On a sister site, AreWeToast.com, I ask:
Can mankind adapt to the changes in environment caused by global climate change?
Will mankind be wise enough to protect our planet for future generations? Or, are we toast?
Time and experience will be required before the first question can be answered. But, unfortunately the answer to the second question is becoming increasingly clear.
On July 22, 2010, U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nevada) announced that the Senate would not act on climate change but instead would attempt to pass a bill limited to raising the liability caps on spills by oil companies and providing incentives for developing natural gas vehicles.
At the time of Senator Reids’ action, the Senate had two draft bills for consideration. The 39-page Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal Act (CLEAR) Act of Senators Collins and Cantwell, was a focused bill in which the government would auction pollution credits and rebate 75% of the proceeds to each citizen and legal resident of the U.S. as a dividend, with the remaining 25% used for clean-energy research, reduction of emissions from agriculture, forestry and manufacturing and provide transition assistance to workers and communities in carbon-intensive regions. CLEAR established a price for carbon, supported clean energy development, and encouraged conservation; exactly what an ideal climate change bill should do. CLEAR did not establish a carbon trading market for speculation in carbon credits, attempt to predict winners in the development of clean energy alternatives, or provide favors for special interests or “dirty” industry.
In sharp contrast, the 1,000 page American Power Act (APA) authored by Senators Kerry, Lieberman and Graham was laden with pork and exemptions. It was a “cap and trade” bill with unrestricted trading of carbon credits and allowances. It was fashioned by compromise upon compromise in an attempt to provide benefits for every special interest, lobbyist and politician at the expense of the American taxpayer and the environment. During the long preparation of the APA emphasis was steadily shifted from climate change to energy development. By the time the final draft was completed, carbon caps would have been initially placed on only largest electric utilities, which seems to be an act of sheer hypocrisy when you consider the government support for electric cars as the vehicle of choice.
As the proposed CLEAR Act did not provide special benefits there were no favors for Senators to hand out to special interest or business groups. Therefore, it had very little support in the Senate. On the other hand, the pork-laden APA had goodies galore, with new ones added daily. Consequently it had considerable support from special interest groups and business lobbyists. Regrettably most of the major environmental groups supported the APA, claiming that while it was not perfect it had the best chance to to pass the Senate, and then could always be fixed at a later date. In other words, to their shame, these organizations traded integrity for expediency.
Congress has also lacked any leadership from President Obama, in spite of his campaign promises to place a high priority on climate change legislation. Indeed, when BP presented him with the opportunity to link our dependence upon hydrocarbons and a changing climate President Obama passed. Climate change science is complex, and national leadership which links climate change to the environment, national security, and the economy is sorely needed and currently lacking.
Eighteen months ago the passage of climate change legislation seemed more likely than ever. A new Democratic President promised action, appointed excellent people with outstanding scientific backgrounds to important positions, and had a solid majority in both the House and the Senate. Realizing that passage of a bill was inevitable and that it presented ample opportunities for profit, climate change legislation had considerable support from the “clean” business sector; and, polls showed that the majority of Americans supported such legislation. However, the economy deteriorated, and emails were stolen from the Climatic Research Unit of East Anglia University and distorted in the popular media. Consequently, political leadership in Congress or by the President did not materialize and in the end, the U.S. Senate in an act of pure political cowardice elected not to even acknowledge climate change or to stand up and be counted.
But the blame does not stop with our leaders, representatives, environmental organizations or special interests, because we, the people, also did not act and did not apply sufficient pressure to make the lack of action uncomfortable for our elected representatives and leaders. Thus we also demonstrated cowardice by not standing up to be counted. Our failure to stand up will be our legacy to our grandchildren.
