Good News: Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act Fails in Senate
My first reaction to the failure of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act was disappointment. The Senate was unable to defeat a filibuster led by Minority Leader McConnell and Senators Allard (CO), Inhofe (OK), and Cornyn (TX) and fell 12 votes shy of cloture. The bill also did not have enough support to override Bush’s promised veto. Once again the US government failed to act on climate change; however, the news is not all bad. Lieberman-Warner was weak legislation, and it did not follow scientific recommendations to limit carbon emissions.
Lieberman-Warner was not opposed by a majority of environmental groups, and it was recognized as an important step. Dave Hamilton, director of global warming and energy programs for the Sierra Club, explained the flaws in the legislation, “We’d like to see the targets and timetables stronger,” although the Sierra Club supported Lieberman-Warner. Hamilton was not alone in concern over the bill. 1Sky, an organization that did oppose the bill, felt we should not back it because it only offers a band-aid solution. Betsy Taylor, President of the 1Sky campaign’s Board of Directors stated:
This bill failed on two fundamental measures and that is why 1Sky and many others did not support it. It would not have reduced carbon emissions as deeply or as quickly as the world scientific community says is necessary to address global warming. And, it would have given more money to the bloated fossil fuel industry, and left ordinary Americans paying too much for rising energy bills.
1Sky took over 100 murals on climate action to Congress painted by families over Mother’s Day weekend. The murals expressed how important climate legislations is to American families. “We’ve only got one sky, and we’ve got to make sure it stays clean for our children,” said Gillian Caldwell, mother of two and campaign director for 1Sky. With the failure of Lieberman-Warner, we have a fresh start now for real climate change legislation.
What would effective climate change legislation look like? According to 1Sky:
- Conserve 20 percent of the nation’s energy by 2015, creating 5 million new jobs and pathways out of poverty focused on climate solutions and energy efficiency;
- Reduce global warming pollution at least 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and at least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050;
- Impose a moratorium on new coal plants and end fossil fuel dependence through strong standards and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy.
On June 4, 2008 Congressman Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a comprehensive climate bill entitled the “Investing in Climate Action and Protection Act,” or “iCap,” (HR 6186). Starting in 2012, iCap calls for slashing emissions by 85 percent by 2050 for greenhouse gases, a moratorium on traditional coal plants, auction 100% of pollution permits by 2020, and invest in green workforce training. “I am here today because the chorus for change is deafening. The time for action is now,” said Markey.
Although it is disappointing on many levels that Lieberman-Warner didn’t pass, it is heartening to see that 48 senators did vote to move forward with the legislation. The good news in the failure is that we now have an opportunity to pass real legislation, like iCap, under a new Congress and new president. We need uncompromising legislation that will boost the economy through green technologies and adequately curb carbon emissions. Since the Climate Security Act failed, we now have another chance!
Image: 1Sky
Thanks for this, Jennifer.
I am one of those folks that thinks this bill is better off not becoming law. Once we were to lock ourselves into this particular cap-and-trade program, we would have found it difficult to get out of. As is the case with virtually any government program, once they have established systemic roots, they are very difficult to change and/or get rid of.
Lieberman-Warner was way too soft and it would have given a free ride to the major industrial polluters for far too long. In essence, these polluters would have been allowed to grow their carbon emissions for several years before they would have to do anything about it.
We need to put a tax on carbon sooner, not later. Yes, prices of things will go up. But that is something we will have to live with. We need to talk about doing away with income taxes and putting the tax burden on the polluters that are filling the atmosphere with GHGs.
And yes, I know the polluters are ultimately me and you, as opposed to some imaginary fatcat who wears a monocle and smokes cigars. The polluters are ultimately me and you.
In fact, I get about 90% of my electricity from coal (much higher than the national average). And I am doing everything in my powers to change that. I know my electricity bills will jump. But industrial polluters are getting a free ride in terms of their waste (and have gotten one for the last two hundred years).
I like your ideas about income tax. I would be much more willing to pay taxes that helped solve these problems rather than supported war efforts.
Most of the grid power near where I live (although I am not connected but my school is) comes from hydroelectricity and is relatively cheap; however the dams are wreaking havoc on the rivers and destroying the salmon population.
I agree with Timothy – the cap and trade as proposed provided increasing rewards rather than penalties to the largest, longest established polluters. There should be no grandfathering in any bill to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The amount of damage is not worse from “new” sources or growth.
I would start with any new revenues being directed providing a standard deduction for FICA taxes from both employee and employer. FICA is a real discouragement for those just entering or reentering the work force because it starts on the very first dollar earned.
I used to be the General Manager at a small factory that had some jobs that could be filled by people with little education or skill, but who were willing to work hard and learn. I hated having to hand a formerly unemployed person a first paycheck with 7.6% taken out for FICA taxes. I could see the frustration on their faces as they realized how many bottles of milk or loaves of bread that money could have purchased.
I never had the heart to tell them that we could have afforded to bump their pay up by another 7.6% if we did not have to match that payment with a separate “employer’s share” that did not even show up on their pay stubs. For workers at the very bottom of the scale, an extra 15.2% would go a long way in covering any increases in energy costs caused by a system that charged for the service of using our common sky as a dumping ground.
Wow, did you not hear, last year 2007, the world actually experience cooling? So much so that several world events shocked everyone (snow in Baghdag first time in recorded history, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece , South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile) and that apparently this cooling reversed Global Warming some 100 years. I say keep your filthy hands out of my pocket book until real scientists can absolutely prove we humans do cause global warming, because contrary to gores “the facts are in” in rhetoric the facts are not in. Global Warming and global cooling occur with the advent of natural phenomenon such as volcanic activity (Mt Pinatubo caused the earth to cool), El Nino and La Nina, sun activity just to name a few. We had snow in Waco TX in 06, what the hell, Global Warming caused that. I didn’t think it could get cold enough to snow in Waco if because of our global warming. Global Warming = the governments and Gores way of sucking hard earned dollars out of you pocket and mind in the way of taxes (can anyone say carbon credits???) WHAT BS
David:
I will agree that the climate is complex and variable. No one who understands anything about the way that it functions claims that temperatures will steadily rise, especially when measured over very brief periods like a single year.
My prediction is that there will be some complicating factors in global temperatures for a few years, especially since many developing countries like China and India are producing their growing electrical power needs by burning billions of tons of coal in fairly primitive plants.
The soot that those plants produce is spread over a wide enough area to provide some amount of shading and reflectivity – the “greenhouse” is kind of dirty these days, just like it was in the 1940s-1960s when Europe and the US used similar technologies for power production. (It is sometimes possible to see soot from China in the Eastern Pacific. Some even report that it reaches California.)
Soon enough – perhaps ten years, perhaps twenty, the people living in China and India will demand cleaner air and the smokestacks will be fitted with bag houses and scrubbers to make the emissions less noxious. However, if nothing else is done, I predict that warming will then return to center stage, powered by a few more decades worth of CO2 that has been added.
Are you really willing to continue putting stuff in the air without working hard to ensure that the people making that choice have to pay the costs?
Yes, if you are a big emitter, I want my government – as my representative – to charge you for the privilege of dumping your waste into my small piece of the global atmosphere. My expectation and demand is that the government will share those revenues on a per capita basis.
Our current system is not working. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is past the long term safe level of 350 ppm, we are rapidly losing arctic sea ice, and our quality of life is dwindling. But we can change this.
Yesterday I attended Dr. James Hansen’s 20th anniversary of his meeting with Congress when he delivered his message about the severity of global warming. Yesterday’s talk was a little different. History has proven Hansen to be correct and now we must act. Hansen stressed the importance of moving into a green economy—a low carbon economy that is consumer focused. Hansen along with 1Sky, where I am interning this summer both believe that switching to a green economy has the greatest opportunity to increase the quality of life for all Americans. Hansen was a proponent of a carbon tax on coal, oil and gas; one that goes back to the public and ultimately stimulates the economy. Dr. Hansen said, “If we had a carbon tax we’d have $4 gas, but it would be staying in the US and not going to Saudi Arabia.”
Fossil fuels are a finite resource. We are going to run out! Shouldn’t we prepare for the future and learn to live without them as soon as possible? A green economy will not only prepare us for the future, but it will also boost the American economy and increase the number of available jobs. The politicians and big businesses that continue to fight the scientific facts concerning global warming have mislead the American public. Let’s change that! Thanks for your great blog! Keep up the great work!