Harry & Louising Global Warming Legislation

To be clear, the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act (mischaracterized as the American Climate Security Act) is inadequate and bad legislation.  It violates basic principles for Global Warming legislation. (For example, it does not meet scientific minimums for giving a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.)  And, the Coal-Subsidy Act is a corporate giveaway of resources (such as the air my and your children breathe) of almost unheard of proportions.  Despite this, the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America is not happy.

Since the Chamber of Commerce simply is unlikely to be happy with any Global Warming legislation, we should make them fight from the right (actually, from the wrong) against legislation that is worth passing, rather than being able to frame inadequate and poor legislation as damaging to the economy.

The Chamber of Commerce, not surprisingly, is focused on business-friendly approaches to Global Warming.  What does that mean? No mandates.  Subsidies to business for any required action. And, a false focus on “environmental” concerns being detrimental to “economy”, with a twisted sense of economy dominant over any concern for the environment in which that economy operates.

Now, the reality is that the US Chamber of Commerce has a lot of money to throw at battles. And, they don’t seem constrained to restrain themselves to facts when truthiness will suffice. Their anti-Lieberman-Warner ad (which would be an ad against meaningful Climate Change legislation as well)  shows a family shivering in the cold, jogging to work, claiming (falsely) that the bill calls for what “technology can’t deliver”.  When a meaningful Climate Change bill gets introduced, expect this (and similar) ads to hit TV screens around the nation as serial polluters seek to protect their ability to pollute, at will, the air your and my children breathe.

3 responses to “Harry & Louising Global Warming Legislation

  1. We are against it for the same reason you are against it. It is bad legislation.

    http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/02/our-answer-on-l.html

  2. We oppose Lieberman/Warner because it is not well thought out legislation; it will adversely disrupt the economy of the U.S. and concentrations of CO2 will continue to significantly increase.

    http://www.chamberpost.com/2008/02/our-answer-on-l.html

  3. Brad,

    Thank you for joining into the discussion.

    Yes, we are agreeing that Lieberman-Warner is bad legislation. And, I agree that there is some good degree of overlap as to why and how it is bad.

    The “ad”, however, is disingenuous at best. And, I do not see the Chamber be supportive of better thought out Climate Change/Global Warming legislation.

    What would you think of a carbon fee? One that used the funds to help foster a carbon free economy?

    We can go “green” and make it very profitable for the economy (including the Chamber’s members). (see, for example: https://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/04/26/making-green-by-going-green-new-hampshire-and-renewable-power/)

    I’m ready to hear how the Chamber is going to help get US there. But, I’m from Missouri — show me.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s