Browse
Engage
Research
WASHINGTON, DC — Senate Democrats on Thursday gave up trying to pass a climate bill before their August recess that would have capped greenhouse gas emissions, citing a lack of time and Republican support.
Instead Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) will pursue a drastically pared down bill that will focus mostly on raising the liability cap for oil spills, along with measures promoting energy efficiency, natural gas for transportation, and land conservation. A cap-and-trade program and renewable energy standard will not be included in the bill, expected to be introduced next week.
The U.S. House of Representatives narrowly passed a climate change bill last summer that would have reduced greenhouse gas emissions 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020. Subsequently in the Senate, two cap-and-trade bills stalled, leading John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) to explore a narrower but similarly-fated bill that would have capped emissions from the utility sector.
Thursday's development puts the future of climate change legislation in further doubt, with Democrats bracing for midterm election losses that will erode their majorities in the House and Senate.
Although Reid blamed Republicans for failing to support a climate change bill, he never had the full support of all Democrats. Several Democrats from coal-producing regions had long voiced concern over how such a bill would impact their home states.
Reid and Kerry made assurances Thursday that the Senate would continue working on comprehensive climate change legislation.
"As Senator Reid said, this legislation that he has proposed does not replace climate legislation," Kerry said during a press conference. "It does not replace comprehensive energy legislation. Now President Obama called me before this meeting and said point blank that he is committed to working in these next days at a more intensive pace together with Carol Browner and other members of the administration to help bring together the ability to find 60 votes for that comprehensive legislation."
There is a chance that Senators may add more provisions to the slimmer bill, but such measures would likely be minor.
Image CC licensed by Flickr user alltrain43.
Here again we see the impact
Here again we see the impact of massive lobbying dollars and a mindset of externalizing adverse impacts to avoid tough decisions. I don't envy the GOP - or the Dems for that matter - for how they'll be remembered by (not so long in the) future generations.
The fearfully corrupt habits now so firmly entrenched on both sides of the aisle in WDC must be dispensed with if we're to make any genuine progress.
Here's a little more of my thinking on corruption in government and the corrupt deep pockets at the source:
http://2greenenergy.com/energy-corruption/2723/
http://2greenenergy.com/say-adios-to-campaign-finance-reform/2426/
With regard to climate disruption, I posit that - even if we take the stance of a rationally skeptical person - we have two possible conditions and two options open to us in addressing each condition:
Possible Condition A – Climate disruption is either very accurately calculated or underestimated in the scope of its effect.
Option 1 - We don't do anything. Result: We all suffer for many, many decades and consequences are disastrous for the human race and the biosphere on which we depend. Summary: Catastrophe.
Choice 2 - We do all we can to shift our path to sustainability and carbon neutrality. Result: We devote time and money to make the difference, but we limit the damage and live much more comfortably with lessened impacts - and we reap the benefits of improved efficiency and reduced pollution. To sum up: work hard and succeed.
Potential Condition B – Climate disruption is actually overestimated in its breadth and effect.
Choice 1 - We do nothing. Result: We continue to dump toxins into the biosphere and further deplete our resources, and we suffer the consequences of a poisoned environment and soaring scarcity (just not those that arise from a parched and deluged environment). To sum up: Steady degradation.
Choice 2 - We do all we can to increase efficiency and move to a sustainable infrastructure. Result: We sacrifice some time and money making changes in our way of life, and so still enjoy the results of increased efficiencies and drops in pollution even though the climate disaster never materialized. To sum up: We perhaps work harder than we needed to, but we still come out way ahead and avoid the adverse consequences of recourse scarcity (war, famine, etc.).
By the possible conditions and options detailed here, the one rational choice (where there's any doubt at all about the possible results) is doing everything we can to reduce our emissions and increase efficiency - and we'll then benefit no matter what possible conditions. The alternative - to do nothing - leaves us on the sad and toxic road we're now on, with the potential for ubiquitous suffering perhaps for hundreds of years.
I think the logic here is the same as buying insurance. If you ever need it, you'll be in a sorry state if you don't have it.
I'm curious what an informed and rational stance might be in support of doing nothing at all - I have yet to come across one.
Craig Shields, Editor, 2GreenEnergy.com, and author, Renewable Energy - Facts and Fantasies (2010)