by Russel Norman
Well it was closer than I hoped but the Waxman-Markey bill, the American Clean Energy and Security Act, passed just now – 219 to 212 with 8 Republicans voting in favour and 44 Democrats voting against.
Obama has apparently been heavily involved phoning members of Congress. And the fossil fuel levies and the Republicans have been leaning on Democrats.
So now off to the Senate.
Greenpeace opposed the Act as being too weak. While I can agree it is way too weak, I don’t see how Obama could get something better through the House when it was so close on something this weak. And time is of the essence if we are to make some significant progress in Copenhagen.
One point that Greenpeace makes it worth considering further. As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in April 2007, the EPA has the power to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. One of the cards in Obamas hand is that if Congress (now just the Senate) refuses to pass the ACES Act then he could get the EPA to regulate. It was seen as preferential to use the cap and trade mechanisms of the ACES Act rather than the Clean Air Act, as it was not clear how the EPA would proceed under the Clean Air Act, but it was still a possiblity. Greenpeace are saying that by losing this power under the Clean Air Act, as the ACES Act takes over regulation of greenhouse emissions from the Clean Air Act, the position of the Administration is weaker. Certainly talking to some of the big climate change NGOs in Washington they seem to think the ACES Act is better… and if Obama were simply to bulldoze ahead without getting Congressional support it’s hard to see how he could ratify anything coming out the UNFCCC in the Senate where he needs 67 votes.
Addendum – Just watching the replay of the debate. Republicans contest the science and argue against the US being a world leader!! The US which is the leading polluter alongside China and which has blocked progress on climate change for years! They really should get out of the US more.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by Russel Norman on Sat, June 27th, 2009
More posts by Russel Norman | more about Russel Norman
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Good Story Russel. Yes US citizens tend to forget there are other countries on the planet – often have to look up a map to see who they’re at war with this year.
The economic recession has done more to shut down China’s factories than any amount of outside persuasion could have done – this is probably true in a global sense as well….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark
You are far too optimistic about my countrymen. They are not in general, even interested in looking at the map.
There are any number of Republicans in both the Senate and the House, who really need the Larry-Flynt treatment.
We have found that if you have a few bucks to shine a light on their real activities they tend to shrivel up and die. Bloodsucking vampires all.
With the possible exception of Ron Paul.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This bill will be a catastrophe for the climate change movement in the States – i hope to god it dosent pass.
Even the more mainstream of the US enviro movement [and the US NGO enviro movement is as impotent as it gets] are against it, and for good reason. It will allow the US to avoid emissions reductions at home until at least 2030 – and thats if it works, which it cannot.
Its worse than nothing, and any environmentalist wort their salt shouldnt be getting behind legislation like this just because it politically possible and looks like something that might do something for the Climate – same goes for the NZETS. It is noting but political windowdressing that will guarantee demobilisation of climate activists looking to the likes of Green Partys and big NGOs who support it for an honest prediction of its effects, which they generally dont get.
The quest for progress on Climate Change is being gravely threatened by supporters of emissions trading and the resulting incorporation of the climate crisis into a development or carbon market framework.
This bill and all other emissions trading legislation isnt just useless, its extremely dangerous. There are plenty of other ways to reduce our emissions that dont involve hand control of the earths carbon cyclintg capacity over to those who are destroying it.
Heres a few links to some good articles on the subject…
James Hansen’s suggestion that a tax and dividend scheme is just one example of legislation that could actually work.
http://www.ases.org/index.php?option=com_myblog&show=Hansen-Only-tax-and-dividend-can-save-us-now.html&Itemid=27
Carbon Trading, Climate Justice and the Production of Ignorance
http://www.thecornerhouse.org.uk/summary.shtml?x=561681
Larry Lohmann – The Corner House – Ways Forward
http://www.rainforestinfo.org.au/climate/resources/lohmann.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heretic
As bad as you may think it is, it has a ghost of a chance of passing. The things that Hansen and you are trying to get have MUCH less. If you understand the situation in the USA, you know well exactly what sort of opposition to ANY action is being mustered. Look at what happened with the economic system. The foxes weren’t just let in, they CONTROL the henhouse.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is about the foxes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16763183/TaibbiGoldmanSachs?autodown=pdf
I don’t think there are many more nest eggs to be had.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
sure, i understand. But nobody said it would be easy. There is no silver bullet to climate change and supporting counterproductive legislation isnt going to help at all.
I completely agree with you when you say that what Hansen and Lohmann are suggesting have less chance of passing [now] but at least they do have a chance of doing what has to be done, which is addressing the systemic drivers of climate change. Theres no such thing as legislation that would address the causes of climate change right now as this would of course challenge the very structures of power that united states politics and climate change itself are so dependent on.
However there is good news; the only things that have ever made massive widespread change in this world have come from the people effected by particular dangers to their wellbeing and for that reason we must not loose faith in peoples ability to address these things themselves. I dont believe for one second that supporting ineffective and dangerous legislation that undermines peoples ability to engage in this struggle is worth it.
Watching how people have reacted to emissions trading schemes in other countries is quite incredibly inspiring so I do have huge hopes for us to really do what needs to be done.
Unlike the climate change movements of australia, the UK, the US, much of Europe and especially the social movements for global justice of the countries set to suffer at the hands of the innate social symptoms of such a proposed global market for ghg emissions the NZ climate change movement has not developed an understanding of how ET is actually a false solution. As far as I can see, the main reason why this has happened is because certain environmental organisations and partys in NZ have painted the NZETS as something that might work if it can be amended and as a result have misled the public and especially the enviro movement about the true nature of emissions trading as a response to climate change. This is not good for the movement at all and is misleading people about the nature of the climate crisis itself.
The key to this whole debate is this…
Emissions trading isnt just bad, its not a neutral solution that just wont do enough to address climate change, its actually hugely counterproductive.
Im not a supporter of nuclear power, ccs, agrofuels or ocean fertilisation as a solution to climate change any more than I am of emissions trading, in fact I do believe it is far more dangerous than the rest of them as it will encourage all those other false solutions to proliferate.
I know we dont have the politikal will to have legislation such as tax and dividend enacted right now but thats not the point, we’ll never have it if we keep selling the movement short and putting our faith in mechanisms that have caused climate change in the first place. I find it particularly disturbing to see politicians like Russel Norman legitimising and supporting professional greenwashing companies like Green Carbon. http://www.greencarbon.co.nz/news/2009-03-17carbonfriendlydrinksnetworkingevent
What sort of message is this sending to the likes of the young greens, to the transition towns movement, to the save happy valley activists, to everyone in New Zealand who is trying to build up enough power to actually challenge the profiteers of climate change and its false solutions?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Heretic
Consider that Debt-Based Fractional-Reserve Fiat Currencies… the stuff that is in the wallet of every citizen (who has money of any sort) of every country on the planet REQUIRES between 3% and 5% annual economic growth forever, if the economy based on it is to work. The people who profit from this are the banks. The people who make money from this are all bankers. The Goldman-Sack-the-world mob. Attila was a piker by comparison.
http://www.notjustnotes.ws/howbanksrobyou.htm
So 3% compounded forever on a finite planet? Is this possible? Of course not, but the change you need comes in at that level, and I don’t expect to see it. My kids are going to see 4 degrees of warming or a nuclear winter, and I don’t reckon I know which will be worse.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
However, speaking as an American, which I can do because I AM from that blighted land, I can assure you that getting ANYTHING through this congress will be little short of a miracle. Even lip service is exquisitely difficult to get from them.
I am not optimistic… and I don’t want to pursue something that can’t be had. Even if it would be better than what I might get.
If the US moves AT ALL it will provide some support for movement by the rest of the planet. China and India might cooperate somewhat. The world might stumble a little baby-step in the right direction. The US will start to act seriously about this when the droughts and flooding start getting serious. In other words, 20-30 years too late to prevent us from going over the 2 degrees of warming that we’d so like to stay below. The rest of the world may do better than the USA though.
I am guessing a minimum 4 degrees of warming, rather than 2, and 2 meters of sea-level increase rather than 1, by the end of the century. I won’t live to see that, I am too old already. My kids will enjoy that problem, and they will face it with fewer resources than we have now.
The only country that has the political and technical ability to FIX this is China. They can bring about Cheap Access To Space, as there are no companies in China with a vested interest in the expendable launch market who could prevent a move to make it cheaper.
Cheap Access To Space solves almost all our problems at once. Excepting the Currency and the existence of Goldman-Sachs, it allows us real climate control, real energy security… a host of other benefits.
So I tell my kids to learn Chinese. They don’t listen of course.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Cheers BJ,
confronting climate change means confronting and challenging its root causes and for me this means doing all the things that will make our lives better in a post climate ravaged world anyway, its great
Climate Change is the absolute contradiction of capitalism and Im very happy that capitalism as a system is struggling at the moment – The last thing I want to do now is give it a helping hand by helping it get back on its feet via the commodification of the atmosphere and carbon cycling functions of our natural systems. Luckily, there are a massive amount of people waking up to these ideas right now, so whether climate change is politically unstoppable or not – let us not; as greens, as activists, as agents for change and even as mere commentators allow institutions to legitimise this process.
some hope from richard heinberg
http://www.richardheinberg.com/sites/default/files/museletter_206_june_2009.pdf
some warnings for the future – 20 thesis against green capitalism
http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/76648/20-thesis-against-green-capitalism
Cheers
!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
heretic, 20 thesis against green capitalism is an alarming read! How can an activist describe emerging fascism and call it green capitalism ?
I might be over simplifying things somewhat but:
capitalist = individual + international = competition
communist = communal + international = cooperation
facsist = corporate + national = corporatisation
It’s easy to see where the Bush administration fitted in there, the Blair administration gave itself away with the use of the 1930s fascist term “third way”, intentional or otherwise.
Thus cuddly green capitalism 1.0 is barter capitalism and New Deal green capitalism 2.0 is fascism.
Tadzio makes a common mistake of confusing energy and exergy and thus assumes that energy consumption is proportional to economic consumption. The difference between energy and exergy is as important as the difference between GDP and GNI. Stretching the available research to it’s limits I will argue that one of the worst things about GDP is that it requires that money saved by energy efficiency must be spent on other things whereas GNI allows for the energy saved by exergy efficiency to remain saved or, somewhat contradicting the laws of physics, to be converted into time .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
yea maybe an oversimplification,
I think its a mix of both with the expansion of capitalism into new eco-markets via emissions trading, forestry trading, water trading and even biodiversity trading [all on the go already] and subsequent margainalisation of those effected by the local effects of the actual projects that facilitate these mechanisms [take a look at peru right now, or Brazilian communities effected by eucalyptus monoculture offsetting projects] incredibly authoritarian regimes will be required to control people in order to keep it all ticking along.
And i wouldnt describe capitalism as simply some sort of system that stems from individualism any more than I would describe fascism as just stemming from corporatisation. There seems quite clear links between corporatisation and capitalism to me – but then again, im not Rodney Hide or Ayn Rand.
“The central problem, it is becoming increasingly clear, is a mode of production whose main dynamic is the transformation of living nature into dead commodities creating tremendous waste in the process. The driver of this process is consumption – or more appropriately over-consumption – and the motivation is profit or capital accumulation: Capitalism, in short.”
-Walden Bello
Maybe the only problem with Muller’s analysis is that it isnt called 20 thesis against green fascist capitalism
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I won’t deny that there are clear links between corporatisation and capitalism, these groupings are always continuums rather than discrete boxes into which something fits completely or not at all. That makes the slide from capitalism to fascism all the more incidious and perfidious. Notice how easy it was for the US government to act on the sub-prime crisis by injecting capital into the banks instead of simply providing mortgage guarantees or underwritten mortgage insurance for low income households. The latter option is what you would expect from both an egalitarian or social-democrat government or one committed to encouraging a perfect free market, ie one in which those who play dirty are allowed to get their come-uppance and those who play fair are protected.
I read some of Ayne Rand’s bboks and couldn’t help thinking that the hero’s were psychologicly unbalanced. But then so are many of Dicken’s and Hardy’s hero’s too.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn
Ayn Rand paints the entire world in black and white. No shades of gray at all. Unfortunately the better logic for describing the real world is “fuzzy logic” which is entirely built up of “shades of gray” and so her analytical excellence fails to actually reflect real world results.
Which is a shame, cause she does write a readable book.
The central problem is the currency. The currency that demands growth. The currency that feeds the concentration of wealth in the banking sector. The currency that has no basis in the real world. Debt-Based, Fractional-Reserve, FIAT currency. That enables the banks to control things and turns capitalism into corporatism through the banking sector. Even if the corporations are not directly in control of government.
Even if Henry Jackson was referred to as “The Senator from Boeing”.
For environmentalism to work, this system of currency must end. For the planet to survive, this system of currency must be abandoned. For the economy of the planet to be able to achieve stability, this obscenity must be destroyed.
Moreover, you will find allies at the other end of the spectrum. The arch-enemies of the current system of money are in the “Austrian School” of economics and are often staunch libertarians. The abuses we see aren’t really Capitalist in nature. Adam Smith is spinning in his Grave. Jefferson is spinning even faster.
Even so… I take no pleasure in being pragmatic here. We can’t touch the currency it has to implode completely (and it will eventually do just that). We can barely move the Senate off the starting blocks. We must do what we CAN do… and prepare for a future in which the people who are currently running things are instead running for their lives.
We WILL inherit the earth. The problem is that it is going to be in p!ss-poor condition by then.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I read some of Ayne Rand’s bboks and couldn’t help thinking that the hero’s were psychologicly unbalanced. But then so are many of Dicken’s and Hardy’s hero’s too.”
Atlas Shrugged: If the (present bunch of) entrepreneurs went on strike people people would all mill about until they dropped dead from starvation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
85% of the pollution-credits..are to be given to the pollutors..
the more you have polluted..the more you get..
..”it is indeed an upsidedown world..alice..”
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Phil
Get a copy of Rolling Stone. Read Tabibi on Goldman-Sachs. I read it, and my brain exploded. When you gather your brain cells from the spatterings on the ceiling and walls, post again. How to learn to hate a system in one article. Geez…
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“If the (present bunch of) entrepreneurs went on strike people people would all mill about until they dropped dead from starvation.”
Really? I would have thought people would just get on with their lives as they have for centuries but stop trading nik-naks on-line, go back to mowing their own lawns and walking their own dogs, stop buying “energy drinks”, watching Sky TV or LOTR, playing computer games, attending dance parties etc. etc. and give up the plethora of crap entrpreneurs have sold us, while the “entrepreneurs” starve.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Joe – nice call. Necessity being the Mother and all. The survivors of the Khmer Rouge were the very ‘people people’ jh describes and they became as innovative as you could ever hope – I fostered 12 Khmer orphans and have never before seen such adaptability and entrepreneurship.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)