Lieberman-Warner bill: Why We Need It, Why It's Doomed
On Monday, the Senate will debate the Lieberman-Warner bill, surprisingly bold legislation from the two senators which, if passed, would be 'one giant leap for mankind' towards stopping our addiction to carbon-based fuel supplies and placing a price on carbon.
The bill, which would cap greenhouse gas emissions by 70% by 2050 (still not nearly enough if you ask me, but certainly on the way), would also create much needed revenue for the government through selling licenses that allow companies to emit controlled amounts of certain pollutants.
The idea seems sound. Certainly the right intention is there -- stop major companies, especially oil, from emitting gasses that are major contributors to global warming and air-pollution. And whilst the precise way in which the licenses would be distributed is, as yet, unresolved, I have no doubt that with the new Democratic administration next year, there would be little resistance to allocating the privilege to environmentally-responsible companies, and then reinvesting the federal profits into expansion of non-carbon-based fuels, like wind, solar and wave energy.
And so, imagine my surprise when Friday, US-CAP (the organization consisting of many major corporations which calls upon Federal government to push through legislation aimed at stopping climate change) which, you would presume, would automatically support this bill, instead, issued a letter saying they "have not taken a position on any specific bill".
Huh?
This open letter, sent to every senator, contains within it the obvious result of intense lobbying, and just makes no sense to me. Instead of firmly placing itself behind legislation that would provide exactly the outcome that US-CAP is supposedly hoping for, it has shied away from it's own conviction and instead fallen prey to the greedy minds of their member CEOs.
I am, however comforted with news that some of the aforementioned CEOs have strongly objected to US-CAP's nonchalance with the bill, and have written collectively to all the senators, personally conveying their personal support.
But this glimmer of support within the otherwise strictly-opposed business community has, unfortunately, fallen upon deaf ears. US-CAP's entire purpose was to present a clear and united voice from leaders in business, which could act as an indicator of the business community's general opinion. But it has failed to live up to any expectation anyone had for it, and has instead made itself and impotent and useless waste of time.
What I find so frustrating is the business world's, and especially US businesses', inability to see the long-term implications of today's actions on tomorrow's world. The attitudes of CEOs who have built-up massive corporations over many many years, and therefore must posses immense skills of judgment, planning and forethought, seem at odds with this short-sightedness.
Without a change in this attitude, we can never expect any real change at all.
Follow Stefan Roberts on Twitter: www.twitter.com/StefanRoberts
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Michale
The term antropogenic climate change refers to man-made climate change. There is a scientific consensus that mankind is having a significant effect on the climate. Whatever you think of Al Gore, he didn't make this up.
Do you believe the major scientific institutes I cite in my post are all politically driven? If so what is their political motivation?
Michale,
The term anthropogenic climate change refers to man-made climate change. As I noted in my post, there is scientific consensus that mankind is having a substantial effect on the climate over and above any cyclic change that may be occuring. Whatever you think of Al Gore, he didn't make this up.
I refer you the American Academy for the Advancement of Science website at www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686.
Do you believe that all the major scientic institutes I list in my post are politically driven? If so what do you think their motivation is?
one trillion dollars would replace all electrical generation to wind and solar, even assuming all vehicles converted to electric,
Cheaper then war crimes for oil.
Sustainable forever.
And all the billions and billions of dollars given to politically driven scientists to "study" (note, not to DO anything about it, but just to STUDY) global warming would be better spent on a HYBRID TRADE IN PROGRAM.
Michale.....
Michale,
You state:
"The simple fact is, there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the idea that a human presence is affecting the earth's climate beyond minor local effects."
Anytime someone makes a statement that categorical, the rest of their argument should be approached cautiously. Interestingly, you take exception to the position that it is beyond debate that anthropogenic global warming is a reality, and then you take a corresponding stand on the other side of the debate.
The reality is that there is a scientific consensus that anthropogenic global warming is occurring. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the National Academy of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Meteorological Society, and the American Geophysical Union have all endorsed anthropogenic global warming. I realize there are scientists that dissent from the consensus view; there always will be. Recall the tobacco hearings when the tobacco industry representatives stated that "our scientists" tell us there is no cause and effect relationship between smoking and lung cancer. However, also note that an analysis of 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, failed to turn up a single abstract that challenged anthropogenic global warming.
Don't know why this response never makes it. But I'll try again.
No one is claiming that there is not Climate Change, least of all me.
What is up for debate is what is CAUSING Climate Change.
There really isn't any firm evidence to support that humankind is causing Climate Change. There is overwhelmingly firm evidence to support that Climate Change is cyclic and has gone on long before humankind entered the picture.
In short, the debate (if the HCCC fanatics would ALLOW debate) is on what CAUSES Climate Change.
It's a debate that Al Gore is afraid to have and it's a debate that kept Al Gore from being a candidate for President. I guess that would be a silver lining of this whole mess..
Michale......
Michale.....
so you think that humans clear cutting large amounts of forests, pumping millions of tons of toxins into air and water, and burning up fossil fuels at a rate that is exponentially higher than the time it took them to form has no effect on the planet??
Any Bill that starts with Lieberman-(Add name here) will get dropped like hot coal from the fires of hell in Washington. He has no friends or much respect to pull it off with the Clinton's and the Bush's finally on the way out. You will see this same piece of legislation come up with new names attached and it will be a blue ribbon for the Democrats, not Traitor Joe.
NO ONE IS TEELING THE TRUTH ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF COAL THEY ARE BURING TO MAKE ETHONAL. IT TAKES TONS AND TONS, THE HIGH SULPHUR COAL DROPS SMALL PARTICLES OF MERCURY INTO OUR LAKES, STREAMS AND GROUNDS.
IS IT WORTH THE DAMAGE AND THE HIGH FOOD COST???????
most respectable scientists have already said that ethanol is not a viable alternative.... the only people still pushing ethanol are in the white house.
Mr. Roberts,
You say, "The attitudes of CEOs who have built-up massive corporations over many many years, and therefore must posses immense skills of judgment, planning and forethought, seem at odds with this short-sightedness."
The type of decisions required to "have built-up massive corporations" do not require the same type of "judgment" required to make wise decisions about the futre well-being of people. Thinking the two are somehow related is the "short-sightedness" exhibited in this article.
See Stefan Roberts's Profile
I don't think thats true. In order to build a successful company you have to have the ability to think ahead. Now, I know a lots of CEOs don't ACT the way they should towards the environment, or anyone else, but that doesn't mean they don't KNOW they should.
On the contrary, I think (and from experience, can state) that in order to have a longlasting company, making decisions that affect you for five years, ten years, sometimes more, are imperitive.
So, what I meant was that CEOs who have been able to do that (regardless of whether they support this particular bill's methods or not) MUST be able to see how, in the longterm, climate change will be detrimental to their interests. And yet they still fail to do anything about it. THAT is the short-sightedness to which I refer.
@jvarga
I did post a bunch of links, but apparently it did not make the cut..
Just GOOGLE "Global Cooling" "10 years" and you will see all the scientific evidence you could possibly hope for..
Michale.....
Any bill passed before we Bush is gone from office is futile, anyway. And in the future smarter presidents will make sure we get much stricter restrictions on carbon emissions, anyway. 70%? Make the -110%, i.e. stop all emissions and start sequestering carbon from the atmosphere. And even that might not be enough.
Is handing a fortune in carbon licenses trading fees over to the neo-con friends of Joe Lieberman going to solve any problems?
I don't think so.
Watch your wallets!
Regarding the L-W Bill.
Not a major leap for mankind.
Rather a major leap for the capitalist free-marketeers who got us here in the first place.
This is not an energy policy.
This is a knee-jerk reaction to a real problem.
This is our government at its worst, failing to step up to what needs to be done.
Not with the Cap- we need that.
With the "trade".
George Will's column today lays out a healthy rationale for why we should not proceed with creating a whole new capital market in something called "allowances" to pollute.
I can't believe I agree with George Will, but I must do so.
The Congressional Budget Office analyzed all options for meeting the Carbon Caps.
They found the carbon tax to be the superior, most efficient vehicle to get us to our carbon-reduction goals quicker and cheaper than any of those foolish trading schemes.
You like Oil futures?
The carbon traders are out there NOW, buying up your future.
If you liked Enron, you'll love Cap-and-trade.
The L-W Bill, and the Boxer and Sanders Bills should ALL be withdrawn, and Congress should first hold serious hearings to determine the best method for achieving what we want as cheaply as possible.
Let's NOT screw up another public policy in favor of a costly free-market solution when it is not needed.
It stopped warming 10 years ago. NASA restated their numbers and the 1930's were the warmest years, with 1934 being the warmest, not 1998. The earth is now cooling. The oceans have cooled.
This bill is typical federal government, meant to enrich a few special interests and great cost to the people, while doing nothing.
Careful.. You are gonna confuse the Goreites with facts...
The Goreites like their "facts" to be of the fanciful variety..
IE:
The snows of Killamanjaroo are melting because of Human Caused Global Warming.
The polar bears are eating their own because of Human Caused Global Warming.
Greenland's glaciers are receeding because of Human Caused Global Warming.
The robins are returning to northern Canada because of Human Caused Global Warming.
and so on and so on ad nasuem.
The simple fact is, there is NO SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to support the idea that a human presence is affecting the earth's climate beyond minor local effects.
Think of it as a man in a dingy, in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. He drops his drawers and takes a piss off the side of the boat. Yea, it might not be the most healthy thing for the fish in the immediate area of his...er... dingy... But to put forth the idea that this guy taking a piss in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean is going to raise the temp of the ENTIRE OCEAN is ludicrous to the point of absurdity..
So it is with the Gore'acle and his preachings...
Michale.....
And last year you poo pooed the human induced climate change theorists for suggesting the then current temp trends were evidence of the validity of their theory.
The oceans cooled because we melted so much damned ice with the greenhouse warming. I simply can't believe people don't get this simple explanation. Put a lot of ice into a glass of warm water and what happens? Get a clue.
You think this cooler ocean water is gonna last? Only if we are in a long term cooling trend, which we may be in on a geologic time scale.
"The oceans cooled because we melted so much damned ice with the greenhouse warming. I simply can't believe people don't get this simple explanation."
The probably don't "get" it because you provide ZERO in the way of accompanying facts..
Please support your contention. I am especially interested in the exact amount that constitutes "so damn much"...
Perhaps you are referring to the movie DAY AFTER TOMORROW.. In that movie, there was "so damn much" ice melted...
Michale.....
Here. Have a cookie. There is no more discussion about global warming. That ship has left these shores.
"There is no debate, no discussion, no attempt to lay out for the nation the pros and cons of this particular war. There is nothing."
-Robert Byrd US Senate
Strange how ya'all castigate "NO DEBATE" in the run up to the Iraq War, yet INSIST on "NO DEBATE" when it comes to HCCC...
Hypocrites...
Michale.....
The Democrats don't want to do anything until after the elections, and they see Lieberman/Warner as an attempt to take the climate change issue away from them. It doesn't go nearly far enough, and they believe that passing it will make passing subsequent enhancements more difficult.
Reducing to 70% of recent carbon emissions by 2050 is a joke. Market forces will make it virtually impossible for Americans to afford to consume enough embodied carbon to create that level of emissions long before 2050. Like the CAFE standards, the economic reality of the cheap energy hangover will render these standards irrelevant.
I'm a progressive environmentalist, an energy modeler for a sustainable development consultancy. But our government is so tragically behind the curve on sustainable energy policy that they might as well just give up and let market forces do what they will to our sorry excuse for an economy.
The time to put a price on carbon was 1986, at the bottom of the oil glut. We're at least twenty years too late, trying to put an artificial disincentive on energy consumption at the same time as the natural disincentives are getting so severe that they threaten to plunge more than half of the world's population into malign hopelessness and civil unrest.
But that's the effect of the conservative movement in America. It produces a 20-30 year delay between when we detect massive societal problems and when we reluctantly respond to them. And by then it's too late.
See Stefan Roberts's Profile
So are you saying that it would be better to not have the bill, albeit too late, or just ignore the problem entirely - since it's of our causing and probably irreversible now?
Apparently it's NOT "irreversible now" since the world temps have been dropping steadily for the last 10 years..
Eh??
Michale.....
no. It's a corrupt corporatist way of evading a problem that should be honestly met head-on. This is just another way to allow US Government to forego addressing the underlying problems and dealing with them. Pollution as a commodity is as corrupt as it comes.
Trading in pollution green-lights is not an answer. Try tough regulation and stiff punishment for criminal negligence.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
