Skip to content

Bill Puts Polluters Before Climate

05/24/2010

Op-ed: Public Citizen teams up Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace to discuss the flaws in Kerry-Lieberman bill

In light of the growing disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Sens. John Kerry
(D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) abandoned the idea of introducing
their new climate legislation with BP’s CEO at their side.

But the public relations decision to consign BP to the sidelines cannot
hide the fact that the senators had crafted a bill that Big Oil – along
with King Coal and the nuclear lobby – could endorse.

There is no doubting Kerry and Lieberman’s commitment to addressing
climate change. However, while the senators negotiated with the energy
industry in an attempt to address inside-the-Beltway political
realities, this bill neglects climate realities – which could require a
paradigmatic shift in the energy sector, not cutting deals with fossil
fuel lobbyists.

The proposed legislation, at this point, looks like it would do more for
corporations that pollute than the environment.

The bill has strayed so far that the climate would probably be better
without it. Unacceptable levels of global warming pollution would
continue if this bill were to pass in anything like its current form.

In addition, the contradictions inherent in this climate deal seem to
bolster polluting industries and might make winning majority support in
the Senate more difficult, not easier.

And this is surely more likely now, as BP oil gushes into the Gulf.

Ultimately, the problem of deal making with polluters is not just a
matter of optics. It has led to policy proposals that undermine the
effort to achieve effective pollution reductions.

For example, Kerry-Lieberman establishes a pollution reduction target
for 2020 that fails to deliver on what scientists tell us is required to
respond to the climate crisis.

Avoiding runaway global warming, these scientists say, requires rapidly
reducing pollution in the next five to 10 years. Strong goals for 30
years out will be moot if global warming pollution does not peak by
2015.

Kerry-Lieberman also envisions a continuing dominance of dirty
technologies. It even offers subsidies and gifts to coal (for carbon
capture and storage), oil (expanded offshore drilling) and nuclear power
(expanded taxpayer bailout guarantees for new reactors).

Each of these wastes scarce resources that could be invested in clean
energy sources like wind, solar and geothermal power.

Kerry-Lieberman could also significantly undermine the Clean Air Act’s
protections against climate pollution, removing the most powerful
existing federal tool that can protect citizens from the effects of a
destabilized climate.

Kerry-Lieberman relies on pollution trading schemes that could be fodder
for Wall Street manipulation – schemes that look certain to undermine
rather than advance carbon reduction efforts.

At least initially, the proposed bill gives away pollution allowances
rather than auctioning them. As a result, consumers could foot the bill
while electric utilities reap potential windfall profits.

The proposed legislation also relies on offset loopholes – often empty
promises to “achieve” emissions reductions elsewhere.

These are the sort of promises that have led, in other cases, to
international fraud and abuse.
And the proposed bill seems likely to fail to generate enough funding to
fulfill Washington’s obligations to help developing countries adapt to
global warming.

The absence of international finance, coupled with a weak pollution
reduction target, could seriously undermine the likelihood of an
international climate treaty anytime soon.

We do not expect that climate legislation can ever be perfect. But, at a
minimum, it does need to take us in the right direction.

Any climate bill that moves forward must retain strong consumer
protections, reflect the polluter-pays principle and respect existing
federal and state tools – which remain overall more promising avenues
for reducing global warming pollution.

As we face this grave challenge to the planet, the Gulf oil spill should
remind us that we need serious policy changes now.

Averting devastating climate change will come not from an accommodation
with the corporate purveyors of the dirty energy past but from embracing
the challenge of becoming more efficient – and recalibrating the world
economy to rely on clean, renewable energy.

The Op-ed appeared in Politico on May 21st.

Authored by Erich Pica, president of Friends of the Earth, Phil Radford,
executive director of Greenpeace and Robert Weissman, president of Public
Citizen.

Advertisements
One Comment leave one →
  1. Joanne Baek permalink
    05/24/2010 4:42 pm

    I hope that the focus on climate change legislation will now shift to the Cantwell-Collins CLEAR Act, S. 2877, The Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act. It would put into place neither cap and trade nor carbon tax, but rather CAP AND DIVIDEND. One of the most significant innovations of this bill, other than it’s effectiveness as a regulatory mechanism, is that it reflects a “paradigmatic shift” of implication of ownership, that fossil resources belong to the people, not to private interests, traders, or government. And as 25% of the revenues (collected from sale of carbon permits) go to additional improvements towards clean energy, clean air, and efficiency, it addresses in multiple ways our responsibility to take many varied actions to transition to better air, better energy practices, and better energy sources.

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

%d bloggers like this: