The saga continues.
As it stands now, the Liberman-Warner Climate Security Act provides a secure financial environment for historic polluters and secures little else. It has inadequate targets to prevent catastrophic climate change. It hands away $100s of billions, impoverishing the average American for the favor of giving handouts to polluters. And, in giving away that money, it empties the bank of funds that could be used to achieve a better future.
And, well, Environmental Defense is going to the mat, going to bat with millions of dollars to secure passage of this inadequate bill. As per NY Times reporting, ED is going to get Gov Ahnold (R-CA), Gov Huntsman (R-Utah) and Gov Brian Schweitzer (D-Montana) on airwaves across the country to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans to support this inadequate answer to the challenges facing the nation and the globe.
The advertising campaign is underwritten by Environmental Defense, an advocacy group that is pressing for quick action on a climate change proposal sponsored by Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, an independent from Connecticut, and John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia.
One has to wonder whether the governors truly understood and appreciated what they are advertising. Perhaps they did, perhaps they didn’t.
Governor Schweitzer said dealing with global warming was the “greatest imperative” of this and future generations. “We need to find a sustainable, renewable American energy supply so we will not commit the next generation to fight another oil war,” he said.
Well, Governor Schweitzer, a question for you: What is there if Lieberman-Warner that you see to secure a “sustainable, renewable American energy supply”? The $100 billions of giveaways to long-entrenched polluters who see little need to change or seek alternatives? The absence of mandates or money for renewable power? Where does Lieberman-Warner act to secure this vision of the future?
Mr. Schweitzer added: “Here’s a novel concept for Congress. Do something. Anything. Move.”
Okay, this can be the worst. At times, Brian Schweitzer is truly a hero to me. It is amazing to be in the room with him. And, he has been doing great things as governor. But … but … is it better to do something bad than nothing at all? Should we support a horribly inadequate bill simply to have a “Global Warming” bill pass the Congress?
But … but …
Well, I have questioned, attacked Environmental Defense. And, well, the NY Times article has me concerned.
However, the one ad before me does not explicitly endorse Lieberman-Warner.
The ad, which you can see at CommonSense, is something that we can all support.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Energy NOT COOL: Oy vey iz mir! MIT Focused on BAU, not BTB « Energy Smart // Dec 10, 2007 at 3:59 am
[…] one bad study from some no-name outfit I wouldn’t much care. But this one is from MIT, funded by Environmental Defense (previously known as the Environmental Defense Fund), which I thought, and will still continue to […]
2 Boxer reacts to FoE’s left hook « Energy Smart // Jan 31, 2008 at 11:32 pm
[…] Friends of the Earth seems to be singing a solo with establishment environmental organizations singing praise for CISA while glossing over its weaknesses. “We do not agree with Friends of the Earth,” Julia […]
3 Get Energy Smart! NOW!!! » Blog Archive » EDF’s Krupp calls on Green Groups to avoid talking about Global Warming? // Sep 4, 2008 at 9:53 pm
[…] the past, I asked what I saw as a stinging question: Whose “environment” is Environmental Defense defending? When it came to the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act, Environmental Defense and I were clearly on […]
4 Senate Climate Change inAction: Postmortem thoughts continued … // Aug 5, 2010 at 8:17 pm
[…] even while, sometimes vehemently, disagreeing with their political strategies and approaches. Environmental Defense, for example, seemed ready to do nearly any background deal so as to get some form of cap on carbon […]