Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Blogging for a sustainable energy future.

Get Energy Smart!  NOW! header image 2

Is it time to ask? 300+ Groups Make Boxer Appeal

August 26th, 2009 · 1 Comment

Virtually with each passing day, the scientific understanding of the depths of our climate change challenge deepens. Just this week, the head of the IPCC, stated (in a private capacity) that the IPCC almost certainly understated the case and has joined an increasing number of scientists calling for a target of 350 ppm of CO2 or ten percent below where the atmosphere is at this time. We must determine our path forward not to simply reducing our emissions, but a climate-friendly future prosperity requires a path that will actually lower atmospheric (and ocean) CO2 levels.

With this in mind, over 300 religious, environmental, human rights, and social organizations have joined in a call to Senator Barbara  Boxer to redouble her efforts to not just pass a climate bill, but to seek a meaningful bill that will actually meet core criteria for meaningful legislation.

What are the core tenets being put forward by this coalition:

  • Reduces atmospheric CO2 concentrations to a safe level of below 350 parts per
    million;
  • Maintains existing Clean Air Act protections against global warming pollution;
  • Minimizes the use of offsets and other loopholes;
  • Protects vulnerable populations and communities;
  • Promotes abundant clean energy;
  • Eliminates polluter giveaways; and
  • Adheres to preexisting U.S. commitments to the rest of the world.

“We haven’t yet seen the bold leadership from Congress that’s required to solve the
climate crisis,” said Church World Service Director of Education and Advocacy
Rajyashri Waghray. “We’re sending this letter to demonstrate broad grassroots
support for such leadership.”

“The everyday people of America have been left out of the climate debate. We are
building a grassroots movement that reflects the diversity of America, to mobilize
everyday people who are experiencing the affects of climate change. We aim to
defeat entrenched fossil fuel polluting special interests in Washington and pass a
truly strong climate bill,” said Tom Goldtooth of the Indigenous Environmental
Network.
“There’s an impressive breadth of groups on this letter, and it demonstrates that the
status quo isn’t acceptable. Congress must pass a bill that actually gives us a fighting
chance of avoiding runaway global warming. There’s no other

The letter:

Thank you for your continued leadership on the climate crisis. The environmental, economic, and public health threats of global warming — both in the United States and around the world — require a strong climate bill. We are profoundly concerned that as currently written, H. R. 2454 (the American Clean Energy and Security Act or “ACES”) falls far short. We are writing on behalf of the millions of members our organizations represent to urge you to draft a companion bill that provides the transformational change and greenhouse emissions reductions required to avert catastrophic climate impacts.

The Senate bill must set an economy-wide cap on greenhouse emissions that is consistent with the best available science and that can be ratcheted down as necessary. Findings from the U.S. Global Change Research Center, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and many other institutions and scientists indicate that the atmospheric greenhouse gas stabilization target of 450 parts per million CO2eq is far too high to avoid the risk of catastrophic climate change. Leading scientists currently warn that CO2 must be reduced to no more than 350 parts per million. Yet the cap set by H. R. 2454 is insufficient even to achieve 450 parts per million CO2eq. The Senate bill must contain reduction targets consistent with the best available science, representing the U.S. fair global share of reductions within the world’s remaining carbon budget, and it must include immediate action on short-lived global warming pollutants, including black carbon and methane, to slow warming in the near term.

The Clean Air Act already provides many of the necessary tools to reduce greenhouse pollutants. Therefore, the Clean Air Act rollbacks in H. R. 2454 — which would actually reduce existing pollution control requirements, facilitate the construction of additional coal-fired power plants, and grandfather in unnecessary pollution from existing plants — must be removed. The critical safety net of the Clean Air Act must be retained, not discarded in favor of a new, untested system, placing all of our eggs in one precarious basket. Existing Clean Air Act authority should be strengthened by adding deadlines for the oldest and dirtiest coal-fired power plants to meet pollution reduction requirements or shut down.

The Senate bill should eliminate the many loopholes in H. R. 2454 and ensure the integrity of the pollution-reduction system. A top priority must be to eliminate or greatly limit and restrict offsets, which allow actual pollution from capped sources to increase, creating localized toxic hotspots in people of color and vulnerable communities; delay a shift to low carbon technologies in the United States; and increase the risks in carbon markets. In addition, the House provision prohibiting a full life-cycle analysis of biofuels must be reversed.

The Senate bill should protect low- and middle- income families. Regardless of the chosen mechanism, the setting of carbon prices must be transparent, stable, and predictable, while minimizing the ability of private entities to manipulate the carbon price. We do not believe the market mechanisms contained in the current cap-and-trade proposal achieve this. The Senate bill should ensure there are adequate protections from climate change for low-income families, vulnerable communities domestically and globally, and Native American and indigenous peoples, including protections and dividends for low-income consumers and adequate international
finance for adaptation. The Senate bill should provide for abundant clean energy. The Senate bill should provide mandates and incentives for abundant clean energy sources such as low-impact solar, wind, and non-dam hydro, which do not add toxic burdens to communities and workers and do not require incineration technologies.

The Senate bill should eliminate polluter giveaways, including massive subsidies to coal and oil. Scarce government funding should not go to dangerous fossil fuel or nuclear industries or allow damaging practices such as mountaintop-removal mining. Instead, public money should go to investments in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the creation of green jobs.

The Senate bill should live up to the United States’ international obligations. For a fair global deal with meaningful global emissions reductions, the United States must both deeply reduce emissions domestically and provide adequate international climate finance for clean technology, adaptation, and support to stop deforestation. Fulfilling these commitments will be essential to securing an effective international agreement.

We recognize the massive political effort that is necessary to pass climate legislation, but a bill with inadequate targets, loophole-ridden mechanisms, rollbacks of our flagship environmental laws, and inadequate financing to help developing countries address climate change will move us in the wrong direction. We urge you to pass a strong climate bill consistent with the principles outlined above.

Tags: Energy

1 response so far ↓

  • 1 Chris Brown // Aug 26, 2009 at 4:52 am

    Where did the IPCC head say “that the IPCC almost certainly understated the case?”

    1. This is not in quotes, but is an accurate reflection of what he said.

    2. From here:

    “As chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) I cannot take a position because we do not make recommendations,” said Rajendra Pachauri when asked if he supported calls to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below 350 parts per million (ppm).

    “But as a human being I am fully supportive of that goal. What is happening, and what is likely to happen, convinces me that the world must be really ambitious and very determined at moving toward a 350 target,” he told AFP in an interview.

    In its benchmark 2007 report, the IPCC said that the key for preventing dangerous global warming was to keep CO2 concentrations below 450 ppm.

    How would you describe Pachauri’s statement relative to IPCC conclusions?

Leave a Comment