A Clean Energy Moment: Where Hope and History Rhyme

"'There's a point in time where hope and history rhyme.' I think we have now reached that [point] on the issue of energy and global warming."
-- Congressman Ed Markey, quoting the poet Seamus Heaney, upon passage of the Waxman-Markey bill 11 days ago.

If you're like many of our members, you're probably wondering if Congressman Ed Markey is right.

Does the American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Reps. Henry Waxman and Ed Markey, deliver the transformative change that President Obama promised during the election? Will it launch a revolution in the way we produce and consume energy and initiate change quickly enough to spare our children from a climate catastrophe? Or is the bill so seriously compromised, as a few of our close friends in the environmental movement have suggested, that we who care about clean energy and the fate of the planet should have opposed it?

I wish the answer were quick and simple, but it isn't.

There are three main reasons why Environment America decided to support the legislation, even though it's far from perfect.

Reason #1: It's a sharp break from the past.

For the last eight years, our country's federal policy toward global warming could be summed up in three words: denial, delay and distraction.

President Bush reversed his campaign promise to regulate carbon dioxide, belittled the "bureaucracy" that warned of global warming's consequences, censored federal scientists who spoke about the issue, effectively ignored a Supreme Court ruling requiring the government to regulate carbon emissions, opposed renewable energy requirements and refused to let states reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks.

The Waxman-Markey bill is an honest attempt to reverse course. It commits our country to energy efficiency, clean and renewable power, and a cap on the carbon pollution that's driving global warming.

Unfortunately, there are problems. The bill's clean energy mandates don't get us much further than business as usual. The bill undermines President Obama's authority to enforce the Clean Air Act. It hands billions of dollars to some of the industries that create and use the dirtiest energy. And it may allow the most polluting industries to exploit loopholes in the cap on global warming emissions.

How and why were these provisions included in the bill?

Simply put, powerful special interests pushed for them and the bill's sponsors had to acquiesce in order to win passage on the House floor. Indeed, even with these concessions, and a full-court press for votes waged by President Obama, members of his administration, Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her leadership team, the bill passed by only seven votes.

Believe me, seeing the bill compromised in this way has turned my stomach. Yet I can't get past this reality: As ugly as the process has been, passage of this bill would mean we'd see billions of dollars invested in energy efficiency and renewable power, we'd see new green buildings sprouting up across America, and we'd see a path opened toward significant, mandatory reductions in carbon pollution.

Reason #2: Time is not on our side.

Nature often has the power to heal itself. We've seen wildlife return once we curb the polluting of our lakes, rivers and bays. We've seen skies clear once we cut emissions from power plants and cars. If the worst impacts of global warming occur, science tells us that the planet will inevitably recover and survive -- but many species, including our own, may not.

We have precious little time -- a few decades, perhaps only a few years -- before we reach an irreversible turning point on global warming. If we do too little or act too slowly to reduce our dependence on carbon-based fuels, future generations will face rising seas, drought, floods, hurricanes and spreading disease.

We know staving off the worst impacts of global warming requires acting swiftly and boldly. This bill heads in the right direction but doesn't go nearly far enough. Thus the question is whether establishing a framework for capping global warming emissions, albeit a compromised one, is better than waiting and hoping that the next Congress (or the next one or the next one after that) will have the political will to do what scientists say is truly needed.

In December, President Obama will travel to Copenhagen to negotiate a climate treaty with other world leaders. We don't want him to arrive empty-handed. We believe that, given the closing window of opportunity to solve global warming, given the uncertain future on Capitol Hill, and given the pressing need to reach an international agreement, passing legislation now offers our best hope for saving our planet and future generations.

Reason #3: It sets us on the path to a greener future.

Imagine a future where every home, every workplace, every school is powered by the sun or the wind or other clean energy source that will never run out. Imagine a future where millions of Americans are employed in this project, erecting wind turbines, installing solar panels, weatherizing homes, and building new mass transit and high-speed rail. Best of all, imagine a future where we no longer need to pump pollution into our atmosphere, blast away the tops of mountains to extract coal, clean up spills on our beaches, or risk the very lives of future generations.

This clean energy revolution has already begun, but it needs to happen faster, and on a bigger scale, than anything we've seen so far. The Waxman-Markey bill is a step in the right direction.

The bill's energy efficiency and green building standards will reduce our dependence on coal and create new green jobs that can't be shipped overseas. The bill's renewable energy standard and federal clean energy purchasing requirements provide a push for the wind, solar, geothermal and biomass industries. Most importantly, the bill's global warming emissions cap, if done right, will set a price on carbon that will unleash the transformation of our energy systems.

In summary...

These are the reasons why we decided to support, and to work extremely hard for, passage of the Waxman-Markey bill -- even as we endeavored to strengthen it at every opportunity.

Since the bill passed, I have talked with some of the strongest clean energy champions in Congress, including Congressman Markey and Speaker Pelosi. We all agree that we wish the bill were stronger and we need to do much more to drive clean energy and stop global warming. But given where we are -- the powerful interests arrayed against us, the only lukewarm support for change on this issue in a few politically important parts of the country, and the economic slump facing the nation -- this is the best the House can do at this time.

During the July 4 recess, our adversaries aired a series of television ads harshly criticizing members of Congress -- especially those who risk losing their seats in the next election -- for supporting the Waxman-Markey bill. Our organizers were hard at work drumming up grassroots support for members of Congress who voted the right way and holding members who voted the wrong way accountable. But it is clear from the reaction to this bill that the opposition is more energized than ever and will continue their assault on this legislation and those who support it.

Looking ahead, our first priority is to push the Senate to improve the bill and avoid any further backsliding. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid hopes to hold a vote on the bill this fall in time for President Obama to sign it before he travels to Copenhagen in December.

We know that the most critical thing we can do is the thing we do best -- building the breadth and depth of public support we need in states across the country to overcome the global warming deniers and the powerful polluting industries aligned against us. Join us.

Margie Alt is the executive director of Environment America. Environment America's federation of state-based, citizen-funded, environmental organizations advocate for clean air, clean water, and open space in 28 states and our nation's capital. www.environmentamerica.org

Comments

[TimTL]

Bravo!
We have an opportunity to dramatically change the tone of global warming and action in the United States and internationally, and we can't let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

I can't wait to see all the hidden pollution-saving technologies and strategies that will come out of the woodwork once we get a real market price on carbon and other global warming pollution.

Here's to making sure the Senate follows suit, with a stronger hand!

[tjrbd]

It's been more than a little embarrassing that the U.S. has not made a statement before this on global warming. The international community has been making strong statements for years that though a respective country may not produce a large amount of green house gasses, they would cut down. I'm glad the House of Representatives has made this jump, and hope the Senate does as well.

Obama will be visiting Copenhagen with this weakened bill, while Copenhagen has pledged to have zero net impact. Despite the weakness, I agree with Margie that this is a good first step in the process of greening our country and economy.

[jnicrose]

I would first like to address RichZ's comment that more precipitation would provide more fresh water. The water cycle is a closed loop where water can not be simply me removed or added, you can only transfer water from one place to another. So while some places might indeed see more precipitation it is not new fresh water, and probably means that it is not raining somewhere where it normally does.

Secondly, I would like to say that I agree wholeheartedly with Margie. While many people in the environmental community are disappointed in the caliber of the bill I feel that it is a step in the right direction. Even though it may not be as big a step as some might have hoped, it is still a start. I hope that as the bill moves through the senate it can be strengthened and lead to a bill that can truly help stop the worst effects of global warming.

[Taylor Dankmyer]

While I do wish the bill was stronger, this is still landmark legislation. As Margie said, the last eight years completely neglected facts about global warming, and made no effort to move our nation towards using clean energy.

This bill is a huge step in the right direction. I remember only a few months ago reading that an energy biill including cap and trade would never pass in the house. Well, it did. Now, it just needs to pass in the Senate.

The only problem is, congress is dealing with two monumental bills: energy AND health care. The ACES act has already been pushed aside a little bit, but this may end up being better. I'd rather have the full attention of the energy and committee committee once they get a health care bill written. Sure, it sucks to wait, but if we can get the full divided attention of the committee later on, it may help any chance progressives have at strengthening it.

[sgf3]

I think Margi is right in that we needed something, and we got a start. It would have been an awful setback for the environmental community and many, many other individuals (businesses, religious groups, government officials, and beyond) who have worked hard on this bill if in the end absolutely no bill was passed. The first cap on global warming emissions to pass through either the House or Senate is a big deal. That the majority of Representatives believe we need to do something to curb global warming emissions and create clean energy jobs for Americans - the majority particularly considering that some Progressive members appear to have voted for the bill not because they did not want to act but because they wanted a stronger action - is a great sign that we can start making progress.

Margi is right that we can't show up to Copenhagen empty handed. Hopefully the passage of the Waxman-Markey bill will build political capital for the Obama Administration to go ahead with their strong global warming agenda.

[debzieg]

Excellent points Margie,
I especially agree with you on the comment that Obama needs something to bring to the table when he goes to Copenhagen. I think that America has an opportunity to be a real leader there if he can. If he can combine his charisma with an example of a great start to fight the issue of global warming, then maybe the other nations will take it seriously (as should our own).
Action needs to be taken. There is nothing wrong with compromise across the aisle as long as we can get something productive done and the bill is not weakened even further in the senate.

[RichZ]

rising seas, drought, floods, hurricanes and spreading disease.
(lions tigers and bears!)


(rising seas)
In 2007, IPCC notes “Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8 [1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003
(IPCC) concluded that “No significant acceleration in the rate of sea level rise during the 20th century has been detected

(drought floods)
The net effect would be slightly more precipitation, providing more fresh water.
= very beneficial to all life. less precip would be disasterous.

(hurricanes)
global warming, if it ever shows up, would warm the poles disproportionately, thus creating a more even temperature, creating less temp contrast that powers violent weather systems.

(disease)
Almost all life on Earth prefers wet warmth to dry cold, if you single out 'disease' to say the net effect is negative, then by the same rationale, cooling/drying the Earth until all life starts dying off INCLUDING diseases would be positive?