As responses to Michael and Ted's LA Times op-ed surface, it is clear that the climate change community is in a state of denial and ignorance about the import of the summer's energy debate, and the challenges and opportunities it has created.
In response to Michael and Ted's op-ed in the LA Times, the New Republic's environment and energy blog, The Vine published a post entitled, "The Green Bubble Hasn't Burst," by Dayo Olopade. This piece misses the thrust of Ted and Michael's argument, and, in an effort to counter it, proves them right.
Working backwards, my first objections with this post come at the end:
"I've argued that the derided June bill [the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act], which won 48 votes in the Senate, was clearly a two steps forward, one step back situation, and a good step forward at that."
The bill did not win 48 votes in the senate. These much glorified 48 votes were in fact votes to end debate and move the bill to a vote, and did not accurately represent support for the bill. Just hours after Lieberman-Warner was killed on the Senate floor, ten senators who voted yes on the cloture vote sent a letter (pdf) to Senate Majority Leader Reid stating that although they voted for cloture, they would never vote for a climate bill unless it looked significantly different than the Climate Security Act. These senators' ranks have swelled to 16, including two more senators who voted for cloture. For those of us keeping score that means that of the 48 senators who voted for cloture, at least 12 did not support Lieberman-Warner. So, Olopade can call the bill two steps forward and one step back. However, the fact of the matter is that Lieberman Warner was actually to two steps forward and 12 steps back.
This willful ignorance is bad enough. Earlier in the post, things are worse:
"I don't disagree that the Republicans have been bludgeoing Democrats with that very club all summer. But Nordhaus and Shellenberger create equivalencies between the energy debate and the state of "environmentalism" at large."
That right there is the folly of the entire climate action/environmental movement, encapsulated in that second sentence. Climate change is a result of our energy use and our sources of energy, and the main goal of most climate legislation is to cap and decrease our use of fossil fuels. Climate action attempts to improve patterns of energy consumption, expand alternative energy sources, and limit our use of carbon-intensive energy.
Climate change advocates are engaged in debate and dialogue, activism and advocacy, politics and policy all surrounding energy. It is sheer naiveté to believe that the energy debate is not the main playing field, the center ring in the circus of global warming action. So yes, there is and will always be an equivalency between debates surrounding energy and the state of, if not environmentalism, than at least action on climate change. Ignoring this equivalency doesn't negate it.
In fact, climate activists must embrace this equivalency. In a time of economic woe and energy-related turmoil, the relevance of action on climate change to cheaper energy and new economic growth should be the first thing on any climate advocate's lips. It is hard to imagine that the American people will ever be more tuned in to energy issues then they have been since June. This attention has created more opportunity than ever for the climate change community to create public support for action on clean energy that will lead to lower energy prices, increased national security, economic growth and more jobs. Imagine the support that would flock to a message of cheaper energy, a stronger economy, and a safer nation. There is so much potential. Our moment is urgent; the time is now.
Not to quibble, but your "Technology Ten" is actually 9 who voted for cloture (Bayh, Levin, Lincoln, McCaskill, Nelson, Pryor, Rockefeller, Stabenow, Webb) and one who didn't (Brown). So with the addition of Salazar, Byrd, Conrad, Dorgan, Bingaman and Johnson (of which only Salazar and Bingaman voted for cloture)you are at 11 fewer votes than the 48 claimed by the proponents of the CSA. So, its actually two steps forward, 11 steps back. Ok, only 1 Senator difference, but with the current polls showing Very close Senate elections around the country, that 1 vote may actually make a difference.
Posted by: Anon at October 14, 2008 10:26 PM