ACES Is Not a Victory for the Environmental Movement

Later today the United States House of Representatives will vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act. All indications are that it will pass, though both the margin and the state of play on various amendments are still not entirely clear. Many Members of Congress have an extremely difficult choice to make. There are good reasons to vote for this bill and good reasons to vote against it, and I won't begrudge Members who vote either way if they do so for the right reasons. As soon as the vote takes place we will undoubtedly see statements from nearly all major environmental groups patting themselves on the back for this "historic victory". President Obama will either hold a press conference or release a statement touting this as a major legislative victory Americans should be celebrating. Likewise, Al Gore will sing the praises of this legislation and hail it as a major step forward in the fight to stop global warming.

They are all wrong.

Put simply, the bill does not go nearly far enough to spark the transition to a clean energy economy we need to avert catastrophic climate change. It does not meet the science. It does not meet Obama's campaign promises. And it does not match public will. Infuriatingly, President Obama is well on his way to squandering the best political environment we have ever had, without using an ounce of political capital to improve the legislation.

Consider these facts.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reductions

The world's leading scientific body on the issue of Climate Change, the IPCC, says we'll need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 25-40% from 1990 levels by 2020 in order to prevent temperature increases of 2-4 degrees Celsius.

This bill calls for emissions to be reduced 17% from 2005 levels. This represents a 4% reduction below 1990 levels, which is wholly unacceptable.

On top of the already weak near-term emissions cap, the use of offsets threatens to severely compromise the environmental integrity of the cap, which would render it meaningless. Between the weak 2020 target and the extensive offset provisions, the bill may not reduce emissions from 1990 levels whatsoever by 2020.

Talk of this legislation putting the United States on a path to being a leader in the fight against global warming is disingenuous. Case in point: Scotland just committed to 42% reductions by 2020.

The near-term emissions reductions alone are enough to consider this bill a failure for the environmental movement.

Renewable Electricity Standard

During the Presidential campaign Barack Obama campaigned on (PDF) a 25% by 2025 standard, which would require that 25% of all electricity be generated by renewable energy sources 16 years from now. Europe's target for renewable energy is 22% by 2010. The American Clean Energy and Security Act's 2020 target doesn't even come close:

15% Renewable and 5% Efficiency Gains -- Governors can adjust to 12% Renewable and 8% Efficiency Gains.

So basically, states that will likely not need a mandate to ramp up renewables will be given a weak 15% target. Those states that need a strong mandate the most will, with a flick of a pen from the governor, lower their requirement to 12%. Do you trust Mark Sanford and Sarah Palin to make the right decision? Neither do I.

Organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Breakthrough Institute, among others, argue that the bill will not actually ensure any increased renewable electricity deployment in the next decade when compared to business as usual scenarios.

Yes, the bill is in some ways a step forward. But it pales in comparison to what the United States should and could be doing. That much is clear.

So Why Will President Obama Tout This as a Major Victory?

To put it bluntly, he may be able to walk and chew gum at the same time as he claims, but he is apparently not able to expend political capital on health care and energy at the same. He seems to have made the decision very early on in his Presidency to let Congress do all of the heavy lifting on climate change and clean energy. It has become clear lately that the President's #1 priority is no longer what it was during the campaign. At the time he said it was climate; he now says health care. He has put exactly zero effort into strengthening the legislation. Over the past several days and weeks he has repeatedly called on Congress to pass the bill, but has not so much as mentioned that it needs to be improved:

• Yesterday's speech from the Rose Garden
• Organizing for America's legislator contact tool
• June 23rd statement
• Statement on Energy and Commerce Committee passage

And the environmental organizations, why will they celebrate today's vote as a major victory?

Membership-based environmental organizations need victories to sustain their fundraising and the enthusiasm of their members. While some may have worked to strengthen the bill relatively early in the process, others were happy to idly sit by and leave it to Congress to do the best they could. Worse yet, some of these organizations actually lobbied against strengthening the bill, on the grounds that it would make passage less likely. A majority of the environmental organizations, with the notable exceptions of Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace, have effectively relegated themselves to the roles of Democratic cheerleaders, unwilling to put up a real fight for stronger legislation.

I take NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen's view on this and many other legislative fights:

"I am not a politician. I am a scientist and a citizen," said Dr. James Hansen. "Politicians may have to advocate for halfway measures if they choose. But it is our responsibility to make sure our representatives feel the full force of citizens who speak for what is right, not what is politically expedient."

I think this is exactly right, and I can't help but think that if more environmental organizations had adopted this strategy for the past several years we'd have a much more favorable political reality to work with. Many in the advocacy community lament the "political reality" of the situation as an excuse for not insisting on stronger legislation by drawing bright lines in the sand. They do without a hint of irony, apparently oblivious to the fact that their statements and campaigns on legislation play a major role in creating political reality in the first place. It is no wonder this is the best a strong Democratic majority can pass through the House. With a broken special-interest oriented Congress, timid environmental organizations who don't know how to throw their weight around, and a President unwilling to fight for his campaign promises, it couldn't have happened any other way.

Bill Scher at Campaign for America's Future argues that the missing ingredient in this process has been grassroots intensity. While I agree with this, the conclusions of his argument do not make sense to me:

Berating the Big Green groups for being strategic realists is not a useful internal debate to have.

I don't understand how you can blame weak legislation on the lack of grassroots intensity and let advocacy organizations off the hook in the next breath. Bill is exactly right that grassroots pressure is what this fight needed, but he doesn't seem to realize that advocacy organizations and President Obama (under pressure from these organizations) are the only entities capable of generating the grassroots intensity we needed. It is a chicken and egg problem, and Scher seems to want the chicken without the egg.

Moving forward from here, I'm in the same boat as Natasha Chart:

Particularly recalcitrant members of Congress need to be primaried and made to fight for their seats. Problematic regional power bases need to be identified and have their rugs pulled out from under them. Local organizing should focus on finding ways to directly pick up the slack for the federal government's dereliction of duty. Charitable donations to 'green' organizations need to be put under a more critical lens, and should stop going to groups that have stopped getting results and don't even seem to realize it.

In addition to Natasha's takeaways, I'll just add that this should be the last evidence anyone needs that FDR's famous "make me do it" statement applies as well to President Obama as it did to President Roosevelt:

I agree with you, I want to do it, now make me do it.

On issues across the board, from health care to Afghanistan to the climate crisis, activists and advocacy organizations are going to have to make President Obama do it. He simply won't do what is necessary otherwise.

Follow Josh Nelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/josh_nelson

Comments

[research]

Cap and trade is just another Derivatives market.

A simple 1$ per ton carbon tax would work much faster and transparently.

That's why the corporatist conservatives and DLC DINO's are against it. The GOP and the DLC get most of their money from corporatist interests.

Where is the Government purchase of rooftop solar on all appropriate roofs?

[TRUE BLUE AMERICAN]

Headline- The U.S. cripples the economy over global warming, climate change happens anyway. Somehow the clowns in this country think they can control the weather. The planet goes through cycles, you can't change that fact. One question for the global warming nuts- Why are other planets in our solar system also experiencing a meltdown? I suppose we're the reason. Clowns

[rainbowblue]

I agree that the bill was watered down and disappointing. I'm not surprised, but you have your facts wrong. Obama doesn't want to spend ANY political capital on anything. He is letting Congress do health care, he let Congress do the environment, he is letting Congress do LGBT rights. He has punted economic issues to Geithner and Sumner, it's their plans--not his. I truly get the feeling that he is in at least six feet over his head of water--he doesn't take charge because he doesn't know the details of any issue.

As for the evivronmental groups, their problem is that they focus too much on college kids and "liberals". I recently went out and tried to fundraise for a local one. I cringed every time I was supposed to use the phrase "big coal". It made me sound like a hippy-dippy college kid, and didn't allow me to personalize the problem with my potential donator (for the record it was strongly discouraged to go away from the "rap" and simplified talking points).

[TomFox]

Agreed...years ago when I actually "tried on" conservatism, I worked for about two months for THE UNITED STATES CHAMBER OF COMMERCE (capitalizing this should make you go, 'woooh'), hawking, of all things the dangers of FMLA to get people to buy a "membership" and subscription to their quarterly magazine. USCOC didn't like me to stray from the script either. Big Coal, great phrase, has no cred with people who understand business and economics though. I'd want to use the language of business to persuade a potential donor myself.

I liked your post.

[JackNasty]

Those who pollute will no longer profit. Those who broker trades will. The bill accomplishes one thing: the enrichment of those who will trade in carbon credits.

[AnotherTry]

Bingo.

[WhinerX49er]

Many on the left seem to think Obama has some hidden magic power to bend reality to his will. When he isn't able to walk on water they stab him in the back with threats and insults. Like the right wing of the other party, you believe you can purify the Democrats of those who don't hoe 100% to your agenda.

Let me be clear - I believe man made climate change is real, and that we need to address it now. But I also understand the legislative process. The president does not have the power to force members of congress to pass a bill with all the stipulations we or he might wish for. Democrats may have majorities, but many of the recent gains were from rural, conservative districts. Attempts to purify the party of conservative Dems will leave it in the same wilderness republicans are today. The president is above all practical and understands this.

So, rail all you want. The adults amongst us will recognize progress when we see it, celebrate the small victories, and continue to work for progress. We know that real change takes a deliberate, sustained effort. For those who wish to make some grander gesture, I suggest you just pour gasoline on your body and light yourselves ablaze. Because self-emulation is about as effective in shaping the legislative process as is the angry railing against the president and this real PROGRESS you are engaged in now.

[WhinerX49er]

er - should have read "self-immolation" not self-emulation. Proofreading helps.

[TomFox]

I was gonna say that, Whiner, but I didn't want to be a smarty-pan­ts...about 'self-immolation".

This is a great post, and while reading the article, I thought, this is probably a good first step, and possibly more could have been done, but it also makes sense to save the capital to spend later...possibly pass something with even more "teeth" in it.

[abbienormal]

It's a step in the right direction. The good that I see is that carbon markets will require at least carbon intensive companies to disclose their levels of emissions. That in itself is big.

[dsws]

Environmental organizations cannot simply create grass-roots intensity at will. People make their own decisions about what issues to focus on. Environmental organizations can do some good by trying to influence the public, but they're more suited to representing the grass roots than at creating it.

[ymuttley]

Did YOU not want it to pass at all! you can bet if the repubs were in office your climate bill your btching about would never have passed, changes can be added or subtracted in new bills .I swear some people do nothing but complain. Just love all the theories here. Perhaps we should go back & see where environment was 6 months ago when Bush was in office! change doesn't happen overnight

[tangelan]

The bill barely passed. Did you not want it to pass at all? Maybe this is a first step. Maybe we can get more done when the PON (Party of NO) is voted out in 2010.

[super]

Voted out? At this rate, that's NOT going to happen. And even if it does, the Democrats will still be chasing the ever-elusive "bipartisanship" ... perhaps with the Blue Dogs within their own party.

[ymuttley]

Not if we vote them out, & holler for Obama to bypass the repubs, like the repubs did to the dems when Clinton was in and Bush

[Lori Bowles]

Thank you for this article, I don't think the environmental bill went far enough to be considered a serious attempt at tackling real issues facing the global crisis. We can do better! 17% is a joke lets change that number to 57% by 2020 thats a little better and doable. There is no such thing as clean coal lets not pretend there is, we need to invest in solar, wind, and get rid of corn.
This topic is as critical as the war and banking system people just don't seem to understand it.

[GoldenAgeMaster]

Lori,

I agree. This bill should NOT be considered a serious attempt. This bill was/is all about money and power, it has very little to do with cleaning up the environment. I may be on the opposite side of the ideological aisle, but I know BS when I see it.

I'm not sure if you will consider this good news or not, but this bill will NEVER get past the Senate. So as much as people want to gloat tonight about this bill, it will be a short lived celebration.

Gio-

http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/

[Imabachi]

All should know that many of the environmental organizations have been captured, as it were, by the corporates; that is corporate dudes are now, and have been for some time, sitting on the boards of environmental organizations. So now, what can one really expect from the once fiercely independent environmental organizations? Consequently they're all about maintaining the status quo. Meanwhile Global Warming and Petrocollapse are bearing down on us with ever increasing speed.
Stupid, stupid, stu-u-u-u-u-pid. Or, to paraphrase Abraham Lincoln, "they're such thistles, it's wonder God let's 'em live."

[sheila]

Well, I went and spent over an hour speaking to Waxman's aide about this topic back in January. I proved, using REAL numbers (from Germany, Spain, and the DOE) that the BEST solution was a comprehensive, point of use program focused on the BUILT ENVIRONMENT, that left our carbon-absorbing ecosystems (like the Mojave) intact.

I had documentary evidence and presented it clearly and passionately, detailing how property values, jobs, individual finances, water waste and open spaces would all be greatly improved by my plan (efficiency gains rooftop and brownfield PV), and how a destructive, wasteful Big Energy giveaway that encouraged the wholesale destruction of over 50 million more acres of American Wilderness for Big Solar Big Wind and Big Transmission would not only INCREASE global warming (carbon sink losses, enormous construction emissions, huge SF6 emissions from new transmission, etc.) but would cost ratepayers and taxpayers a huge amount of money in both the short and long term (utilities get huge fixed profits on infrastructure whether or not it's needed, plus would overcharge us for the monopolistic power for decades).

We got a polite reception and completely ignored, as he barreled forward with this Big Energy Boondoggle. Sierra Club and NRDC have fought against rooftop solar and efficiency gains harder than the Republicans because they formed financial alliances years ago with Big Solar and Big Wind and they are frantically greenwashing those heavy industrial technologies to push them through. it has been shocking and disappointing, to say the least.

[cactusgal]

Nobody in the Corporate Idiocracy wants to hear the truth.
Favorited & Fanned

[sc300nc]

That's what I've been saying all along. The bill will produce NO measureable improvements in anything. It will reduce our standard of living, How you say?

Less money in our pockets after paying higher electricity costs, higher costs for everything we do, higher taxes (yes their will be higher taxes for all).

Obama could care less. All he wants is a bill passed so he can pontificate on what a great leader he is. Talk about putting lipstick on a pig.

[econ1]

Unfortunately, I fear you are right on all points.

There will be unintended consequences of this bill (assuming it passes the Senate as well), which will not be good for America.

[jmundstuk]

Your last sentence marks you as an ideological opponent and, in my eyes, disqualifies your statements.

[Amanda D]

When will the government start listening to the voices of its citizens? If we don't set the standards for change now, we won't ever stop the damage we're doing to our planet. Even the children of America are speaking up (http://tiny.cc/dutuY).

[timm0]

This whole bill smacks of a total capitulation to the Rs (and campaign financiers). I think the only reason there is ANY legislation on this front is that it was driven by the Dem's desire to offer a marketable "accomplishment" to voters next year.

I can't help but think that if this topic was cast as a critical national security pursuit (armies grind to a complete halt without oil, factories can't build tanks without electricity, etc.) all the important goals could be achieved.