Do you want to know what environmentalists think of the “compromise” climate bill unveiled by senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman yesterday? Ifso,don’t read the New York Times today. Times reporter John M. Broder (5/13/10) quotes Kerry, Barack Obama (a supporter of the bill) and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham (formerly a somewhat iffy supporter).
He alsoreferencesthe feelings of two main industry groups–the Edison Electric Institute and the American Petroleum Institute–as well as BP, ConocoPhillips and the United States Chamber of Commerce.
Then, in the second-to-last graph:
Some environmental advocates were involved in drafting the bill and were highly supportive. But other environmentalists said the bill did not go far enough and offered too many concessions to win industry support.
Well, that tells you…nothing.
Assessments from environmental groups aren’t hard to come by.The headline of the Public Citizen press release conveys their view: “It’s a Nuclear Energy-Promoting, Oil Drilling-Championing, Coal Mining-Boosting Gift.” The Institute for Public Accuracy’s release refers to a “ Bonanza of Corporate Giveaways.” Such views would have been helpful for readers interested in assessing the bill’s actual contents.
Well, why would they interview environmentalists anyway? This legislation isn’t about saving the environment. It’s about saving face to look as if they are doing something to save the environment, all while keeping the nuclear, coal, and oil corporations at the table while the environmentalists are locked in the shed. It’s how we do things in America, just ask the single-payer supporters about their input into health care reform. Or was that health insurance reform. Doesn’t matter. The did it to us there too.
Mike,
The carbon market is more than a show. It is a way oligarchs will grab more coin through setting up a new casino. Can you imagine the selling-short, speculative transactions that will be carried out? And from Europe’s experience with such a market, there is no evidence greenhouse gases will be reduced by one iota. If the pols meant business, we would have a carbon tax. They don’t and we won’t.
Scientist James Hanson on implementing a carbon FEE (as opposed to cap and trade):
I get a lot of e-mails telling me to stick to climate, that I don’t know anything about economics. I know this: the fundamental requirement for transition to the post fossil fuel era is a substantial and rising price on carbon emissions. And businesses and consumers must understand that it will continue to rise in the future.
Of course, a rising carbon price alone is not sufficient for a successful rapid transition to the post fossil fuel era. There also must be efficiency standards on buildings, vehicles, appliances, electronics and lighting. Barriers to efficiency, such as utilities making more money when we use more energy, must be removed.
But the essential underlying requirement is a substantial rising carbon price. Building standards, especially operations, for example, are practically unenforceable without a strong cost driver. The carbon price must be sufficient to affect lifestyle choices.
648 pages are not needed to define a carbon fee. It is a single number that would be ratcheted upward over time. It would cover all three fossil fuels at their source: the mine or port of entry. Consumers do not directly pay any tax, but the fee’s effect permeates everything from the price of fuel to the price of food (especially if it is imported from halfway around the world).
As a point of reference a fee equivalent to $1/gallon of gasoline ($115/ton CO2) would yield $670B in the United States (based on energy use data for 2007). That would provide a dividend of $3000/year to legal adult residents in the United States ($9000/year to a family with two or more children).
A person reducing his carbon footprint more than average would gain economically, if the fee is returned 100 percent to the public on a per capita basis. With the present distributions of income and energy use, it is estimated that about 60 percent of the people would get a dividend exceeding their tax. So why would they not just spend their dividend on expensive fuel? Nobody wants to pay more taxes. They prefer to have the money for other things. As the price of fossil fuels continues to increase, people would conserve energy, choose more energy efficient vehicles, and choose non-fossil (untaxed) energies and products.
Hey, does anybody know a great communicator, who might level with the public, explain what is needed to break our addiction to fossil fuels, to gain energy independence, to assure a future for young people? Who would explain what is really needed, rather than hide behind future â┚¬Ã…“goalsâ┚¬Ã‚ and a gimmick â┚¬Ã…“capâ┚¬Ã‚Â? Naw. Roosevelt and Churchill are dead. So is Kennedy.
Jim
The NYT has long been lost, folks. Don’t waste your breath on it. Nor do we need to know the Congress is now hopelessly corrupt. The survival of our culture depends on boycotting products and never — ever — voting for an incumbent.
We can each reduce our own carbon footprint by practicing “reduce, reuse and recycle.” We can support the “Fair Elections Now Act.” We can vote NO on any new government bonds and support necessary taxes to support our local communities. Do we really need government bailouts or price supports? Vote against any legislation that requires a two thirds majority.
The last “great communicator” I remember, pandered to to industries that saw “deregulation” as a probable windfall in profits. He also presided over the death of the “Challenger,” and the emasculation of the EPA. Corruption and the potential for corruption has always been with us. We don’t need government regulations that allow the “fox to watch the chickens.” Industries can govern themselves?
What would happen if we each bought only what we actually needed?
They discuss the environmental/energy bill without talking to environmentalists.
They discuss the “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” issue without talking to lesbians or gays.
They discuss the Afghan war without talking to any Afghani people.
It’s the new way of reporting. Easy to inject your personal opinion without any troublesome quotes from the parties most affected or involved in the issue.
@Larry,
Thanks for the Hanson quote. Is he the only public figure willing to speak the truth about climate? I haven’t heard from too many others.
It’s called “greenwashing,” and, as a alumnus of the U.S. Air Force public affairs career field, I am only too famililar with this PR tactic. The legislation that eventually failed to go anywhere anyway (see yesterday’s NYT) fit the “greenwashing” profile all too well. Most humans in this country (in particular) really care deeply about a few things anyway: TV, video games, keeping the SUV’s fuel tank filled, mowing the lawn (with a gas-fed mower), blowing dust and debris around with a gas-fed leaf-blower, the appearance of their McMansion when viewed next tot he other guy’s trophy home, and the ability to motor to the nearest shopping mall and parking there next to hundreds of other gas-guzzling veehikles. Etc.