I learned last week that Senator Sherrod Brown (D-OH) is floating the idea of stopping EPA's work to reduce carbon dioxide pollution for at least one year.
To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. I have known and admired Senator Sherrod Brown for years, and I respect his track record on defending the environment.
Sherrod's consideration of undermining the EPA's ability to keep our air free from pollution doesn't jibe with his past positions or with what's good for Ohio's economy and for its residents' health.
And it certainly doesn't match up with what I know of Sherrod Brown's leadership.
I first met Senator Brown when he was in the House and I worked for another member of the Ohio delegation. Both members served on the Energy and Commerce Committee. During the long committee hearings, members often left to attend other events, but Hill staffers had to stick around to listen. Staffers aren't allowed to speak at committee meetings-only members can-so when we would hear witnesses making inaccurate statements or exaggerating the facts, we felt powerless to correct the record.
That was until we realized we could turn to Sherrod Brown. He was one of the few members who would sit through the bulk of hearings, and we could always trust him to correct the record when the speaker was off the mark, we could count on him to challenge falsehoods-especially when it came to environmental issues.
More recently, Senator Brown has been a supporter of clean energy-something that has been very good for Ohio. In fact, Ohio is the best in the Midwest when it comes to green job growth. Toledo and Cleveland have led the way by transforming struggling auto-parts factories into manufacturing centers of solar panels, wind turbines, and advanced batteries.
These opportunities led Senator Brown to play an active roll drafting comprehensive clean energy and climate legislation that would have cut global warming pollution and brought as much as $5.6 billion in investment revenue and 67,000 new jobs to Ohio.
Unfortunately, that legislation never made it to the floor. So why would Brown want to put put on hold the only chance we have right now for cutting carbon dioxide pollution? The only thing likely to be different a year from now is that one more year of pollutants will be in our air and businesses will have suffered through another year of renewed uncertainty about the standards they will have to meet.
And EPA has not put in place some Draconian plan. All that's being required is that new plants, or plants undergoing major changes install the latest, affordable equipment. Why would we want new plants to be dirtier than they have to be?
We shouldn't stop work already underway to clean up our air and tackle climate change while we wait for Congress to get its act together. And Congressional "delays" tend to be extended year after year. Before we know it, America will be four or five years further behind in confronting the worst environmental, economic, and national security challenge of our time.
That isn't something the Brown I know would want. And it's not something the people of Ohio should want. Ohio has one of the best clean energy stories to tell in the nation. Confronting climate change and shifting to more sustainable energy will bring more jobs to your state and make the hard-working families of Ohio healthier.
When your children are sick, you don't stop giving them the medicine they need because a better product might be available someday. Heck, you don't even wait for your kids to GET SICK if you can take pre-emptive action to avoid it.
Sherrod Brown can stand up for the health and welfare of Ohio's families by working WITH the EPA to make sure implementation of the Clean Air Act is successful in bringing standards up-to-date to protect public health and drive innovation. That is the leadership we need.
This blog was originally posted on the NRDC Action Fund blog, The Markup.
Today's Washington Post features a very important op-ed by NRDC Action Fund board member and former House Science Committee chairman Sherwood Boehlert, a Republican who represented New York's 24th congressional district for over two decades before retiring in 2007. Surveying the incoming class of Republicans, Boehlert worries that a stance of global warming denial has become all but synonymous with his party's identity. He issues a resonant plea for a change of course:
I call on my fellow Republicans to open their minds to rethinking what has largely become our party's line: denying that climate change and global warming are occurring and that they are largely due to human activities.
The GOP needn't stake its reputation on climate denial, Boehlert argues. It's perfectly possible to be a Republican who doesn't support certain policy suggestions, but who still accepts that greenhouse gas emissions cause climate change. That is, disagreeing about climate policy is one thing, but rejecting climate science, despite overwhelming evidence, is something else:
I can understand arguments over proposed policy approaches to climate change. I served in Congress for 24 years. I know these are legitimate areas for debate. What I find incomprehensible is the dogged determination by some to discredit distinguished scientists and their findings.
Boehlert took climate science, and climate scientists, very seriously. He called them to testify, listened to what they had to say, worked to understand the nuances and uncertainties of the various issues.
But there are widespread fears that in the next Congress, we'll see a very different approach: attempts to assassinate the character of climate researchers, rather than calling upon them to provide useful information to aid in policymaking. Boehlert warns against this scandal-mongering tack:
The new Congress should have a policy debate to address facts rather than a debate featuring unsubstantiated attacks on science. We shouldn't stand by while the reputations of scientists are dragged through the mud in order to win a political argument.
In these intensely partisan times, Boehlert's voice is a rare but essential one. He helps underscore the fact that there are still many Republicans who want to have science and reason lead the way when it comes to dealing with our entwined climate and energy problems. Clean energy isn't a partisan issue. And when it comes to the reality of climate change, we can't afford to distort the debate with false information.
There's a better way-and Boehlert outlines it. Let's hope his Op-ed is widely read during this time of congressional transition.
(This diary hits at a theme I've hit on recently, but it can't be hit on ofen enough. - promoted by Paul Rosenberg)
The floods in Pakistan are now believed to have affected twenty million people, fully 11% of the population. The case can be made that Islamic extremism hot spots Afghanistan and Somalia, both under pressure of drought in the years before their implosion, were actually the first to tumble. Pakistan appears to be the next climate domino set to fall.
Already our Pentagon, driven by profiteering defense contractors, has begun to apply the rhetorical devices of the Cold War to describe the consequences of climate change. See my clever title? Yes, indeed, we need to expand defense spending to be ready for the War On Climate Change(tm).
Or we can extract our heads from our hindquarters and come up with a rational response.
The political process has failed. Cap and trade legislation is dead in this Congress.
Kerry and Reid said as much last week. They said they don't have the votes in the Senate, so instead of introducing the legislation before the August recess, Reid will introduce a very minor energy bill instead, and that's it. Technically, the comprehensive legislation could still be offered in September, but the vote becomes more difficult, and less likely, as the election approaches. If they thought they had the votes, they would introduce it now. They don't have the votes, they don't expect to get them, and barring a miracle, after this November there will be no chance to get them. The legislative effort is dead. Our political system has failed to respond to the greatest challenge of our time.
The political process has failed. Cap and trade legislation is dead in this Congress.
Kerry and Reid said as much this week. They said they don't have the votes in the Senate, so instead of introducing the legislation before the August recess, Reid will introduce a very minor energy bill instead, and that's it. Technically, the comprehensive legislation could still be offered in September, but the vote becomes more difficult, and less likely, as the election approaches. If they thought they had the votes, they would introduce it now. They don't have the votes, they don't expect to get them, and barring a miracle, after this November there will be no chance to get them. The legislative effort is dead. Our political system has failed to respond to the greatest challenge of our time.
The Murkowski resolution to strip the EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse gases was just defeated in the Senate by a vote of 47 in favor, 53 opposed.
All 41 Republicans voted in favor. Six Democrats also voted in favor: Evan Bayh (IN), Mary Landrieu (LA), Blanche Lincoln (AR), Ben Nelson (NE), Mark Pryor (AR) and Jay Rockefeller (WV).
he amount of energy wasted on blocking a Murkowski amt that will never become law could reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30%
Meanwhile, Digby has a good take on why Republicans would pick a quixotic fight such as this:
There seems to be some confusion as to why the Republicans would introduce this clean air bill they know can't pass a presidential veto, but it isn't really all that hard to figure out. Republicans often do this when there's a Democrat in the White House to highlight the differences with the administration and draw contrasts with the Democrats, even though they know they will lose. It also shows fealty to their Big Money donors and tells their base that they are "principled."
Good for them.
Anyway, I am glad this distracting fight is over, and my twitter feed is reclaimed. Let's return to debating legislation that might actually have a chance at passing into law.
I grew up in the rural parts of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, two relatively conservative areas. Most of my friends and family are tried-and-true Republicans so it was assumed that I would follow suit. When I started working for a Democratic Congressman in college, one very prominent male figure in my family explained the oddity with a shrug (channeling Churchill) saying "If you are a Republican when you are in college, you have no heart. But if you are a Democrat when you are older, you have no mind."
On Thursday afternoon, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) pulled out a rarely-used Congressional tool in an attempt to keep the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating carbon and other greenhouse gasses. Sen. Murkowski offered a "resolution of disapproval" of the EPA's impending action, which would limit companies' carbon emissions.
The resolution would overturn the EPA's finding that carbon dioxide is harmful to the public health. Three Democrats-Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA)-joined Sen. Murkowski and 35 Republicans in sponsoring the resolution.
"Ms. Murkowski's Mischief'"
"This command and control approach is our worst option for reducing the gasses associated with climate change," said Sen. Murkowski on the floor of the Senate yesterday. She called the EPA's actions "backdoor climate regulations with no input from Congress" and said they would damage the country's flailing economy.
The EPA first announced in April 2009 that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses posed a threat to the public health. The agency formalized that finding last month, giving itself the power to regulate emissions of greenhouse gasses under the Clean Air Act. In March 2010, for instance, the agency is expected to announce carbon emissions rules for the auto industry that would match California's higher standards. Sen. Murkowski's resolution would derail that process.
Sen. Murkowski argued that she wants to give Congress room to come up with a legislative solution to climate change, but her critics see a more dangerous tilt to her resolution. "It's a radical attempt by the legislative branch to interfere with executive branch scientists," writes David Roberts at Grist.
Responding to "Ms. Murskowski's mischief" on the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) called the resolution an "unprecedented effort to overturn scientific decision" and "a direct assault on the health of the American people."
Resolution of disapproval
What is a "resolution of disapproval?" Grist's Roberts called it "the nuclear option."
"It would rescind the EPA's endangerment finding entirely and thereby eliminate its authority over both mobile and stationary sources," Roberts explains. "Furthermore, the administration would be prohibited from passing a regulation "substantially the same" as the one overruled, so the constraint on the EPA would effectively be permanent."
This type of resolution was created by the Clinton-era Congressional Reform Act. The resolution has one big advantage: It cannot be filibustered. Passage requires only a majority in both houses of Congress. Members have tried using it in the past to delay the Dubai Ports World deal, derail FCC regulations on new media, and stop the flow of bailout funds.
Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones has been following Sen. Murkowski's actions closely. She reports that "Senate supporters of climate action say Murkowski could obtain the votes of moderate Democrats from coal, oil, and manufacturing states. However, a resolution would still need to be approved by the House and signed by the president-both long shots, to put it mildly. 'I think we're a little worried about [Murkowski's resolution] winning. I'm not sure we're worried about it becoming law,' a Senate Democratic staffer says."
But Grist's Roberts argues that passage in the Senate alone would be a problem. "Even if blocked by the House or vetoed by the president, such a public, bipartisan slap at the administration would be highly embarrassing and demoralizing," Roberts writes. "It would mean at least ten conservative Democrats washing their hands of the administration's initiative."
Climate change and Congress
Sen. Murkowski insists that she's still ready to work with her colleagues on climate change and that it's better to approach the problem of climate change via legislation, not regulation.
But no one in Washington believes that climate change legislation is going to pass-even come to the Senate floor-any time soon. The issue was already in line behind health care, and the election of Republican candidate Scott Brown to Sen. Ted Kennedy's Massachusetts seat this week means that none of the bills that the Senate is working on are likely to come to a vote this year.
"There was hope that the [climate] bill would come to the floor in the spring," writes Steve Benen at Washington Monthly. "Regrettably, a narrow majority of Massachusetts voters have made it significantly more likely that Congress won't address the problem at all. Proponents focused on solutions have vowed to "persist," but Massachusetts has made a difficult situation considerably worse."
The role of special interests
Sen. Murkowski has come under criticism for allowing Bush-era EPA administrators, now lobbyists representing clients on climate change issues, to help her craft an earlier amendment cracking down on the EPA. Yesterday, she said that those criticisms are "categorically false."
But as JP Leous reports at Care2, Sen. Murkowski does receive substantial backing from energy industries that oppose climate change legislation and regulation.
"According to OpenSecrets.org Sen. Murkowski has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from polluting companies, and some of her biggest campaign contributors in recent years include firms with fossil-fueled motives like Exxon Mobil Corp," Leous writes "Add those dots into the mix and a different picture emerges - and it starts to look like a person who is poised to introduce legislation next week attacking the Clean Air Act."
On the Senate floor yesterday, Sen. Boxer charged, "Why would the Senate get in the business of repealing science? Because that's what the special interests want to have happen now. Because they're desperate."
The Democratic Senators who co-sponsored the resolution also come from energy producing states where companies object to the new EPA regulations.
If at first you don't succeed...
If Sen. Murkowski's resolution does pass the Senate, there's little chance it will pass the House as well. But this isn't the only option that regulation opponents are looking at to fight the EPA. The Chamber of Commerce and other groups are planning to challenge the regulatory action in court, as Mother Jones' Sheppard reports.
Last week, these opponents met to discuss their strategy. What's interesting, Sheppard says, is that "the group was apparently divided on the best course of action. The Hill observes that "two camps have emerged." One wants to challenge whatever rules the EPA issues, while another wants to question the science of global warming itself."
We're back to that old saw? With legislation off the table, the fight over climate change, for now, is in the regulatory arena.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about the environment by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Mulch for a complete list of articles on environmental issues, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Pulse, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The next United Nations climate change conference is almost a year away, and health care is still dominating the legislative agenda in Washington. That means climate reform opponents, from the coal industry to the global warming skeptics, have plenty of time to work, out of the spotlight, to derail progress. Here's a glimpse of the enemies of reform-and the companies and individuals that are still fighting for change in 2010.
A big U.S. congressional delegation is arriving here at the climate summit in Copenhagen next week, and it includes notorious climate science deniers Sen. James Inhofe (R-Big Oil/Oklahoma) and Rep. Joe Barton (R-Big Oil/Texas).
But one of the world's most prominent science deniers -- "Nobel Laureate" "Lord" Christopher Monckton, who provides the "scientific" analysis upon which Barton, Inhofe, and other members of the anti-science crowd depend -- is already here and he's already generating embarrassing headlines for their movement.
Before getting into how Monckton is exposing the anti-science movement's truly fringe character in Copenhagen, I should explain my use of quotes in the previous sentence. Monckton did campaign to become a member of the British House of Lords, but he lost and is not and has never been one. He has no formal scientific training (more on that here). And his "Nobel Peace Prize" was awarded to him not by the Nobel Prize Committee but by "the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York" (presumably Robert Sproull, a member of the board of the anti-science Marshall Institute), who presented Monckton with a fake Nobel pin made of gold. Monckton now calls himself a "Nobel Laureate" on his organization's website, because he "contributed" to an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report sounding the alarm about global warming (even though Monckton claims there is no alarm to be sounded).
Today is "Young and Future Generations Day" here at the International Climate Negotiations in Copenhagen, and I'm here with my wife Wahleah and our two-year-old daughter Tohaana. Along with thousands of other young people, we're doing everything in our power to convince world leaders to commit to a fair, ambitious, and legally binding international agreement based on a target of 350 parts per million (ppm), which is the safe upper limit of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Less than 400 miles away in Oslo, Norway, President Obama is accepting the Nobel Peace Prize "for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples." If ever there was a time and place to live up to that honor, now, in Copenhagen is it.
Four former Nobel Peace Prize winners have endorsed a target of 350ppm. On December 12th, 2008, at the international climate talks in Poznan, Poland, Al Gore (2007 winner) said to a huge crowd: "Even a goal of 450 parts per million, which seems so difficult today, is inadequate. We need to toughen that goal to 350 parts per million."
We fight, even against insurmountable odds, because sometimes we win.
As I get ready to head to Copenhagen this Saturday for the international climate negotiations, I'm thrilled to see the success of The Leadership Campaign and their efforts to have Massachusetts use 100% clean electricity by 2020.
On Monday, Representative William Brownsberger will file their bill, An Act to Re-power Massachusetts, in the Massachusetts House, calling on Gov. Deval Patrick to create a task force to formulate a plan to get Massachusetts to100% clean electricity by 2020.
Today, on November 30, one week before the UN climate negotiations in Copenhagen open, and on the 10th anniversary of the World Trade Organization (WTO) protest in Seattle in 1999, major demonstrations, teach-ins and civil disobedience are taking actions place in cities around the North America. Reports are now starting to come in from all over...
The New York State Senate and Assembly, too often a model of corruption and dysfunctionality, rose above petty politics last week to pass forward-thinking legislation on climate and energy, setting a precedent for bipartisanship and a sensible cap and trade system. The State Senate passed the groundbreaking Green Job/Green New York Act, with strong support from Republicans, Democrats, and the Working Families Party, which spearheaded the legislation. The bill -- expected to be signed into law this week by Gov. David Patterson leverages $112m in revenue from the Northeasts's Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) into $5 billion of private investment to finance home weatherization, energy efficiency projects, and green jobs creation.
Has anyone not heard about the CARS Program and how dealers are complaining that they had to work past midnight many evenings last week due to the rush of demand for new cars?
CFC, Cash For Clunkers (the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) Program), certainly is in the news. Almost no one expected the massive surge of interest in the program such that, within a week, the program required more funding. Now, in the debate about how to stimulate the economy, there has been a divide between those focused on Wall Street (and some form of trickle-down economic theory) and those who argue for focusing on Main Street, getting cash into people's hands to spark retail economic activity that will be respent in the local economy and, eventually, trickle up to Wall Street.
Does this make sense to continue? What are the actual results? What should (could) be improved?
STATE BLOGS
