Climate Politics

Facing big obstacles, environmental movement can’t afford division

I'm excited that Environmental Defense is now saying publicly, in response to criticism from Matt Stoller and me, that it "has not endorsed" the Lieberman-Warner bill and that it "will work to strengthen the bill, particularly to achieve the deeper long-term emissions reductions scientists tell us we need to avoid a climate catastrophe."

That's great, but I must note it's a sentiment that was distinctly lacking from the statement ED put out in response to the bill, which mainly offered a passionate defense, or the fund-raising letter it sent out to activists (thanks Roger Smith for posting this). True, it did include one line that said, "This bill is a good start in that direction [of 80 percent emissions deductions], and we will continue to work in that direction." But the clear implication was that they would push for those commitments through some future legislative mechanism.

In contrast, almost every other major environmental group gave the bill qualified praise, but also clearly stated that the bill should be improved to get the maximum possible greenhouse-gas reductions (I do wish Environmental Defense had acknowledged this difference a little more explicitly in its post rather than just doing selective quoting -- let's try to be fair here!). That's the right strategy, and I'm psyched that Environmental Defense is now on board.

Winner to receive unimaginable riches, fame

Leave a caption for this image in comments. The winner, chosen via our highly scientific process, will receive a prize worth somewhere between nothing and two gazillion dollars.

White House warns Democrats of energy bill veto

I mentioned that the Bush White House sent a letter to Congressional Democrats last week, regarding what it would find acceptable for an energy bill. I’ve gotten a copy of the letter, from a top-secret source who risked his career, his family, even his life bringing this information to light. Thanks Adam! Let me know […]

Evangelicals gather in D.C. and reaffirm that climate is not their focus

In D.C., the Values Voters Summit is in full swing. For those not familiar, the summit is a who’s-who gathering of the modern-day religious right, where Republican presidential candidates come to beg, plead, and pander for evangelical support. This is of some interest to greens, because there’s been a ton of talk over the last […]

Overlap in supervision allows sea turtles to slip through the cracks

Ask any number of surfers, divers, and ocean-goers of all stripes what one of their favorite ocean critters is, and chances are a good percentage of them will mention sea turtles.

Environmental Defense responds on Lieberman-Warner support

The following is a guest post from Tony Kreindler of Environmental Defense.

-----

Glenn Hurowitz writes that Environmental Defense has "abandoned other green groups" by voicing support for climate change legislation introduced last week by Senators Joe Lieberman and John Warner. "Environmental Defense is once again destroying the unity of the environmental movement by endorsing this bill now despite some major weaknesses," he says.

For the record, Environmental Defense has not endorsed the Lieberman-Warner bill, America's Climate Security Act. We've certainly praised parts of it we think work well, and we've given the authors what we think is well-deserved credit for making a serious attempt to get comprehensive climate change legislation passed in this Congress. We've also said we will work to strengthen the bill, particularly to achieve the deeper long-term emissions reductions scientists tell us we need to avoid a climate catastrophe. We may do that differently than some, but we will do it.

Has Environmental Defense broken from the pack? All environmental groups have specific views on the bill's strengths and weaknesses, which can't fully be captured in the following quotes, but let's take a look at what some other environmental groups had to say about the bill:

Ad of the day

Click image for more info:

Sam Brownback drops out of presidential race

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback dropped out of the presidential race today, having failed to gain many fans or much moola — or develop much of an environmental platform. If you want to ponder what might have been, check out the eco-focused interview Grist conducted with Brownback this fall and the fact sheet we compiled on […]

Bush threatens to veto Democratic energy bill

According to this article in Roll Call (sub. rqd.), on Monday President Bush sent Congressional Democrats a letter with a list of demands regarding what must be or not be in the energy bill in order to avoid his veto. Among the demands: no increase in taxes (i.e., no repealing tax giveaways to oil companies) […]

Sandalow explains the ins and outs of oil dependency

For years, I have been looking for a good, readable book on the oil problem and its solution -- just as I'd been looking for a good book on clean technology. Well, I found the Clean Tech book in August, and now I've found the oil book.

It is Freedom from Oil, by Brookings scholar and White House veteran David Sandalow. It is an unqualified success -- cleverly told as a series of policy memos from the cabinet of a near-future President, who begins the book by telling his staff:

I plan to deliver an address from the Oval Office one month from today. The topic will be oil dependence.

In the breathless narrative that follows, you learn the stripped-down facts about oil dependency, plus the growing strategic and environmental danger posed by oil dependency -- and key solutions like plug-in hybrids and revised CAFE standards (as well as stories of fascinating figures in the oil game). You get a "unique window into the White House at work" from a former assistant secretary of state and senior director on the National Security Council staff.

Sandalow's President ultimately offers an aggressive plan to free the country from oil dependence, which includes: