Energy Smart

Saturday, Senator Barbara Boxer gave the Democratic Radio Address.

She spoke about the urgent need for our nation to act on global warming before it’s too late.

This talk has material that merits cheering and other parts that merit groans. Join me after the fold for an examination of why Senator Boxer merits some Cheers and some (strong) Jeers.

(more…)

With each read, with each detailed understood, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate InSecurity Act (BLW CiSA) seems ever more questionable on climate policy terms and, in addition, on basic politics.  Last fall, Friends of the Earth (FOE) launched their Fix It or Ditch It campaign, seeking to develop momentum for the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act to be transformed into effective climate legislation or else to be ditched so that better legislation could be developed and passed with the cooperation of the next Administration.

In the intervening time between passage of the bill from committee and Senator Boxer’s Manager’s Amendment, George W Bush gave a speech with absurd concepts about Global Warming that would doom the globe to catastrophic climate change.  Sadly, emerging analysis about implications of the evolved BLW CiSA suggest that the bill is far close to Bush’s disastrous concepts than anything resembling reasonable climate legislation.

(more…)

Mea culpa … as I have not had time to fully digest this material, but Senator Barbara Boxer has released a summary of the Manager’s Amendment to the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act. In the cover letter, Senator Boxer promises many things, including that this will be “deficit neutral” (sadly, not ‘reduce the deficit’ or putting funds in reserve) and that it

follows the very strong advice of scientists, who have told us what needs to be done to avert the catastrophic effects of unchecked global warming.

If this is true, if the revamped bill will follow that advice, the Manager’s Amendment should have drastic changes to the bill. Rather than a reduction of US green-house gas (GHG) emissions to about 1990 levels by 2020 and about a 63% reduction in US GHGs from 1990 levels by 2050, this bill would have a threshhold (minimum) of 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050.

Sadly, this is not the case. The bill’s targets don’t meet the basic (conservative) scientific guidance. Senator Boxer’s claim that this bill “follows the very strong advice” simply does not stand up to the briefest scrutiny.

Sigh …
(more…)

How should environmental organizations and prominent “environmental” politicians speak to supporters when it comes to environmental issues and when it comes to the Lieberman-Warner Climate (In)Security Act? This is a serious issue that can get some blood boiling. Privately, some have sent complaints that Plumbing Lieberman-Warner’s Shortfalls Doesn’t Meet Scientific Requirements wasn’t fair since it did not fully quote all the materials that a group sends out, cherry-picking from opening paragraphs to supporters without dealing with all the qualifications that were in the following paragraphs.

It is time to be a bit sexist for a moment, let us think about what message framing looks might look like in a domestic setting.

• If a husband were to tell his wife: “Wow, honey, you’re really beautiful but you might look better if you lost a few pounds” that might be a disaster of an approach 99+% of the time. The first words would disappear and a fight would ensue … time for the marriage counselor.
• If a wife were to tell her husband, “Wow, honey, you’re really handsome but you might look better if you lost a few pounds” then he probably stops listening with “but” and would smile brodly as he opened the next beer and opened another bag of chips.

Which is the right model from domestic life to talk about in terms of those who receive mass mailings?   I see all these press release/such that say ‘L-W is wonderful’ and, by the way, we need to strengthen it. If we’re talking “wives”, then the focus will be on “by the way”. If we’re talking “husbands”, then focus will be on “wonderful”. Reality is, there are both on the receiving end, but there are far too many “husbands” for this to be the best framing approach.

(more…)

Barbara Boxer has been a real leader on Global Warming issues in the US Senate. A leader who suffered for far too long under the ‘tutelage’ of Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon).  Sadly, for whichever set of reasons, Senator Boxer has being working hard to corral votes in support of the fatally flawed Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act and reacting strongly against those who have the audacity to question the bill and her approach to it.   The bill, however, is getting growing notice and the questioning of Senator Boxer’s approach to it is spreading.  

In the face of such criticism, Barbara Boxer will hold a press conference Wednesday, 12 March, with a range of environmental organizations: Boxer and Environmental Leaders United on Urgent Need to Address Global Warming. 

(more…)

Barbara Boxer has been a real leader on Global Warming issues in the US Senate. A leader who suffered for far too long under the ‘tutelage’ of Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon).  Sadly, for whichever set of reasons, Senator Boxer has being working hard to corral votes in support of the fatally flawed Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act and reacting strongly against those who have the audacity to question the bill and her approach to it.   The bill, however, is getting growing notice and the questioning of Senator Boxer’s approach to it is spreading.  

(more…)

Greenpeace has sent a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer expressing their support for Friends of the Earth (FoE)  effort calling on the Senate to Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill.   Senator Boxer jabbed back at FoE

“They’re sort of the defeatist group out there. They’ve been defeatists from day one. And it’s unfortunate. They’re isolated among the environmental groups.”

Well, Greenpeace’s letter makes it clear that, contrary to Senator Boxer’s statement, FoE doesn’t stand alone. 

I also strong disagree with your sentiment that Friends of the Earth stands isolated its position.  As I travel across the country, I meet people looking for leadership on this issue, but not just any leadership.  As ice caps continue to melt, seas continue to rise adn weather gets more and more extreme, they are not looking for government action simply for action’s sake.  I find it difficult to locate any citizen concerned about global warming does doesn’t want the same result as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace.

This letter is a strong endorsement of the FoE effort, calling on Senator Boxer to either Fix Lieberman-Warner or Ditch It.

(more…)

Environmental Defense sent out an e-mail to Senate staffs and Senators specifically calling out this blogger for attention, calling for advertising coordination between Senators and Environmental Defense in support of the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act (CSA, mistakenly called the Climate Security Act).

My statement:

I am saddened that Environmental Defense seems far more interested in pushing forward fatally (and, I do mean fatally … and I think of my/our children when I write that … ready to provide details to those interested) flawed legislation than in positioning the nation for a move to meaningful action. 

Now, if anyone actually cares to read what I wrote, this is how I ended the specific post in question:

And, this is the saddest thing about this issue, about having to write this diary. When it comes to sensible approaches to Global Warming, Senator Boxer gets the science, she gets the challenge, she understands the risk for her grandchildren.  It is sad that Boxer is aiming her ‘left hooks’ at strong voices for environment, like FoE, rather than humanity’s real foes exemplified by Senator Inhofe (R-Exxon).

It is sad that Environmental Defense (which gets the science, gets the challenge, and understands the risk for our children/grandchildren) is aiming their left hooks at strong voices for the environment, like FoE (and myself), rather than at humanity’s real foes as exmplified by Senator Inhofe.

Wouldn’t it be better if Environmental Defense (and the Senators that they contacted) were spending this money and energy educating Oklahomans about climate change and how Senator Inhofe is working against their interests?

A Siegel

PS:  Thank you ED for that back-handed compliment.  Didn’t realize that I’m a “major DailyKos contributor” and that anyone, at the end of the day, really gave a damn.

(more…)

The situation is moving from sparring to some serious boxing when it comes to the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act (CISA) .  Friends of the Earth (FoE) has launched an advertising campaign voicing reason re Lieberman-Warner, pointing out that the CiSA (the Coal-Subsidy Act) is not just inadequate, but also is far weaker than the energy and Global Warming positions of the two Democratic Presidential candidates.  Why, FoE is asking, are Democratic leaders so desperately working to get votes for a bad bill, carrying the names of two endorsers of John McCain for President?

Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill

After years of ignoring global warming, the U.S. Senate is finally considering legislation to cap greenhouse gas pollution. Unfortunately, the Lieberman-Warner bill being advanced by Senate Democrats lavishes up to $1 trillion on industries responsible for global warming, and in return asks for reduction targets well below what scientists say are necessary. If this is the best Senate Democrats can do, the world is in trouble.

And, at the same time, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is working hard to whip up support for Lieberman-Warner, Boxing our way to disaster. 

Senator Boxer has reacted angrily to FoE’s efforts (note: E&E article behind firewall), basically calling them a “foe” rather than guardian of the interests of humanity, of America’s citizens (born and unborn), when it comes to sensible choices for Global Warming legislation. 

“They’re sort of the defeatist group out there,” she said. “They’ve been defeatists from day one. And it’s unfortunate. They’re isolated among the environmental groups.”

Yes, Senator Boxer, please focus on attacking an organization that is calling on all Americans to support legislative action that does not fall short of what science says is required to give us just a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.  No, much better to be praising legislation that represents a trillion dollars of new corporate subsidies (making dealing with Global Warming that much more expensive and harder to do) and falls far short of what science says is required.   

“Far from being defeatists, we’re being realists,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said when asked to comment on Boxer’s remarks. “We’re focusing on what the scientists tell us has to be done to solve global warming. It’s not acceptable to pass a bill that falls short of the science. It’s not acceptable to pass a bill that gives $1 trillion to polluters.”

Let us be clear, this is not Friends of the Earth seeking the perfect as the enemy of the good.  Even with the fixes FoE seeks, the resulting bill would be ‘maybe good enough’ and not ‘perfect’.  No, the challenge is not perfection as enemy of good but, simply, bad, inadequate and dangerous being the enemy of good enough.

(more…)

Barbara Boxer is desperate for having Global Warming legislation under her belt.  Can there be a better explanation for her strong championing of the fatally-flawed Lieberman-Warner Climate (in) Security Act? (For a great discussion of CISA’s flaws, see this comment to a post by Environmental Defense at Grist defending CISA.)  A quick review:

• CISA would give 40% of pollution permits (between $500 to >$1000 billion in value) to serial polluters. This will make dealing with climate change more expensive for society while rewarding bad actors for their past bad behavior and lowering their incentives to change future behavior.
• CISA’s targets are inadequate according to the science.
• CISA has paths via an appointed board for weakening targets but not the potential for that same board to strengthen targets, if that is what is required.
• CISA heavily subsidizes carbon capture & sequestration (CCS), which is little more than science experiment at this time and uncertain whether it will make sense, rather than being more balanced in potential remedial paths into the future.
• And, so on …

According to E&E (behind firewall), Barbara Boxer has begun behind-the-scenes lobbying to whip up enough votes to get L-W through the Senate.  And, they are pushing hard on Republican “moderates”.

Senator Mel Martinez (R-FL) said Boxer approached him on the House floor before Bush’s nationally televised speech on Monday. Asked if he remained undecided, Martinez replied, “I still am. I’ve been talking to Senator Boxer and I’m going to be studying it more carefully.” 

with John Warner (R-VA) noting:

“Democrats are very solid on this. I think the Republicans, particular the ones running for re-election, are going to recognize they can’t go back home and say in an empty message we haven’t done anything about global warming.” 

Yes, let us work hard to get something, anything, passed before the election rather than passing good legislation.

Now, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) commented that Lieberman-Warner might fail like immigration legislation,

“It’s so big, so complex and has so many parts, that it may fall of its own weight.”

We can only hope.

To take someone else’s words, when it comes to Lieberman-Warner, “Thank God for Friends of the Earth” and their voicing reason on CISA.