Comments on: Political Compromise Guts Climate Bill as House Vote Looms

By: shirley mikesell

shirley mikesell — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 16:41:48 +0000

Has anyone been listening to the debate carried on C-span? This is a bill with all the amendments that we absolutely do not want. It would cripple our economy and raise the cost of living. Like so many of the bills enacted by our Congress, what began as a good idea has gone woefully astray.

By: Matthew Holtry

Matthew Holtry — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 09:39:46 +0000

I am actually the most concerned about the provision removing CO2 from the Clean Air Act–I was actually unaware of this clause. I know a lot of great people at the EPA who have essentially said, “If Congress doesn’t legislate CO2, we will regulate it.” I am less concerned by the specific reduction goals, etc. because I have a lot of confidence in today’s EPA. Removing CAA protection is the portion that gives me the biggest pause.

By: Dave Shires

Dave Shires — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:55:32 +0000

Indeed. Why the negativity? There’s a reason that environmentalism, in general, lost favor in the US – negativity and constant finger waving. I agree that things could be way better with this bill, but my god, we’ve got to take something rather than nothing.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 15:22:02 +0000

I am very concerned with the amendments and concessions in the bill, but I generally agree with the commenters here as well. Failure to pass something, even flawed, will have consequences reaching into the Copenhagen talks this December. If the international community sees that the U.S. still can’t pass any sort of comprehensive climate legislation, then hope for an international agreement is significantly challenged.
As one German official from the Emissions Trading Authority told us last month, don’t expect a perfect outing the first time around – it’s best to get started. Too much time in the U.S. has already been wasted.
To expect a “perfect” bill at this juncture is simply unrealistic.

By: Jen Boynton, Editor

Jen Boynton, Editor — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:56:41 +0000

I agree with these commenters– I hesitate to make the perfect enemy of the good.
I’m glad that Andrew has the opportunity to voice his support for FOE through 3P, as we respect all points of view, but I wouldn’t say that this position reflects the 3P editorial perspective of critical optimism that we generally stand for.
I personally think that this is a historic piece of legislation, despite it’s holes. Can you imagine this even being on the table for conversation 18 months ago?
Stay tuned for a piece on Greenpeace, W-M, and what we have to say about it later today!

By: BCC

BCC — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 14:24:52 +0000

If someone could explain to me how we’ll pass a demonstrably better climate bill in the near future, without the intervention of magic pixies, I’m all ears-

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 12:33:27 +0000

But what about the argument that a start–however anemic–is better than nothing? I heard Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Fund, speak a couple weeks ago, and he put it in terms of an interesting analogy. If you want to get a car to turn down a certain road, it’s much easier to turn the steering wheel in that direction when it’s already moving a little bit than if it’s standing dead still. That image really resonated with me in terms of Waxman-Markey, legislation I’ve been pretty critical and skeptical about as well.