Reality Check
As we head toward a vote on the Climate Security Act, it is clear that there is an immense amount of pressure being leveraged on Senators to vote against this critical bill. They are hearing a lot of distracting arguments that the bill will cost Americans too much money at a time when we’re already feeling pinched. This completely misses the point! Let your Senators know you don't buy it.
The Climate Security Act does not simply require cuts in global warming pollution, it actually creates a funding stream to facilitate America’s transition to a cleaner - and cheaper - energy future. By investing in clean energy technology, we can recharge the U.S.economy by creating new jobs here at home, cutting energy costs, and becoming energy independent. Even the U.S. Department of Energy predicts that our economy can grow strongly with a national climate policy in place. Let's get moving!
Those who think it is a bad idea for funds generated by the Climate Security Act to be invested in ways to help Americans use less energy, and therefore have lower energy bills, need a reality check – and not one that comes in the mail.
For more on this, check out NWF’s new fact sheet (pdf) Recharging America’s Economy. And visit our Climate Action Center to learn more about how to take action.
-Catherine Bowes, NWF Northeast Global Warming Program Manager
Subscribe to this blog's feed
It's great to see NWF focusing on the importance of a climate bill that will focus on direct investment in sparking a clean energy revolution. This is critical, and has been sorely lacking from many Congressional climate policy proposals which have focused on simply setting the right market price signals (with carbon pricing) and letting the invisible hand of the market do its work (an oddly neo-liberal economic philosophy for a supposedly progressive piece of legislation).
However, I think you're either misled, or a tad bit misleading here if you think the woefully inadequate Lieberman-Warner bill will really spark a clean energy revolution. The bill's main focus is on buying off corporate interests to ensure a feebly political coalition in a political environment inhospitable to true progressive climate legislation. Don't believe me, just look at where the money goes!
If Lieberman-Warner was really focused in igniting a clean energy future, you'd expect at least half the funds to go towards directly spurring clean energy innovation and deployment (like Markey's alternative iCAP proposal). You'd expect it to be the biggest component of allowance allocations, right?
You'd expect that, but you'd be wrong when it comes to Lieberman-Warner. A mere 6 percent of the value of the trillions of dollars in allowances goes to clean energy innovation and deployment, and a portion of those funds will go to nukes and carbon capture and storage for fossil fuel plants! 6 percent! Doesn't seem like "creat[ing] a funding stream to facilitate America’s transition to a cleaner - and cheaper - energy future" is really at the heart of the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act.
I don't intend this post to be inflammatory. I know you guys at NWF are strongly committed to climate solutions and are doing your best to work within political realities. I'm frankly quite excited to see NWF recognizing the power of an investment-centered approach to spark a clean, cheap and sustainable energy future.
But the Lieberman-Warner isn't your train to that future. It's nothing but a train wreck really. And that's not your fault at NWF. But you're trying to hit a grand slam with one hand tied behind your back. Current political realities clearly inhibit what real reality demands from climate legislation, and I'd love to see NWF working harder on changing those political realities - building a climate politics centered around an inspiring investment-centered policy - than working to fit a square peg into the round whole of this current Congress.
As Obama makes clear, Change is Coming, and we should be working to realign political realities such that a real climate policy focused on creating a cleaner - and cheaper - energy future is possible.
Cheers,
Jesse Jenkins
Breakthrough Generation
Posted by: JesseJenkins | June 05, 2008 at 05:13 PM