Enviro Groups Pushing Against Attempts to Strengthen the Climate Change Bill?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Jun 24, 2009 at 17:01


Most environmental groups are currently arguing that the climate change bill is flawed, but we need to pass it anyway. The basic argument is that the bill can be improved in the Senate, or improved through other legislation after it is passed into law.

However, what no environmental group will tell you is that they are actively encouraging Democrats to vote against attempts to strengthen the bill via amendments on the House floor. And yet, this is exactly what several sources have told A Siegel is happening:

A good number of people have told me in the past few days that major environmental organization is actively working against strengthening amendments to the bill, stating that those groups are fearful that any actual strengthening will keep the bill from being passed.. Sigh, when asked to go on the record, everyone has said no ... But, different people, different offices, separate conversations saying very similar and reinforcing things.

Now, it would be almost impossible to ever get someone from an environmental group on the record stating that they are working against strengthening the climate change bill. Such information would be extremely damaging to any green group if their membership ever found out.

However, working against the strengthening amendments makes sense from the perspective of many environmental organizations. In their view, almost any bill is worth passing. They need to demonstrate some sort of victory to their membership, and that means passing virtually any climate change bill. Many also believe there is no line in the sand, as long as the bill improves us from the status quo by even 1%. As such, anything that improves the chances of the bill passing, including defeating amendments that would strengthen the bill (and thus potentially reduce the number of conservative Democrats who vote for it), actually needs to be defeated.

Maybe there is some merit to their argument, and I will explore that in a later post. However, even if you agree with the groups working against the strengthening amendments, don't ever expect them to admit to in front of their membership or to a member of the press. The contradiction of some environmental groups actually working against attempts to strengthen climate change legislation is the political reality in which we live, and might be too much for many grassroots activsts to swallow.
Chris Bowers :: Enviro Groups Pushing Against Attempts to Strengthen the Climate Change Bill?

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Enviro Groups Pushing Against Attempts to Strengthen the Climate Change Bill? | 27 comments
Have you seen my Quick Hit yet? (0.00 / 0)
Even Al Gore's group is falling for it. The Alliance for Climate Protection's "Repower America" campaign is urging us to call our Representatives... In support of the final bill. Why aren't they pushing for amendments? Is UCS the only enviro group left with any cajones?

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
Btw... (0.00 / 0)
http://www.openleft.com/viewQu...

Here it is in case you can't see it on the top right. ;-)

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Now this is the right way to do it. (0.00 / 0)
Fortunately, Environment California is hitting hard the right way. They ARE mentioning the threats to weaken the bill. Remember to support them.

Hi Andrew,

It's do or die for President Obama's bold plan to fight global warming. We might see a vote as early as this week in the House.

Right now, I'm in Washington, D.C., as we prepare for one final push to strengthen and pass the Waxman-Markey bill, also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.

But I'm standing up against an army of lobbyists. Big Oil, King Coal and other giant emitters of greenhouse gases have hired more than 2,000 lobbyists. That's almost four lobbyists for every member of Congress.

That's why I need your help today. Actress Amy Smart helped us make this video call to action. Check it out, and push Congress to repower America.

This is an absolutely critical moment for President Obama's plan to cap global warming pollution and repower America with wind, solar and other clean energy technologies of the future.

You can help by checking out this video and passing it along. We need to create momentum to fight back against the lobbyists trying to weaken or stop this critical bill.

If this bill fails or is too weak to stop global warming, it'll be a major setback. Meanwhile, the scientists keep warning us that we're running out of time -- we need to act now.

I hope you join us in taking action now. If we want to leave our children and grandchildren a livable planet, we can't let the coal and oil industry lobbyists stop us, no matter how many hired guns they bring in for the fight.

http://www.environmentcaliforn...

Sincerely,

Dan Jacobson
Environment California Legislative Director
http://www.environmentcaliforn...



Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
OK, and another question... (4.00 / 3)
Why do so many "progressive advocacy groups" always fall for this same BS of "we can't strengthen the bill, or else we'll get nothing"? Hasn't anyone learned from "The Great ENDA Debacle of 2007"? Remember when "LG(and maybe b & t)" groups like HRC threw support behind a weakened Employment Non-Discrimination Act that threw transgender people under the bus? Not only did Bush never even consider it, but it couldn't even get past the Senate anyway!

No matter how "centrist" and watered-down we make a progressive bill, Republicans will almost always oppose it. The radical right will always oppose it. "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" will always spend money to defeat it. So why the hell shoudl we sacrifice our principles if it's morally wrong AND politically stupid?

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

So the choices are: (4.00 / 2)
a) Make some necessary compromises and pass a sweeping piece of legislation that regulates the amount of carbon dioxide we're going to put into the atmosphere over the next 70 years, strengthens efficiency and building standards, and gives us a shot at saving the entire human race,

or

b) pass nothing at all and take the risk that climate change legislation will go the way of health care in the 90's - that is, suffer a humiliating defeat and go away for more than a decade.

Wow, that's a hard one.

Look, I'm all for "making them do it," so let's agitate to strengthen what we've got here. And there is certainly a debate to be had over whether W-M in its current form is worth passing. But that fact is debatable. There are compelling arguments on both sides. Many environmental organizations believe that it's crucial that it does get passed - and they're doing everything they can to make that happen, including making the choice to pass a bill in the House that has already been vetted by conservative Democrats.

But how does it serve us to demonize differences over strategy as if they were differences over ideology? How does it serve us to imply that our allies are both "morally wrong and politically stupid"?

[ Parent ]
Not quite. (4.00 / 1)
More like:

a) Sit on our hands and allow a horribly weakened Waxman-Markey (which was already compromised before Collin Peterson gutted it some more) that does little to regulate CO2 emissions and has loopholes large enough for Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big AgriBusiness to drive Mack trucks through,

or

b) Turn up the heat NOW to strengthen the bill before it's too late.

Wow, that's a hard one.

I'm not a dummy. I know compromise and conciliation are the names of the game in DC, and things can easily get worse in the Senate. But then again, that's why we need to draw a line in the sand somewhere. And honestly, I think it's more effective for us to fight for a stronger bill than allow Waxman-Markey to get watered down some more in the House before it gets completely neutered in the Senate.

And finally, I still stand by my earlier comment. It is morally wrong AND politically stupid for our "allies" to miss out on our best chance ever to pass good climate legislation to only get a heap of watered-down crap.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
There it is again. (0.00 / 0)
But is it morally wrong for them to choose a strategy that you wouldn't pursue? Because that's what your argument boils down to.

I know that my version of the "choice" was a little tendentious. But so is yours. My guess is that these orgs are gambling that it's better to use a carrot than a stick at this point - that the risks of antagonizing people on the fence are greater than what they might gain from browbeating them.

What's more, your "choice" is predicated, first, on a hypothetical "better" bill that we will get if these orgs just start showing some balls, and second, on the premise that this is our only shot at this.

For the first, you're going to have to show me exactly how you'll "strengthen" the bill's provisions. What is the stronger bill you wanted? What will it look like? And do you have the votes?

And as for the second, I think you're half right. This may be our only shot - but only if we fail to pass any bill at all.

You're citing ENDA, I'm citing the '94 health care debacle. But I'm not questioning your ethics or your intelligence merely because you disagree with me.

[ Parent ]
Again, you're missing the point. (0.00 / 0)
First off, take a look at the UCS report:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

This is what we need. But to make it even simpler to understand, these are the lines in the sand that we must draw:

- require 25% of our electric power to come from renewable sources by 2025

- cut car emissions by 20% (from 2005 levels) by 2020

- ensure any "cap and trade" scheme has a "hard" carbon cap

- invest in in real renewables (solar, wind, biomass, tidal, etc.), NOT fake "solutions" like "clean coal" or nuclear

Right now, I'm not seeing much of any of these 4 in the even-more-diluted Waxman-Markey bill. There's not enough stick to enforce the weakened regulations in the bill, and not carrot going to renewable energy (instead, even more giveaways for the fossil fuel industry). We need to lower our carbon emissions by at least 80% by 2050 to avert any worsening of the climate crisis. This bill in its present form does not do that.

So why should we be happy about a bill that does little to stop the coming climate crisis? How much better is little than nothing? And why are we placing limitations on ourselves by not lobbying harder for a better bill?

And if you want to talk about health care, let's talk about why it was thwarted in 1993. It was a complicated hot mess that wasn't easy to understand. Conservative Democrats gained the upper hand as progressives didn't mobilize. And finally, the sick care industry spent millions to demonize it.

However, things are different now. Progressives are more mobilized and conservatives are in a mess. We've actually done the hard work and organized a good campaign for real universal health care. We may finally see real progress this year because of it.

Maybe if we stop capitulating and actually start organize for what we really want, we'll get what we really need. Stop thinking about "what we're allowed to do" and think about what we need to survive.



Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
RE: (0.00 / 0)
No matter how "centrist" and watered-down we make a progressive bill, Republicans will almost always oppose it. The radical right will always oppose it. "The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy" will always spend money to defeat it. So why the hell shoudl we sacrifice our principles if it's morally wrong AND politically stupid?

Because the conservative Democrats, the Blue Dogs, actually are a swing vote, meaning their votes actually are won or lost based on the particulars of the legislation?

You must have known you were making a straw man argument there.

[ Parent ]
Oh, the Blue Dogs... (0.00 / 0)
You mean the Blue Dogs that were elected with progressive support? The Blue Dogs that owe their political careers to progressives? Them? Our survival is at stake, and we don't need their stupid games.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
Friends of the Earth is fighting back (4.00 / 4)

Congress has a historic opportunity this year to pass legislation that dramatically reduces greenhouse gas pollution and puts us on a path to clean energy. Unfortunately, that opportunity could be squandered this week when a deeply flawed bill comes to the House floor.

Join us in asking your member of Congress to vote against this bill unless it is substantially strengthened.

The co-sponsors, Reps. Waxman and Markey, based their bill on a "blueprint" from a coalition that includes not only Shell and Duke Energy but also plenty of other prominent corporate polluters.

Then they had to strike deal after deal in order to gain support from powerful Democrats allied with polluting special interests (chief among them are Reps. Rick Boucher -- a coal industry crony -- and Collin Peterson -- in bed with corporate agribusiness).

This should be a red flag for those of us who care deeply about the health of our climate. This bill is not the answer.

The Waxman-Markey bill showers polluting and irresponsible corporations with hundreds of billions of dollars but doesn't require them to reduce pollution fast enough or enough overall to avoid devastating climate change impacts.

Worse, the bill guts the EPA's preexisting authority to use the Clean Air Act to reduce pollution. The loss of this EPA authority would mean the disappearance of an already-available tool to fight dirty coal-fired power plants. That means in its current form, passing the bill would actually be a step backward.

We can't afford to take a step backward -- send a message to your representative today and demand a better bill.

We need much stronger legislation from Congress that puts us on a path to the clean energy future President Obama spoke of during his campaign. Unfortunately, it appears too many members of Congress are content to let the tired, special-interest driven politics of the past block real progress. Help us let Congress know this is unacceptable. We have to do better.

Sincerely,
Brent, Erich, Michelle and the rest of the Friends of the Earth team


Thank gawd! (0.00 / 0)
At least someone else gets it. That's it. Whatever I was planning on sending LCV will be going to Friends of the Earth instead. Btw, has Sierra Club said anything on Waxman-Markey yet?

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.
[ Parent ]
according to Bill Scher (4.00 / 1)
Sierra Club is still on board with the bill:

http://tiny.cc/cxX9C

Friends of the Earth are on the ball--I'll take their assessment over LCV's any day.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

[ Parent ]
Sierra Club has been supporting strengthening amendments (0.00 / 0)

As [part of a coalition, including 1Sky, ACORN, MOveOn.com, Oxfam, Rock the Vote and USAction, pushing for three specific changes:


1) require utilities to generate more power from renewables and implement more energy-efficiency measures
2)preserve the Environmental Protection Agency's authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act
3)reduce the number of pollution permits given away to free to industry

http://www.grist.org/article/2...

Reps Keith Ellison and Chellie Pingree, working with the coalition, and co-signers sent a Dear Colleague letter in support
http://www.1sky.org/files/Ping...
Call your rep NOW to support the strenthening amendments.

There is no such thing as a free market.

[ Parent ]
What does it mean that "the perfect is the enemy (4.00 / 2)
of the good," when the "good" is nowhere "good" enough?
I always hated that expression (4.00 / 2)
It is a cop out for those willing to put up with mediocrity.

With the majorities we have right now in the senate and especially the house we should be shooting for the stars with this shit.

[ Parent ]
Our 60 seats in the Senate includes Nelson, Landrieu, Pryor, and Lincoln. (0.00 / 0)
And that's on a day when we have Franken, Kennedy, and Byrd all in the chamber as well.

If you have a plan for whipping them, or you think the President can do it, then we're talking.  But there are almost no votes for anything worth doing on the GOP side, so any road to legislation goes through those four, and the Blue Dogs in the House.  

[ Parent ]
One word... (4.00 / 1)
Reconciliation.

If it's good enough for health care and the budget, then it's good enough for climate change.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
There's only one bit worth keeping out of that phrase (4.00 / 2)
The bit about enemies.

For outside observers, it's not about accepting a compromise. It won't be offered to us. We just have to regard those thwarting our policy objectives as the enemy, and act accordingly to try to defeat them.

Manichean polarisation is a very bad idea when formulating policy, as Bush demonstrated comprehensively. But for resolving simple discrete problems of legislative votes, it's the only effective method.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

[ Parent ]
Bill Scher made this argument (4.00 / 2)
We can't strengthen the bill, because the coalition supporting it will fall apart if good amendments are passed:

http://tiny.cc/cxX9C

I didn't find his post persuasive.


Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

Me, neither. (4.00 / 1)
I especially find this disingenuous.

The missing ingredient throughout this process has always been grassroots intensity, which has been depressed thanks to the fractured environmental community and lack of attention from both traditional media and progressive media.

Now yes, it's true that the "Drill, Baby, Drill!" corporate media aren't helping. However, the grassroots has always been engaged. Where exactly has Mr. Scher been? Maybe the reason why there isn't so much "grassroots intensity" behind Waxman-Markey is because they aren't giving us much reason to be "intense" in our support. Perhaps if they let us be more "intense" in pushing for a better bill, then we the progressive grassroots will then be more "intense" in our effort to pass it.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Yeah, it's not like there was a big push to get public opinion, was there? (4.00 / 2)
He's right to point to the fractured green groups, though. That's the problem and it's the natural result of 30+ years of pluralistic business models these groups still can't get out of, because it would mean altering (to some extent) their business models.

But we all knew this bill was coming up back in January and since then the enviro groups were either asleep or making only the most modest noises about it. No big push, no national ad campaigns, no nuthin' in terms of the Big Picture. Collectively, these groups have a lot of money. But instead, they prefer sending me friggin' pens, blankets and crappy day packs I'll never use, along with 12 pounds of wasted paper in mass mailings a month.

Scher is representing, in a way, the "mainstream" thinking of green lobbies. They don't want to piss people off and lose access, just like the presstitutes in the DC Press Corpse. They're so cowered by this mentality, they've really softened their tone and this is the natural result.

Given that this is easily the most urgent issue facing all of us today, one would think perhaps a broader effort would have been coordinated on this bill. Even the original version wasn't all that great, in terms of actually reducing CO2 emissions, but it rather looks like the bill that will go to a vote is almost worse than doing nothing. But hey, at least the nuclear power industry will reap $1 Billion a year in new taxpayer funded profits, eh? That's something!

Bottom line: we need to reduce emissions by at least 40% over the next decade. With this bill, we might get 2-5%? FAIL!

Hey, I'm ranting! Perhaps it's time to lay off, eh?

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
It's OK to rant... (0.00 / 0)
And better yet, it's OK to channel that anger into action. That's what we must do to get a better climate bill.

You also make a great point. Bill Scher confused the grassroots with the "establishment" enviro lobby. Again, we've always been engaged and we've been pushing our electeds to act on the climate crisis.

But even though we were acting, the "establishment" groups were the ones quietly acquiescing to the ConservaDems and conceding that "this is all we can get". Where were they when UCS scientists testified on Capitol Hill? Or when Al Gore testified? Where were they when activists across the country were asking their members of Congress to act on the climate crisis?

Oh yes, they were probably at another big DNC fundraiser or doing another gala dinner patting themselves on the back. Perhaps instead of lobbying for access, they need to get back to their roots and push for real progress on what may be the greatest global security threat of our time.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
Lobbying is still a job. (4.00 / 1)
Lobbyists are just like anyone else with a job they want to keep. It's what their bosses tell them to do that matters. Where are the Exec Directors in all this?

With the big green groups, they've got lots of money. They still can't compete with the polluters on The Hill, though. So they've accepted that and just keep plugging away, accepting their second-class status.

So your characterization seems quite apt to me.

But what Big Pollution has in money, Big Green has in numbers. Why there wasn't a massive summit on this bill in January or even December, where groups can put together numbers, messaging and a freakin' plan, is beyond me. It's just stupid, IMO.

The whole point of grassroots organizing, as I was trained a long time ago, was to negate all that corporate money with human numbers. Well, if they aren't raising hell with their memberships, where's the influence going to come from?

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

[ Parent ]
Offshore drilling is actually somewhat popular (0.00 / 0)
As much as we like to mock the "drill, baby, drill" line, people want to see offshore drilling.  Consider a 2008 CNN poll asking "How do you feel about increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters? Do you strongly favor, mildly favor, mildly oppose or strongly oppose increased offshore drilling?"  52% strongly favor and 22% mildly favor the idea.  That's 74% in favor of offshore drilling, which is in the same range as recently cited numbers about a public option in health care.  The same poll found 59% in favor of drilling in ANWR.

However, there's no populist anger that in any way threatens incumbents, so Democrats are generally free to oppose offshore drilling.  The same is true for Waxman-Markey.  There is no "grassroots intensity" that threatens to make life difficult for politicians.  Until environmental groups can present a credible threat, unless they can be a clear and present danger to a politician's power, they're kind of useless in these legislative fights.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Well, NRDC needs some perceptual guidance from its members, eh? (4.00 / 2)
I really didn't like the equivocation in that quote in the GESN piece. I did like the post though and will bookmark that blog. Is that what I pay them for? Um, no.

So NRDC will get a "firmly worded" missive from me. Damn, they're one of my favorite groups too. In addition, I received an email survey from Defenders of Wildlife a few days ago and I participated in it.

Nowhere was global warming mentioned, so I clicked on Other and put in a nice rant about that. Polite, but firmly disapproving of this oversight. I'll not renew with them. If I have to explain to them why global warming makes all their other projects moot, then they have a real problem.

I think the environmental "movement" orgs need a wake-up call from its bill-paying, salary-paying members. We should reward those who make the best efforts, by taking money from those who are simply too cowardly to do the right thing. It's natural selection, right?

Looks like I'm going to have a little more money to put elsewhere this year. Reward good behavior!

When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.

-- Frederic Bastiat, "The Law", 1850

If Obama arguably has the power to institute... (0.00 / 0)
cap and trade or some other method to regulate carbon emissions under the Clean Air Act or Endangered Species Act, doesn't the bill's provisions removing that authority from the EPA make the bill worse than the status quo?

John McCain won't insure children
Enviro Groups Pushing Against Attempts to Strengthen the Climate Change Bill? | 27 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox