Photo illustration by Tom Twigg / Grist[Updated: June 1, 2009]
The Waxman-Markey climate and energy bill, now moving through the House, is polarizing the environmental community. Longtime climate crusader Al Gore says we should do all we can to get the legislation passed; top climate scientist James Hansen says we should demand a different, better bill. Activists and environmental groups are picking sides or staking out positions in the middle.
In this corner, Al Gore!
“I think they’ve maintained the integrity of the bill. In its current form as I understand it, I have no doubt that it will accomplish the result we need to begin this transition toward renewable energy, conservation, efficiency, and renewed U.S. leadership in global negotiations.”
— Al Gore
Gore says the bill is a good starting point, and that efforts to reach compromise on it have boosted its chances of passing both the House and the Senate. “The key role of the legislation is to begin that shift [to lower emissions],” he said. “Once it begins, it will be unstoppable.”
On Gore’s team:
- Audubon
- Business for Innovative Climate and Energy Policy
- Center for American Progress Action Fund
- Ceres
- Environmental Defense Fund
- League of Conservation Voters
- Pew Center on Global Climate Change [PDF]
- U.S. Climate Action Partnership [PDF]
- World Resources Institute
Arguments in favor of the bill:
- President Obama says the bill will lead the country toward a new clean-energy economy
- David Roberts says the bill is a good step forward
- Joseph Romm gives the bill a B and says we should support it
- Paul Krugman says the bill isn’t ideal but is “vastly better than no bill at all”
… and in this corner, James Hansen!
“The revised Waxman-Markey climate bill is too watered down to qualify as a positive step for avoiding catastrophic climate disruption.”
— James Hansen
Hansen proposes instead a “tax and dividend” approach that would tax fossil fuels at the point of extraction and distribute the revenue from that tax to citizens. That’s just one of many approaches being promoted by bill opponents.
On Hansen’s team:
- Center for Biological Diversity
- Greenpeace USA
- Friends of the Earth
- Rainforest Action Network
- A number of local and regional environmental groups allied as the CLEAN campaign
Arguments against the bill:
- Daphne Wysham says the bill offers too many giveaways to industry and just plain “stinks”
- Mike Tidwell says the bill gives away too much to utilities
- Charles Komanoff says a carbon tax would be much better than a cap-and-trade system
- Baruch Fischhoff says a revenue-neutral energy tax is the way to go
The middle ground: Make it stronger
Many environmental groups are calling for lawmakers to “strengthen and support” the bill — but if the bill isn’t strengthened, or if it’s actually weakened further, it’s unclear whether they’ll support it. (Some organizations are simultaneously saying “vote yes” and “fix it,” so we’ve listed them as both on Gore’s team and in the middle; we welcome clarification from any group on its team of choice.)
- 1Sky
- American Rivers
- Apollo Alliance
- Audubon
- Blue Green Alliance
- Center for American Progress Action Fund
- Clean Water Action
- Climate Solutions
- Defenders of Wildlife
- Earthjustice
- Environment America
- League of Conservation Voters
- National Parks Conservation Association
- National Wildlife Federation
- Natural Resources Defense Council
- Oceana
- Pew Environment Group
- Sierra Club
- The Nature Conservancy
- The Wilderness Society
- Union of Concerned Scientists
- U.S. Climate Action Partnership [PDF]
- World Wildlife Fund
- Public Citizen [UPDATE: Public Citizen was initially listed as opposed to the bill, but as Andy Wilson explains in a comment below, the group considers itself more aligned with the “strengthen it” camp, even though it has vocally critized many aspects of the bill.]
