Compromising Our Planet's Future

The Nation: Congress May Pass Inadequate Global Warming Bill To Claim Hollow Victory

(The Nation)  This column was written by Mark Hertsgaard.

---

Now that Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, will the U.S. Congress take the IPCC's scientific advice on how to fight global warming? The IPCC holds that the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 80 percent by the year 2050. Few in Congress seem prepared to go that far, however. And judging from the discussion at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, even lawmakers who personally embrace the "gold standard" of 80 percent reductions are prepared to endorse a weaker measure in the name of getting some form of climate legislation moving in Congress.

"Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." So goes one of the oldest sayings in politics, generally invoked by reformers who think that half a loaf of progress is better than none. Often the reformers agree privately with more ambitious colleagues who want the entire loaf, but they argue that pushing too hard and too soon may end up yielding no progress at all.

There are times when this is sound strategic advice. Is the current battle over global warming legislation one of those times?

The terrain of the battlefield has changed considerably over the past year. For a variety of reasons -- including the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006, the alarming series of reports the IPCC has issued in 2007 and the news pouring in from the front lines of climate change (scientists recently projected that Arctic summers will be ice-free by 2030, thirty years earlier than their previous "worst-case" projection) -- global warming legislation finally is getting a hearing on Capitol Hill. There is even a decent chance that Congress might pass a bill, though President Bush seems certain to veto anything that goes beyond his repeatedly stated insistence on purely voluntary measures.

The question is, what bill will reformers get behind? How ambitious will they be? Will they demand what the scientific community says is the minimum necessary to enable our civilization to (perhaps) avoid the worst future scenarios of global warming: deep cuts in emissions by 2020 on the way to 80-90 percent cuts by 2050? Or, in the name of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, will they favor a more modest and gradual approach?

The latter, incrementalist strategy has the upper hand at the moment. The vehicle is a bill that will be sponsored by Senators Joseph Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and John Warner, Republican of Virginia. The bill is still taking final shape, but its key provisions reportedly include a 10 percent mandatory reduction in emissions by 2020 and 70 percent by 2050.

Not only do these provisions fall short of the scientific standard; there is even less here than meets the eye. The bill, as described in briefings and press accounts, contains a number of loopholes, including provisions that (1) will give rather than sell greenhouse-gas-emissions permits to polluters, thus violating the "polluter pays" principle of environmental accounting, and (2) count so-called carbon offsets -- that is, paying someone else to reduce emissions while continuing to emit oneself -- as genuine reductions.

An alternative approach, sponsored by Senators Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California, and Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, comes much closer to the scientific consensus. The Boxer-Sanders bill (like a similar measure sponsored in the House by California Democrat Henry Waxman) calls for mandatory 80 percent reductions by 2050 and stipulates that they be real reductions; i.e., not just carbon offsets. The Boxer-Sanders bill also would uphold the "polluter pays" principle by selling emissions permits rather than giving them away.

[For a description of these and other pending global warming bills, see the World Resources Institute's analysis here.]

Guess which bill is getting traction and support on Capitol Hill?

According to sources speaking on background because of the confidential nature of the discussions, most Senate Democrats and many environmental and other public interest groups are preparing to support the Lieberman-Warner bill, despite misgivings about its shortcomings. At a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week attended by more than a dozen key Democratic senators and scores of leaders from the environmental and larger public-interest community, participants were urged to fall into line behind the Lieberman-Warner bill because it was the most likely to secure bipartisan support and perhaps pass. Activists who pointed out the flaws in the bill were told by a number of senators, allegedly including Boxer herself, to work to improve the bill as it moved through the legislative process, rather than oppose it.

In other words, don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Asked to comment about her role at the meeting, Senator Boxer told The Nation, "I believe it is critically important that we get started now on legislation that will prevent dangerous climate change. And I will continue to work on this issue until that goal is achieved."

Activists who feel otherwise fear that the Lieberman-Warner bill will become the defining benchmark for future federal action on climate change. Author and journalist Bill McKibben, who did not attend the Capitol Hill meeting, was quoted to this effect in this Nation report two weeks ago:

"We are really playing for the opening months of 2009 here," said McKibben, adding that it would be better for the current Congress to pass nothing than to approve a weak bill, because a weak bill would lower the bar for the next Congress and President and deflate pressure for reform by giving people the impression that the problem has been solved: "Since Bush is going to veto it anyway, there is no reason to make [a bill] less ambitious than what science requires. Climate change isn't like other issues. It doesn't do any good to split the difference to reach a deal everyone can live with. Climate change is about the laws of physics and chemistry, and they don't give."

Commenting for this article, a senior aide to Senator Boxer said that both sides of the good versus perfect divide "want to get to the same place." And this was possible, the aide further argued, if proponents focused less on the specific target of 80 percent cuts and more on ensuring that federal action always be guided by the best science available. "Global warming legislation needs to require that the best science be reviewed regularly to ensure that the emissions targets in the bill are sufficiently strict to prevent dangerous climate change," said the aide. Senator Boxer has publicly urged that the legislation include what she calls "look-backs," requirements that federal agencies continue to monitor scientific developments on climate change, then "look back" and tighten federal standards, if necessary.

If such a bill does pass Congress, it would confront the White House with a difficult choice. President Bush is now on record saying that climate change is a serious problem, humans are causing it and action must be taken. Meanwhile, global warming is shaping up as one of the top-tier issues in the 2008 campaign. Bush presumably will not want to sign a bill that would lead to mandatory emissions reductions, which both the "perfect" and the "good" approaches outlined above would certainly do. At the same time, a presidential veto of a scientifically sound global warming bill carries risks for fellow Republicans, especially once they leave their party's primaries behind for the general election campaign. Given Bush's record -- his recent veto of health insurance for kids and his general bull-headedness on Iraq -- a veto seems the most likely outcome. But only if Congress puts a bill on his desk in the first place.

[guysdigdirt]

I apprecaite what Gore is trying to do... find somethign to do with his time. But does his tree really go all the way to the top?

Now he has a Nobel Prize, but he does not even live by what he preaches.

[guysdigdirt]

GladImNotOJ ,
I like that nic, funny, but then you are dumber tha OJ anyway so he is glad he is not you!!

[quatrops]

I''m "clueless" and another commenter is "an idiot". Sparks224 really has a way with meaningful discourse, does he not?

Let''s take a look at the "instant gratification" approach to our various ills, of which (if I understand from your "clueless" barb) I presume you are in favor. A good example might be the Bush-Cheney-Perle-Wolfowitz-Gonzales "War on Terror", the invasion and occupation of Iraq, that glamorous "mission accomplished" that was supposed to dramaticly curtail the threat of terrorists and terrorism. What did it "accomplish"?

(1) Eventual cost? Trillions. (2) There are many more organized, well-trained and supplied terrorists than we dreamed possible in 2001 (3) Bin-Laden runs free (4) We are scorned by the international community (5) The Republican party is a shambles (6) Etc. etc. etc..

In the meantime, a number of less "exciting", plodding areas of defense remain unattended. Harbors. Railway & freight stations. Power plants and the electrical grid. Etc. etc. etc.

As I said originally, the qualifier to the incremental approach to enviromental issues is the inclination of we Americans and our politicians for big, glamorous, "instant" solutions. In addition to sometimes failing on a grand scale, as in the example above, they distract us from important long-term goals by making us think we''ve "done something".

[sparks224]

"In the long run, I believe the incremental approach to alleviating many of the human-caused pressures on the environment would be most effective...."
Posted by Quatrops

You''re trying to be funny, right?
You can''t possibly be that clueless.

[quatrops]

In the long run, I believe the incremental approach to alleviating many of the human-caused pressures on the environment would be most effective. However, that adjective ("long") may be the qualifier.

We in the West, particularly the U.S., have never been enamoured of "long-term solutions". In so many areas (industry, consumption, politics, religion, diplomacy, etc. etc.) we want "instant gratification". Long-term solutions (plodding, step-by-step increments) are not glamorous enough for us.

We elect politicians who promise us almost instantaneous solutions to our concerns. The last thing in the world that mega$corporations want is for us to delay gratification, particularly when it comes to their product or service, so they bankroll politicians who promise us instant cure-alls for all our concerns, meanwhile neglecting appropriate oversight of corporate greed. We need to get money out of politics.

In the meantime, turn out the light when you leave the room! That''s not a glamerous solution to environmental problems, but making it a habit might eventually change your own mindset. You''ll be aware that plodding, incremental steps might offer some hope.

[ubrew12]

Seafang said "Yes we are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere; no it is not goign to lead to catastrophic waming; never has; never will; well so long as we have oceans to evaporate. "

Moron. The issue was never warming... it was HEATING. And as any eighth grade student knows, HEATING occurs through evaporation as well as warming, and evaporation creates WEATHER, and changes in WEATHER (esp rainfall patterns, drought, and hurricanes) really ARE the issues with global warming, NOT warming per se.

[sparks224]

"many believe in contraction not expansion. maybe
they figure the amish were..."
Posted by snidegrass

Dear snidegrass, (I wish there were a nice way to say this but)
You''re an idiot. Nobody believes in "contraction". It''s about changing our energy sources (and yes, it can be done). Of course Big Oil isn''t too thrilled about the Idea. That is what is going on.

[seafang]

The published numbers in the latest IPCC report for policy makers, which came out back in March or so, show that with regard to the two largest contributors to sea level rise; Antarctic Ice and Greenland ice; they can''t tell whether the sea level will rise or fall; don''t take my word for it; read the report yourself; particularly Table SPM-0 on page 5, where it says the sea level rise for 1961-2003 for Greenland ice caps was somewhere between -0.07 and +0.17 m/century, while for Antarctic ice sheets it was between -0.27 and 0.55 m/century. For the last 10 years European satellite measurements show the Arcitic ocean is FALLING at 2 mm per year; it IS NOT RISING. Which however proves that the floating sea ice is melting, since that''s what the laws of physics predict. (high school 8th grade physics even).

[seafang]

What Al Goring and the IPCC said with regard to CO2 and global warming has been shown to be completely bass ackwards. Global warming CAUSES increased atmospheric CO2, NOT the other way round. The ice core data that Goring made a big deal over shows clearly that rapidly rising or falling CO2 FOLLOWS rapidly rising or falling global temperatures. It is not usual to have the cause of some phenomenon to happen AFTER the phenomenon has alreday happened; in this case often hundreds of years LATER.

Yes we are putting more CO2 in the atmosphere; no it is not goign to lead to catastrophic waming; never has; never will; well so long as we have oceans to evaporate.

[tnt1954]

many believe in contraction not expansion. maybe
they figure the amish were right. what got
us in this mess? science. and the industrial
revolution. and mr. 666 himself bill gates. those
computers gotta have that electrical power. and
believe you me they are drunk on ''power''.

[au_fait]

When will the world understand global change occurs naturally. The change is not documented as for each instance that is given, it is a small window that is being viewed. Artic is decreasing, but Anartic is increasing. Should I begin on how if it were true about the global warming, it goes to support that growing seasons will lengthen. If you say droughts, well that is once again a small windown as many deserts, including the Sahara are showing regrowth of plants. If you are worried about energy emissions, then we should switch to fission as it is the safest form of energy we have. One one documented death has occurred due to our nuclear plants. With today''s echonology and reuse of spent fuel, it would be only clean and viable option that can sustain our growth.

[mbcsmith]

Posted by sjc_1 at 04:10 PM : Oct 15, 2007

You forgot to plug all those nasty volcanoes spewing the equivalent of the emissions of hundreds of millions cars per day.

[sjc_1]

When you use less fossil fuels you have lower CO2 emissions. With geothermal, wind, solar, tidal and other renewable sources of energy combined with conservation brought on by more efficient appliance, tvs, computers and lifestyles we can to it. We just have to work together towards this common goal and do it NOW.

[mnelsonix]

The author, Mark Hertsgaard, focuses on the US''s response to GLOBAL warming alone. Hey Mark--it''s GLOBAL warming, not NORTH AMERICA warming. I have news for you Mark--developing nations belch out green house gases too. Global problems require global solutions. I agree that the US can lead, and at least participate, in an effort to find a solution, but please do not expect our congress to fix this.

The US conress seems unable to tackle true DOMESTIC problems like: health care, education, budget control, national security, social securtiy...and more.

Do not expect our government to sweep the world''s porch, when we can''t sweep our own.