Will-fully Ignorant

We could easily ask: Washington Post editors, are you idiots? In publishing George F. Will’s Carbon Power Brokers, the Post editorial board is complicit in the dissemination of deceptiveness and falsehoods surrounding policy making on what likely will be the most significant issue of the 21st century. The Post published this deceptive drivel the day before the US Senate begins debating the Lieberman-Warner Climate inSecurity Act. While, clearly, I have quite serious problems with the CiSA and do not support its passage, this debate and discussion should be on the basis of fact and truth, rather then deceit and truthiness.

As an example of a direct falsehood, Will writes that John McCain supports the bill. Oops, BUZZ, false.  John McCain has mouthed some strong words on Global Warming but has managed to be AWOL on every vote that matters when it comes to clean technology and environmental issues in the past year. His staff has already announced that this won’t be an exception to that rule.  John McCain doesn’t support Lieberman-Warner (his two biggest Senate supporters) and won’t be there to vote on the bill. McFlip McFlop McSame McCain‘s deceptive sleight of hand continues: listen to what I say, don’t watch what I do when it comes to the reality of Global Warming. That is, unless you’re in the reality-denial world, then ignore what I say and watch what I do. There seems to be an expression for this. What is it? Oh, yeah, “McCain wants to have his cake and eat it too.”  To share that cake with George W Bush no matter what storms hit America’s shores.

Join me for a stroll through Will’s willful ignorance …

Introducing Sanity to Climate Legislation

Today, Congressman Ed Markey has announced that he will introduce the the Investing in Climate Action and Protection (iCAP) Act next week.  Unlike the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Climate inSecurity Act (BLW CISA), the iCAP follows science calling for a reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in covered sectors by 85 percent by 2050.  It also is serious in making polluters pay, with nearly 100 percent of pollution permits auctioned (94 percent in 2012, 100 percent by 2020). And, it has strong provisions to secure social equity (both domestically and internationally).  In short, iCAP is in lines with the basic principles for global warming legislation.

The iCAP has significant focus on “investing”, on investing in a positive vision for dealing with Global Warming.  “To heal this sick planet” in a way that will strengthen society, strengthen the economy at the same time.

The Shocking Analysis of Lie-berman-Warner

Next week, Senator Harry Reid is going to bring the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act to the Senate floor for debate and votes.  Even after modification by Senator Boxer, Lieberman-Warner remains grossly inadequate in face of the challenges we face.  Even so, the National Association of Manufacturers, the US Chamber of Commerce, and global warming deniers are attacking it as too high cost.  Let us be clear, absolutely clear, these are dishonest claims, claims that insult the term truthiness.  To be clear, dealing with global warming is not just an absolute necessity, but a necessity that will leave us far ahead economically (and otherwise) than simply allowing the problem to worsen.

Environmental Defense Fund has put together Get America Working to providea a shocking path to force an industry lobbyist to tell some truth when it comes to Global Warming issues. 

Blogging Halfway McCain’s Global Warming concepts

John McCain’s speech and policy constructs on Global Warming have gotten a bit of attention from the Energy Smart blogging world. The following are few of the worthwhile discussions to date.

One hand clapping: Coal Subsidy Act to fail?

The latest news suggests that the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act (the Climate InSecurity Act, CISA) has moved from critical condition to the morgue.  As it will require 60 votes to get past any threatened filibuster (not that the Senate Democratic Party leadership could force a filibuster on anyone other than their own Senators fighting for Americans’ privacy rights),  corraling enough Senators to vote for even the CISA’s inadequate measures looks to be an impossible task.  As Joe Romm phrased it at Climate Progress,

Serious climate legislation had been in critical condition for some months.  Doctors and family members finally pulled the plug this week, and the patient appeared to lose all vital signs. The coroner listed the cause of death as “apathy.”

While disagreeing with Joe about whether to call Lieberman-Warner serious or seriously dangerous, apathy in face of ever mounting evidence of the existing damage from Global Warming and looming threats of more damage to come is moving toward reckless endangerment of America’s and humanity’s future prospects.

What is truly sad, truly, is that so much of what is necessary can fall into a no regret strategy, with ‘win-win’ categories. We can ‘geo-engineer’ to a better planetary environment with biochar and white roofing, gaining other benefits at the same time, win-win-win paths.  We can pursue greater energy efficiency, leading toward more comfortable lives while creating good jobs, reducing pollution, and spending less money on energy.  With each day that passes, renewable energy is becoming more cost competitive with fossil fuel energy, even before we discuss making “external” costs internal to the calculation of energy prices.  We can do so much good … even without considering the climate benefits. 

Thus, one hand clapping:  the Coal-Subsidy Act (fundamentally inadequate in face of the threat before us, before the US) seems unlikely to muster enough support to pass.  The hand not clapping:  that it won’t pass because Senators are engaged in reckless endangerment and acting as if it is too strong a measure.

Sigh …

In the face of apathy, angst over the future.

Husband or Wife on framing environmental issues

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.

Plumbing Lieberman-Warner’s shortfalls: doesn’t meet scientific requirements

As one who has voiced, repeatedly, criticism of S-2191, the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act, it is important to occasionally return to facts (rather than rhetoric) to underline its weakness. Thus, climate legislation Principle #1 is “Scientific integrity”, that climate legislation is line with what science says is required. Let’s plumb the depths of Lieberman-Warner’s failures just a little bit in this domain and highlight how some institutions are greenwashing those failures.

Global Warming Legislation: What matters?

Energy and Global Warming are complex, multifaceted, deep subjects. They are beyond the ability of any single person to totally master. And, a great challenge to those focused on them is seeking how to communicate, in a meaningful way, to those who don’t have the ability to dedicate huge chunks of time to learning about the issues.

When it comes to Global Warming, ever more of the Globe is aware. As some say, Katrina opened the door, Al Gore strode purposefully throught it, and now people realize that we need to do “something”.  But, defining that something becomes the next and, perhaps, even harder challenge.

Part of that “something” must include Global Warming/Climate Change legislation.  But not just any old legislation should do, we must have meaningful legislation that meets core principles.

Boxer reacts to FoE’s left hook

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.

Voicing Reason on the Lieberman-Warner CISA

The battlelines are being drawn when it comes to what makes sensible legislation to respond to Global Warming.  Sadly, the lines are being drawn among the environmental community, with Global Warming Deniers, Skeptics, and Delayers watching the developing battle with amusement.

In December, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee passed out for full Senate consideration the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act (CISA).  As discussed elsewhere, the CISA is fundamentally flawed.   Among its problems:

• Giveaway of $500+ billion in pollution permits, raising the cost and lowering the efficiency of the US economy’s finding a path toward a climate friendly society; and
• Inadequate targets for reducing CO2 to lower the risk of catastrophic climate change …

These are just a taste of the CISA problems.  Even with these known, serious, high-risk problems, too many people have found their way to praise LW, seemingly desperate to be able to claim victory on the Climate Change legislative front, even if this seeming battlefield victory could doom us to defeat in the war on Global Warming.

The CISA’s risks and inadequacies need daylight shown on them to either ensure fixing its faults or keeping it from going to George W Bush’s desk for signature. 

Earlier today, Friends of the Earth began a campaign to shine this light.

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.