activity generaterd to transfer generation is domestic jobs. The largest potential of quickly creatable green jobs even.


And considering our current economy where american manufactures are forced to compete via free trade WTO mechanisms with uncapped nations.

I personally think the presidents compromise is a good first step. Assuming you constrained who can trade credits into our economy to force the nations into treaties with the president as well as capping their own energy production so the reductions are truly additive.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
06:52 PM on 06/24/2010
Yes, there is global warming. The debate is about what is causing it.
photo
Publicola
Facts are stubborn things
08:53 PM on 06/24/2010
According to some global warming deniers, including janedorothy4, the "debate" includes whether there is global warming. According to other deniers, the "debate" is about what's causing it.

According to the overwhelming majority of climate scientists, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is real; the scientific evidence supporting AGW is overwhelming.

The following are global warming facts:

* The Earth has warmed significantly over recent decades, to what may be the highest level in two thousand years or more.

* Anthropogenic greenhouse gases including CO2 -- which is generated mostly by fossil fuel burning -- warm the Earth. Without greenhouse gases including CO2 the Earth would be covered in ice from pole to pole.

* The atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by more than a third since the dawn of the fossil fuel era, to the highest level in at least 800,000 years.

* The scientific evidence strongly indicates that said increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to anthropogenic CO2, and there is no other viable scientific explanation for said increase.

* There is a strong correlation between said CO2 increase and said recent warming.

* Known natural forcing agents of past global warming - including changes in orbital cycles, increases in solar radiation, and natural increases in atmospheric CO2 - cannot explain said recent warming. Neither has any scientific theory to explain said recent warming other than AGW survived scientific scrutiny.

Again these are all scientific facts. Which again is to say:

The scientific evidence supporting anthropogenic global warming is overwhelming.
09:34 PM on 07/06/2010
And about the best way to deal with it.

Carbon this and carbon that in arrangements put together by Goldman Sachs and resembling the scams we're already suffering from -- such as derivatives -- is insane, imho.

Here's an article that shows the carbon trading is not so much a means to encourage practical pollution controls, but a means for polluters and investors to maintain the upperhand:

http://deltafarmpress.com/legislative/carbon-market-in-disarray-0706/

Carbon market ‘in disarray’
Jul 6, 2010 10:23 AM, By Forrest Laws, Farm Press Editorial Staff


[quote]“The carbon market in the U.S. is pretty much, to a degree, in disarray,” said Miller, a speaker at the University of Missouri-Columbia’s Breimyer Seminar. “About a year and a half ago, carbon prices dropped to about 10 cents per ton in terms of the allowances on the Chicago market. Offsets have been trading, to the extent they are trading, in the 30 cents to about a dollar range.”

Those with multi-year contracts are focusing on fulfilling those contracts, he said in an interview following his speech at the seminar organized by the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute at Missouri.

“Farmers do what farmers do, which is to produce crops,” he said. “But they also honor contracts. So we’re fulfilling our contracts, many of which end at the close of 2010. Beyond 2010, it’s hard to say what’s going to happen in this carbon market.”[unquote]
QuietLightTraveler
Scientist, Teacher, Naturalist, Photographer
02:55 PM on 06/24/2010
Everything from this government is a half-assed measure that will not be very effective. I know nature well. Mother Nature really doesn't care about the ineffectiveness of our Congress. She will do what she will do under any given circumstances and no one can stop that. These brickheads in Congress will go down in history as the government that did too little, too late, just as they did for healthcare and financial sector reform. Brickheads ! Can you imagine that there is a guy in our Congress who claimed that President Obama's request that BP set up a 20 billion fund for damage victims was nothing more than a "shakedown" of BP. And another guy wants to repeal the Civil Rights Act. These crazies are naturally from the GOP. It is no wonder our country is going to hell when they have people like this voting on legislation.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Friction57
full grown and still a microbio
06:48 AM on 06/25/2010
The problem lies in who writes the history books, just look at Texas if you need an example of insanity teaching insanity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
aligatorhardt
I DO NOT pity the fool
11:20 AM on 06/25/2010
Vote out the Republican blockade! No new Republicans until the party leadership starts working for the American people instead of international corporations which pay no income taxes so they have money to bribe Congress. Replace blue dog Democrats with progressive Democrats. This election is the time to stop the Republican blockade against the people.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
msbeal
Let no neo-con lie go unchallenged
02:52 PM on 06/24/2010
Cap and Trade as I understand it creates the structure to tax any and all wholesale, carbon byproduct producers. I don't have a problem with that because it seems reasonable.

However, what I've not heard much about, and is what I believe is most critical, is what are they going to do with that money being raised? I want to see every penney used to train scientists and pay for labs to assist this country transitioning off oil. Any thing else and I would oppose C&T.

Imagine C&T taxes being used to fund oil wars somewhere. Ugh.
12:28 AM on 06/25/2010
Well said. Let's hope they put together a decent bill.
scipio2009
Alan Wolfe's "The Future of Liberalism"
03:16 AM on 06/25/2010
From what I've read, and this is just likely all conjecture, the funds collected from a cap and trade system would be paid back to the American people, in an effort to offset the resultant rise in cost of energy. I don't know how someone would set up such a system, but that's the gossip surrounding the idea.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
msbeal
Let no neo-con lie go unchallenged
09:09 AM on 06/25/2010
I read the money would be dumped into the general fund. If you are right, then that message needs to go up on BILLBOARDS!!!

We need to absolutely know where that money is going. I don't think many would object to a Manhattan like project to produce the next generation of electric motor or even mass transit in our cities.