Al Gore wants Waxman-Markey to pass. Business (Shell, Duke, Alcoa, etc) likes Waxman-Markey. Joe Romm likes Waxman Markey. Everybody wants this last, best hope to do something about climate change to survive. Everybody, but a few stubborn extremists, like Greenpeace. I say that's a good thing.
I can understand why some climate change campaigners would be annoyed with Greenpeace for not falling into line. Waxman-Markey may be flawed, but it's simply too late in the game to try another approach (a flat carbon tax, say) and political realities make it clear that it's almost certainly the best we're going to get at this particular juncture. I can't argue with that.
But when the usually politically astute Chris Mooney writes that
... this mentality clashes strongly with the modern need to build coalitions, stay on message, and achieve realistic goals. And unfortunately, it also burns up political energy, particularly in the young and idealistic among us.
I must point out the other side of the coin. Even if you want very much for H.R. 2454 to pass, there are still good reasons for dissent to be heard.
First, it's important to remember that the bill is a compromise that represents a kind of mid-point, a center, between science and politics. Defining that center is important. And by making it clear that some environmentalists are very unhappy with the bill because it's too close the political end of the spectrum, Greenpeace is helping push that "center" a little closer to the science.
Politicians on the fence (those not facing pressure from the coal industry, for example) need to know that that Waxman-Markey isn't a sop to environmentalists. They need to recognize just how many compromises have already been made. For every industry supporter who denounces the bill as a threat to the economy, there have to be twice as many who object to its likely failure to reduce carbon emissions as fast some climatologists say we must.
Second, absolute certainty is a sure sign that we've all missed something important. Uncertainty is hallmark of good science. It's why scientists continue to debate the finer points of climate change. It's why this blog is called what it is. It keep us honest and grounded. Just imagine the right-wing's response if every environmental group approved of the bill. I'm glad Greenpeace is opposing it, even though I tend to agree with those who would rather get this thing passed and work on improving it later.
That last point is vital, of course. If Congress passes Waxman-Markey, and Obama signs it and everyone concludes that "OK, we've solved the climate crisis," and then proceeds with health care reform, or fixing the financial sector or whatever, then this bill will be a disaster. Because it's not enough. Not by a long shot.
The real danger is not that Waxman-Markey won't pass because Greenpeace doesn't like it. Greenpeace's role historically is not that of a key lobbyist whose support determines the fate of legislation. Their members are good at making the news, hanging banners and buzzing whaling ships. They attract attention. And attracting attention to the bill is a valuable contribution right now. Congress has to know this bill is important to the pubilc, one way or another. The real danger is it passes and everyone moves on. And I am relatively confident Greenpeace will do what it can to ensure that doesn't happen.
- Log in to post comments
Mr. Hrynyshyn,
You write well and I enjoyed your post. But as you point out it is important to understand the 'center.' Here's where I think the center is:
Before we increase the cost of energy for Americans with cap-and-trade and also enrich a new class of financial traders, I believe it's imperative that the United States establishes a non-political, scientific commission to review all facts and evidence surrounding global warming. Currently, we are relying upon a political organization, the United Nations, for their assessment of global warming. This is not good for America. The stakes are too huge.
I am a Democrat. For the past 20 years I believed global warming was caused by CO2. Now I'm not so sure, after taking an objective look at the wellspring of man-made global warming theory, the United Nations' Climate Change 2007 report. Whereas the report should have considered all possible global warming culprits then narrow the field, it instead removed from consideration the possibility that natural forces might drive global warming. It is little wonder that the report pinned the blame on CO2 when in their own words (p. 95), "The topics have been chosen for...assessing...risks of human-induced climate change." The fix was in. It was politics not science. The mission statement should have read, "Topics have been chosen for assessing risks of human-induced and NATURE INDUCED climate change." Remember, the UN developed in Kyoto Protocol. They have a vested in demonizing CO2. For further discussion of the report see
http://energyplanusa.com/ipcc_reports_dont_pass_smell_test.htm
What better way could there be of establishing a concern troll position than what Roman has done? Establish oneself as a person that has worried about the problem by conforming to the analysis that human-produced GHG's were the early culprit, and then cast a doubt that they are the primary source.
The motives of Greenpeace are easily seen by someone like me - "see those radicals, they don't like our reasonable program, so it must be good". Why not have the opposing view cast doubt in the other direction by showing that doubt about the DO2 paradigm is "reasonable".
I guess that's what makes me a cynic.
There is little room for debate. The probability that AGW is the main culprit is extreme.
In any case what ever the reason the outcome is catastrophy and so we must intervene.
We are in for a wild ride. Much if the earth will become a fire ball...
YouTube - Bushfires in Victoria
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7klZ3_F6ekI&feature=related
Yay - a moderate who actually understands the advantage of having people a little further out along the spectrum putting things in perspective!
This post should be printed on large billboards directly across from the front doors of the Democratic Party, the National Center for Science Education, the Sierra Club, Matthew Nisbet's home, and the locations of every other milquetoast "progressive" gathering place.
The best thing is that for the first time the good guys hold the stick. If this bill does not pass and CO2 emissions are not controlled the EPA has not choice but to regulate emissions by simply putting a firm limit on how much carbon anyone can produce. It nice to win one in the High Court every once in awhile.
Here at Americaâs Power, we believe that Americans need a climate plan thatâs affordable and effective. Americans should support a plan that:
⢠Achieves emissions reductions
⢠Creates jobs
⢠Preserves fuel diversity as a means of promoting greater energy independence
⢠Protects consumers against unnecessarily
high energy costs
We support a federal plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the Waxman-Markey bill needs to do more to guarantee that consumers are protected from unnecessary increases in energy costs. Because without these changes the bill is not affordable â and therefore, not effective.
To find out more about Americaâs Powerâs stance on Waxman-Markey, watch our video. sn.im/balenergy
Noone cares about greenpeace or MANMADE GLOBAL FREAKIN WARMING. Everyone is trying to figure out how Guantanamo and Waterboarding caused 9/11. The timeline on that is somewhat perplexing
At #7:
"Atrocity has no excuses, no mitigating argument. Atrocity never balances or rectifies the past. Atrocity merely arms the future for more atrocity. It is self-perpetuating upon itself--a barabrous form of incest. Whoever commits atrocity also commits those future atrocities thus bred." -Frank Herbert.
As for Greenpeace, the argument of the article says to me "Greenpeace are moon bats; people see them as moon bats; it's best we're not singing a moon bat song if we're going to get people on our side." It seems fair to me, but as an environmentalist and a member of the 'left' (whatever a single dimensional index means in the non-ordered set of politics), I'd prefer if the moon bats themselves would start singing a more practical and scientific song.
One simple question. Assuming that the CO2 is not culprit in the global warming,then, is it case to leave the C02 emissions like are nowadays?
James - great piece. As the new Executive Director of Greenpeace, I appreciate your strategic analysis.
Excuse me,again,and excuse,also,,my ignorance,and my poor english. The quantity is important,surely,but the quality also. The relative low concentration of CO2 in the air is able to support the photosynthesis along the world.In the plant nutrition,so important are the macro as the micronutrients,and in human nutrition so important are the carbohydrates and fats as vitamins.It is a question of essenciality. The ozone is a problem to human health,even in low quantities. It is a question of quality. The quality is essential.
Dear James,
I am the North Carolina Field Organizer for Greenpeace, and as our executive director already said, I appreciate your analysis. Greenpeace as an organization fights for results consistent with science, not politics. We have seen a huge upwelling of support for climate legislation, but this bill just does not do enough to solve the problem. I am working here in North Carolina with average Americans who feel the same way. The worst effects of global warming will not be avoided by a bill corrupted by the fossil fuel industry.
thanks
''First, it's important to remember that the bill is a compromise that represents a kind of mid-point, a center, between science and politics. Defining that center is important. And by making it clear that some [fill in blank] are very unhappy with the bill because it's too close the political end of the spectrum, [fill in blank] is helping push that "center" a little closer to the science.''
This bill is introduced in a climate where the above has been applied in all sorts of areas, but none more so than economics.
We have the mantra repeated over and over that increased taxes hurt economic growth and that tax cuts promote economic growth. This is conventional wisdom, and to a large degree, Democrats and Obama have adopted that "center" even though the "science" for it is at best unconvincing. After all, tax cuts in 2001, 2003, 2006, and 2008 has delivered a net added jobs average of 1000 for the entire Bush administration. On the other hand, the economy crushing Clinton tax hikes piled on the Bush "read my lips no new taxes" tax hikes resulted in a mere 200,000 net new jobs for the on average for the duration of the Clinton administration. Of course, that was on part with the terrible job creation of the Carter years, matched only by the second Reagan term, after Reagan had signed a half dozen tax hikes.
Likewise, whether through a carbon tax or cap and trade, we are told that increasing the costs of energy will cause the cost of living to increase and that will kill economic growth and also produce massive job losses. Again this is the "center" between politics and science, because economists as scientists explain that rising prices will produce greater quantity supplied, or if that is not possible, then a switch to substitutes. And with greater quantities supplied, whether the original good or the substitute, comes economies of scale and lower prices. When it comes to high oil prices, for example, the solution is to increase investment in oil production in order to drive down the price. But when the cost of burning oil and coal is increased, the solution isn't to invest in alternatives to burning oil and coal in order to bring down the price of non-fossil fuel energy.
So, let's be clear that increasing taxes and increasing prices are political issues where both have negative political implications but science - both theory and data - point in the opposite direction.
So, while climate and energy science clearly indicate current practice is unsustainable. There can be zero doubt. If you deny this, point to the future fossil fuel supply the meets daily demand for energy at the historic growth rate of about 1% less than GDP growth. Explain where the oil comes from that allows the soon to be 8 billion people in the world can consume one-quarter current US oil per capita consumption.
The Island of Doubt is the one of politics.
The past three decades suggests the answer to the question, "can politics find a center that does not contradict science?" is "doubtful."
When considering the "center" of Jimmy Carter, of Ronald Reagan, of George Bush, and of Al Gore, who is closer to "science" than "politics."