Legislation Gnomes
- Posted by ryan on May 15th, 2009 filed in Environment, Policy/Politics
So, Waxman-Markey drops today and Greenpeace is ready:
Despite the best efforts of Chairman Waxman, this bill has been seriously undermined by the lobbying of industries more concerned with profits than the plight of our planet. While science clearly tells us that only dramatic action can prevent global warming and its catastrophic impacts, this bill has fallen prey to political infighting and industry pressure. We cannot support this bill in its current state. We call on President Obama and leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a bill, based on science, which presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally.
Sadly, Greenpeace is not alone among environmentalist groups opposing (or preparing to oppose) W-M. There’s no denying that the bill is very imperfect, and inadequate, but what does Greenpeace think is going to happen here? What unnecessary concessions did Waxman make on this bill? Which Senators are going to magically change their mind on this issue when Obama and congressional leaders bring them into a room and say, “Come on now, guys, get serious.” I read this press release, and this is what I see:
Phase 1: Oppose best hope for climate legislation
Phase 2: ???????
Phase 3: Pass perfect climate bill!
Really, can any of the folks knocking this bill lay out a plausible scenario in which it is amended such that all permits are auctioned and it still passes? I know that’s the ideal policy, and I know that it’s an extremely regrettable giveaway to corporations not to auction them off, but what can I say? Congress is full of assholes! When has that not been the case?
I don’t think it will be possible to improve this bill much and still get it through, and I’m very nervous about the prospects for another bill if it fails. Seems awfully foolish to so quickly bail on such a momentous bill, particularly considering that in the whole of its history the US has yet to pass a law regulating carbon emissions.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
The political case for the bill is its best case, but I agree. If Waxman-Markey fails too many people will conclude that people don’t care about the environment. Unfortunately, the immediate past analog is probably the Kennedy-McCain immigration bill which was flawed but shouldn’t have been allowed to fail.
May 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
Incidentally, aren’t the Underpants Gnomes the best metaphor devised in a century?
May 18th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Pretty simple; a bill that doesn’t get us all the way towards capping emissions at IPCC targets is worse than no bill at all. It’ll spend what political capital’s been built up on this issue on an insufficient solution. Lowering CO2 emissions isn’t like fighting poverty; you can’t do good by going half way. We need a bill that’s aggressive enough to convince everyone else (that matters) to hop on at Copenhagan, and to show we’re serious. I don’t know exactly what caveats are working their way into the Waxman bill, but if they make it unlikely that we’ll lower emissions enough, than it’s right to oppose it.
May 18th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
It’s called stretching the window. If the politicians can point to Greenpeace and say “Look at that! We are pissing off those Dirty Fucking Hippies!” then it looks like they are being pragmatic and non-extremist.
We do need a better bill, but we have to at least try of we’re all dead. Because there’s no amount of political capital in evidence that is being spent to do this. Anything that gives us a few more years before apocalypse and more time to make changes in our consumption, production of carbon and geo-engineering abilities is worth trying.
May 18th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
The only alternative I see is to regulate CO2 under the clean air act. I doubt that would be bette.
May 18th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
@MNPundit
Absent the more or less magical invention of massive amounts of carbon free energy, we won’t be able to reduce atmospheric CO2 for roughly a millennium if we don’t do the bare minimum today (today meaning within the next two decades, and the longer we wait the more we’ll have to do). This isn’t like NoX/SoX pollution or CFCs; we can’t engineer our way out of the problem because it will soon be irreversible.
That’s why the politics of lowering CO2 emissions are so tricky — we can’t wait till people start getting cancer (CFCs/ozone) or asthma or we have to deal with acid rain or whatever — once severe climate change happens it will be too late to reverse it.
May 18th, 2009 at 3:49 pm
I don’t think there’s a difference about what to do, so much. It’s more a difference about how to get there. Waxman/Markey is unlikely to actually get passed. Climate change is not included in reconciliation instructions, so the bill will be filibustered in the Senate.
So the question becomes whether it’s better to support or oppose a bill that’s too weak but still won’t pass.
There are good arguments both ways. But caricaturing Greenpeace with the underpants gnomes syllogism isn’t helpful.