Community Resilience, Self-Reliance, Renewable Energy & Cooperation
What happens after the Waxman-Markey Bill?
Dear Energy and Environmental Activists:
As early as tomorrow, the US Congress will vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)--a bill that will have profound effects on the future of our economy, global warming, and our national security.
TheClean.org has clearly stated why we want this bill changed, but we also acknowledge that some people, including many environmentalists, energy economists, members of Congress, and even some of our own activists, are still conflicted on whether or not they support the legislation.
They wonder if they should support something that takes a few steps in the right direction but also, in so many ways, continues the status quo and, quite frankly, actually confirms and increases coal- and nuclear-based energy.
In the next 24 hours we must reach these people. We must ask them to ask themselves the questions below. There are just 10 things we asked ourselves when determining whether or not to support this bill.
1) Many supporters of ACES have argued "this is the best we can get given the circumstances" or that this bill "is a beginning." If so, the central question for community organizers is: what is the next step? How will we obtain more meaningful and effective action on energy policy and climate change if we accept that these are the "circumstances"? When or how will we be able to improve the circumstances that are produced by this incomplete Act?
2) Given that the fossil-fuel industry is unwilling to agree to reduce carbon any further than the current legislation, and given that many environmental groups have acquiesced to the industry's terms in the name of "getting something done", what is the strategy for getting an energy bill that will reduce carbon enough to actually slow global warming? When will that bill happen? Will it be when the Democrats control Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? (Hint: they already do.)
3) Since President Obama is likely to sign the bill with great fanfare, what will the public take away from this? Will they see it as a "win"--that the problem is solved? If so, what will that mean for pushing for the needed steps later? How will the public be mobilized to push their Representatives when the official and media message is that this is "landmark" legislation?
4) If this bill is signed, coal's role in America's energy mix will be set for the next two decades. What strategies can victims of the coal industry use to convince Washington that the industry is still undertaking destructive and hazardous mining methods such as longwall mining and mountaintop removal coal mining?
5) Why are taxpayers about to 'invest' billions in the carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of coal if Wall Street has taken a pass?
6) If our energy policy is so predicated on the workability of CCS and the inevitability of reliance on coal, what happens if CCS is not workable, or workable in time? Where are the sequestration sites? What are the estimates for storage capacity? What happens to local communities if there is an unexpected slow or sudden large release of CO2? Do the communities know the potential risk they are taking? Why are we giving billions of dollars to an industry without answers to these fundamental questions?
7) If mountaintop removal and the serious impact on water resources in the West are factored in, what is the true cost of coal for our future?
8) Why are we eliminating the EPA's authority to regulate carbon as a pollutant like they do any other pollutant? If we do this, when will Congress be willing to revisit regulation guidelines on carbon? What are the levers for change without the regulatory authority of the EPA?
9) What is the execution plan for the regulation of the cap and trade provisions of the bill? How can we ask Americans to accept a new "market" without a clear regulatory process, especially after the lack of a clear regulatory process just caused the collapse of our financial sector?
10) Why are we not meeting the necessary reductions in carbon as put forth by science?
These questions must be answered. The stakes are too high. The American public deserves a bill that represents their long-term energy, economic, and security interests. We deserve better than a bill created by the conversation Washington insiders have amongst themselves. We deserve leadership, not the lowest common denominator. We voted overwhelmingly for these things in 2006 and this bill does not represent that intention.
These aren't minor uncertainties of a big bill, or things that can be "hammered out later." In the view of most participants in CLEAN these are fundamental questions that point to deep underlying flaws with the legislation. Flaws that will lead to inevitable failures with serious, if not devastating, human consequences.
We still have time to deal with these critical questions. We must stay organized and keep pushing for debate of these important issues.
Our ask is simple: Consider these questions and if you agree, forward this to everyone you know.
Thank you for your continued work and commitment.
Sincerely
the CLEAN theclean.ning.com
As early as tomorrow, the US Congress will vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES)--a bill that will have profound effects on the future of our economy, global warming, and our national security.
TheClean.org has clearly stated why we want this bill changed, but we also acknowledge that some people, including many environmentalists, energy economists, members of Congress, and even some of our own activists, are still conflicted on whether or not they support the legislation.
They wonder if they should support something that takes a few steps in the right direction but also, in so many ways, continues the status quo and, quite frankly, actually confirms and increases coal- and nuclear-based energy.
In the next 24 hours we must reach these people. We must ask them to ask themselves the questions below. There are just 10 things we asked ourselves when determining whether or not to support this bill.
1) Many supporters of ACES have argued "this is the best we can get given the circumstances" or that this bill "is a beginning." If so, the central question for community organizers is: what is the next step? How will we obtain more meaningful and effective action on energy policy and climate change if we accept that these are the "circumstances"? When or how will we be able to improve the circumstances that are produced by this incomplete Act?
2) Given that the fossil-fuel industry is unwilling to agree to reduce carbon any further than the current legislation, and given that many environmental groups have acquiesced to the industry's terms in the name of "getting something done", what is the strategy for getting an energy bill that will reduce carbon enough to actually slow global warming? When will that bill happen? Will it be when the Democrats control Congress, the Senate, and the Presidency? (Hint: they already do.)
3) Since President Obama is likely to sign the bill with great fanfare, what will the public take away from this? Will they see it as a "win"--that the problem is solved? If so, what will that mean for pushing for the needed steps later? How will the public be mobilized to push their Representatives when the official and media message is that this is "landmark" legislation?
4) If this bill is signed, coal's role in America's energy mix will be set for the next two decades. What strategies can victims of the coal industry use to convince Washington that the industry is still undertaking destructive and hazardous mining methods such as longwall mining and mountaintop removal coal mining?
5) Why are taxpayers about to 'invest' billions in the carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) of coal if Wall Street has taken a pass?
6) If our energy policy is so predicated on the workability of CCS and the inevitability of reliance on coal, what happens if CCS is not workable, or workable in time? Where are the sequestration sites? What are the estimates for storage capacity? What happens to local communities if there is an unexpected slow or sudden large release of CO2? Do the communities know the potential risk they are taking? Why are we giving billions of dollars to an industry without answers to these fundamental questions?
7) If mountaintop removal and the serious impact on water resources in the West are factored in, what is the true cost of coal for our future?
8) Why are we eliminating the EPA's authority to regulate carbon as a pollutant like they do any other pollutant? If we do this, when will Congress be willing to revisit regulation guidelines on carbon? What are the levers for change without the regulatory authority of the EPA?
9) What is the execution plan for the regulation of the cap and trade provisions of the bill? How can we ask Americans to accept a new "market" without a clear regulatory process, especially after the lack of a clear regulatory process just caused the collapse of our financial sector?
10) Why are we not meeting the necessary reductions in carbon as put forth by science?
These questions must be answered. The stakes are too high. The American public deserves a bill that represents their long-term energy, economic, and security interests. We deserve better than a bill created by the conversation Washington insiders have amongst themselves. We deserve leadership, not the lowest common denominator. We voted overwhelmingly for these things in 2006 and this bill does not represent that intention.
These aren't minor uncertainties of a big bill, or things that can be "hammered out later." In the view of most participants in CLEAN these are fundamental questions that point to deep underlying flaws with the legislation. Flaws that will lead to inevitable failures with serious, if not devastating, human consequences.
We still have time to deal with these critical questions. We must stay organized and keep pushing for debate of these important issues.
Our ask is simple: Consider these questions and if you agree, forward this to everyone you know.
Thank you for your continued work and commitment.
Sincerely
the CLEAN theclean.ning.com
Add a Comment
1 Comment
-
Comment by Mamaka on July 3, 2009 at 5:36am -
7/2/09 from Spruce:
All legitimate questions, but I would suggest the stakes are even higher than these
authors appear to be aware. The actual pace of climate de-stabilization is
out-stripping even the worst case projections of a few years ago. We are now already
beginning to cross the tipping points - the runaway train, the points of no return
on climate catastrophe. We need more top scientists like Jim Hansen to come out of
the ivory towers and sound the alarm.
A brief video from England is using creative animation to illustrate
the urgency of reversing course before it is too late.
It is only 11 minutes and available here. http://wakeupfreakout.org/film/tipping.html
People in the Athens County area are strongly urged to send this link to Rep. Charlie Wilson, a Democrat who sadly defected and voted against the climate bill due to pressure from the coal industry.
There is no question but that vested interests are pushing hard to weaken the
bill, and that too much was given away in the House bill to placate them. But in
light of the monumentally urgent danger, the answer is not to give up the fight and
scrap the process. The answer is to roll up our sleeves and let our Reps. and
senators know that the grassroots will not be run over. Several nat'l env. groups
and moveon.org are planning a major counter-push to correct the giveaways in the
House version and come up with a Senate draft we can support with greater vigor. The
giveaways were enabled because the env. movement was a house divided. What can now
unite the movement is an insistence that the Senate version be stronger.
No climate bill will be perfect, but at least our foot will be "in the door".
Then the challenge is to build the movement with the strength to continually make it
more
stringent. Right now, the Senate version may not even pass. If the environmental
community becomes even more fragmented, then it is guaranteed not to pass. Obama is
spending very finite political capital. If this is squandered and we do not even
achieve a starting point, it will not only be a tremendous setback to the world-wide
climate negotiations in Copenhagen this fall but be a tragedy that future
generations will hold us responsible for. Spruce
About
© 2009 Created by Les Squires for Transition Ohio on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of Transition Ohio to add comments!
Join this social network