by Jonathan Hiskes
When Sens. John Kerry
(D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled their long-awaited American Power Act last week, it drew two sharply different responses from two collections of
activist groups.
Two hundred groups that
might be called “little green” immediately condemned the climate and energy
bill in a joint
letter, calling it “greenwashing in the extreme.” The coalition consists of
regional environmental, peace, and religious groups—such as Don’t Waste
Arizona, the Snake River Alliance, and the Turtle Island Restoration Network.
“This bill is just
business-as-usual: taxpayer giveaways to giant nuclear and other energy
corporations wrapped in the guise of doing something about our climate crisis,”
they wrote.
Big Green issued its own
statement the same morning. It was neither an endorsement nor an attack on
the bill. It was thoroughly—impressively—devoid of any clear opinion of the
bill.
“It is time for
America’s leaders to get serious … the Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet
another reminder … President Obama and leaders of both parties in Congress must
provide the leadership necessary to develop a clean energy and climate
solution,” said the joint letter from 23 larger and more D.C.-centric groups,
including Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Sierra Club, Audubon, and the
League of Conservation Voters.
The Kerry-Lieberman
bill is undoubtedly flawed from an environmental perspective; in addition to
giveaways for the nuclear, oil, and coal industries, there are the weak
emission-reduction targets and the heavy reliance on carbon offsets. Every
concession to polluter interests was added in hopes of luring enough
fossil-fuel-beholden senators to reach the painfully difficult 60-vote
threshold. That’s considered the only realistic way to pass a climate bill in
2010. Kerry, in
a Grist post, implored greens not to slam the bill because it’s too weak,
saying it’s better to get started with an imperfect bill.
This all puts green
groups in the thorny position of having to either endorse flawed,
compromise-laden legislation or oppose the closest thing to a decent climate
bill we’re going to see this year, and perhaps for years to come. Many big green groups will probably end up
supporting the bill, but don’t want to tip their hand while there’s still a
chance to improve it. Hence the awkward non-comment last week. Many
activist-oriented groups—including the 200 signees and notable big dogs Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth—have
already made their opposition known.
Last fall groups mocked cap-and-trade programs by handing out $2 trillion “carbon market” bills.Courtesy Climate SOSThis is far from the first
inter-movement dispute among green groups. Last fall I reported on a “no
compromise” faction of liberal groups that attacked Al Gore, the Waxman-Markey
House bill, and carbon markets that allow polluters to buy and sell
emissions credits. They argued that larger environmental groups had given away
too much in collaborating with businesses and Democratic lawmakers. Reps from
EDF, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for American
Progress found this, shall we say, annoying.
Two kinds of hope
So which approach is,
y’know, better for saving the earth?
It’s worth noting that
all the groups involved have shown they understand the scientific urgency of an
aggressive clean-energy plan. And they all want President Obama to use his
bully pulpit to give the issue more attention. The disagreement is about
political strategy.
At first blush, the
left wing of the environmental movement seems to have the more optimistic approach,
refusing to settle for a faulty bill and betting that it can create a
groundswell of support for more hard-hitting climate legislation over the
coming year or two—enough to force members of Congress to turn its way, or
force out members of Congress who
don’t.
The Big Green groups look
to have the more pessimistic approach by supporting a crappy
bill. They say they don’t see a path
to a better one in the immediate future. Even getting the Kerry-Lieberman bill passed
would be a
huge uphill battle. And with Republicans poised to gain a number of seats
in both the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections, the chances of
passing any climate bill at all next year or the year after—let alone a
better bill than Kerry-Lieberman—seem even more remote.
Here’s the
counter-argument: Big Green is embracing a different kind of optimism. They are
banking on the notion that building a clean-energy economy will be cheaper and easier
than expected, and that once we get started, even with weak half-measures,
success will follow upon success.
David
Roberts explained this view last week: “Right now, policy is being
made out of fear: fear by the private sector that decarbonization will be a
crushing burden; fear by consumers that their energy prices will skyrocket;
fear by politicians that the project will prove electorally
unpopular.” But there are
“huge opportunities for low-cost (or negative-cost) emission reductions
just waiting to be exploited,” he argues. If a weak bill gets that process
started, it can alleviate fears, begin moving the country in the direction of a
clean-energy economy, and make it easier to pass stronger legislation down the
line.
So either camp can
claim to be more hopeful—one in the short term and one in the long term.
The problem is that by
working against each other, they sap enthusiasm for building a popular movement
for climate action. Lots of Americans would like to see the U.S. move toward a
clean-energy economy and address the climate threat—61 percent of respondents
said so in
a recent poll. But squabbles among environmentalists risk turning them off.
And building a diverse movement
should be goal No. 1, according to author and 350.org organizer Bill McKibben. He argues that lawmakers don’t yet feel pressure from
the public to take the climate threat seriously. “There are lots and lots and
lots of groups lobbying Congress,” he told
Grist in January. “But Congress members are good at telling whether
there’s anything behind that lobbying or not. I think we have to figure out how
to put some pressure behind that lobbying.” Until then, he argues, the focus on
Congress is premature.
He may be right that
movement-building—the focus
of 350.org—is the long-term imperative. But there’s a bill in the Senate
that demands a response right now.
So how should environmental
organizations and concerned citizens respond to the bill? What’s the best way to built momentum toward
a strong climate movement? And how do we get started with solutions as soon as
possible?
Related Links:
David Brooks to old folks: cities are better now
U.S. bans more Gulf fishing as oil fears grow for Florida
