\n(D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) unveiled their long-awaited American Power Act<\/a> last week, it drew two sharply different responses from two collections of
\nactivist groups.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Two hundred groups that <\/p>\n “This bill is just <\/p>\n Big Green issued its own <\/p>\n “It is time for <\/p>\n The Kerry-Lieberman <\/p>\n This all puts green <\/p>\n Last fall groups mocked cap-and-trade programs by handing out $2 trillion “carbon market” bills.Courtesy Climate SOSThis is far from the first <\/p>\n Two kinds of hope<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n So which approach is, <\/p>\n It’s worth noting that <\/p>\n At first blush, the <\/p>\n The Big Green groups look <\/p>\n Here’s the <\/p>\n David <\/p>\n So either camp can <\/p>\n The problem is that by <\/p>\n And building a diverse movement <\/p>\n He may be right that <\/p>\n So how should environmental Related Links:<\/strong><\/p>\n David Brooks to old folks: cities are better now<\/a><\/p>\n U.S. bans more Gulf fishing as oil fears grow for Florida<\/a><\/p>\n
\nmight be called “little green” immediately condemned the climate and energy
\nbill in a joint
\nletter<\/a>, calling it “greenwashing in the extreme.” The coalition consists of
\nregional environmental, peace, and religious groups—such as Don’t Waste
\nArizona, the Snake River Alliance, and the Turtle Island Restoration Network.<\/p>\n
\nbusiness-as-usual: taxpayer giveaways to giant nuclear and other energy
\ncorporations wrapped in the guise of doing something about our climate crisis,”
\nthey wrote.<\/p>\n
\nstatement<\/a> the same morning. It was neither an endorsement nor an attack on
\nthe bill. It was thoroughly—impressively—devoid of any clear opinion of the
\nbill.<\/p>\n
\nAmerica’s leaders to get serious … the Gulf Coast oil catastrophe is yet
\nanother reminder … President Obama and leaders of both parties in Congress must
\nprovide the leadership necessary to develop a clean energy and climate
\nsolution,” said the joint letter from 23 larger and more D.C.-centric groups,
\nincluding Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Sierra Club, Audubon, and the
\nLeague of Conservation Voters.<\/p>\n
\nbill is undoubtedly flawed from an environmental perspective; in addition to
\ngiveaways for the nuclear, oil, and coal industries, there are the weak
\nemission-reduction targets and the heavy reliance on carbon offsets. Every
\nconcession to polluter interests was added in hopes of luring enough
\nfossil-fuel-beholden senators to reach the painfully difficult 60-vote
\nthreshold. That’s considered the only realistic way to pass a climate bill in
\n2010. Kerry, in
\na Grist post<\/a>, implored greens not to slam the bill because it’s too weak,
\nsaying it’s better to get started with an imperfect bill.<\/p>\n
\ngroups in the thorny position of having to either endorse flawed,
\ncompromise-laden legislation or oppose the closest thing to a decent climate
\nbill we’re going to see this year, and perhaps for years to come. Many big green groups will probably end up
\nsupporting the bill, but don’t want to tip their hand while there’s still a
\nchance to improve it. Hence the awkward non-comment last week. Many
\nactivist-oriented groups—including the 200 signees and notable big dogs Greenpeace<\/a> and Friends of the Earth<\/a>—have
\nalready made their opposition known.<\/p>\n
\ninter-movement dispute among green groups. Last fall I reported on a “no
\ncompromise” faction<\/a> of liberal groups that attacked Al Gore, the Waxman-Markey
\nHouse bill<\/a>, and carbon markets that allow polluters to buy and sell
\nemissions credits. They argued that larger environmental groups had given away
\ntoo much in collaborating with businesses and Democratic lawmakers. Reps from
\nEDF, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Center for American
\nProgress found this, shall we say, annoying.<\/p>\n
\ny’know, better for saving the earth?<\/p>\n
\nall the groups involved have shown they understand the scientific urgency of an
\naggressive clean-energy plan. And they all want President Obama to use his
\nbully pulpit to give the issue more attention. The disagreement is about
\npolitical strategy.<\/p>\n
\nleft wing of the environmental movement seems to have the more optimistic approach,
\nrefusing to settle for a faulty bill and betting that it can create a
\ngroundswell of support for more hard-hitting climate legislation over the
\ncoming year or two—enough to force members of Congress to turn its way, or
\nforce out members of Congress who
\ndon’t. <\/p>\n
\nto have the more pessimistic approach by supporting a crappy
\nbill<\/a>. They say they don’t see a path
\nto a better one in the immediate future. Even getting the Kerry-Lieberman bill passed
\nwould be a
\nhuge uphill battle<\/a>. And with Republicans poised to gain a number of seats
\nin both the House and Senate in November’s midterm elections, the chances of
\npassing any climate bill at all next year or the year after—let alone a
\nbetter bill than Kerry-Lieberman—seem even more remote. <\/p>\n
\ncounter-argument: Big Green is embracing a different kind of optimism. They are
\nbanking on the notion that building a clean-energy economy will be cheaper and easier
\nthan expected, and that once we get started, even with weak half-measures,
\nsuccess will follow upon success. <\/p>\n
\nRoberts explained this view last week<\/a>: “Right now, policy is being
\nmade out of fear: fear by the private sector that decarbonization will be a
\ncrushing burden; fear by consumers that their energy prices will skyrocket;
\nfear by politicians that the project will prove electorally
\nunpopular.” But there are
\n“huge opportunities for low-cost (or negative-cost) emission reductions
\njust waiting to be exploited,” he argues. If a weak bill gets that process
\nstarted, it can alleviate fears, begin moving the country in the direction of a
\nclean-energy economy, and make it easier to pass stronger legislation down the
\nline.<\/p>\n
\nclaim to be more hopeful—one in the short term and one in the long term.<\/p>\n
\nworking against each other, they sap enthusiasm for building a popular movement
\nfor climate action. Lots of Americans would like to see the U.S. move toward a
\nclean-energy economy and address the climate threat—61 percent of respondents
\nsaid so in
\na recent poll<\/a>. But squabbles among environmentalists risk turning them off.<\/p>\n
\nshould be goal No. 1, according to author and 350.org<\/a> organizer Bill McKibben<\/a>. He argues that lawmakers don’t yet feel pressure from
\nthe public to take the climate threat seriously. “There are lots and lots and
\nlots of groups lobbying Congress,” he told
\nGrist in January<\/a>. “But Congress members are good at telling whether
\nthere’s anything behind that lobbying or not. I think we have to figure out how
\nto put some pressure behind that lobbying.” Until then, he argues, the focus on
\nCongress is premature.<\/p>\n
\nmovement-building—the focus
\nof 350.org<\/a>—is the long-term imperative. But there’s a bill in the Senate
\nthat demands a response right now.<\/p>\n
\norganizations and concerned citizens respond to the bill? What’s the best way to built momentum toward
\na strong climate movement? And how do we get started with solutions as soon as
\npossible?<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/pixel.quantserve.com\/pixel\/p-8bUhLiluj0fAw.gif?labels=pub.29804.rss.News.18590,cat.News.rss\"\/)
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"