ED come home

Facing big obstacles, environmental movement can't afford division

Posted by Glenn Hurowitz (Guest Contributor) at 10:02 AM on 22 Oct 2007

Read more about: environmental movement | politics | legislation | climate | energy

A little tenderness

Cartoon: Bob Englehart; Hartford Courant.

I'm excited that Environmental Defense is now saying publicly, in response to criticism from Matt Stoller and me, that it "has not endorsed" the Lieberman-Warner bill and that it "will work to strengthen the bill, particularly to achieve the deeper long-term emissions reductions scientists tell us we need to avoid a climate catastrophe."

That's great, but I must note it's a sentiment that was distinctly lacking from the statement ED put out in response to the bill, which mainly offered a passionate defense, or the fund-raising letter it sent out to activists (thanks Roger Smith for posting this). True, it did include one line that said, "This bill is a good start in that direction [of 80 percent emissions deductions], and we will continue to work in that direction." But the clear implication was that they would push for those commitments through some future legislative mechanism.

In contrast, almost every other major environmental group gave the bill qualified praise, but also clearly stated that the bill should be improved to get the maximum possible greenhouse-gas reductions (I do wish Environmental Defense had acknowledged this difference a little more explicitly in its post rather than just doing selective quoting -- let's try to be fair here!). That's the right strategy, and I'm psyched that Environmental Defense is now on board.

I don't believe it's right to dismiss Environmental Defense's work, even though it continues to divide the environmental movement's united front. ED has been helpful in getting Republican support behind taking action to solve the climate crisis and, along with the National Wildlife Federation, deserves enormous credit for convincing conservative Republican Elizabeth Dole to co-sponsor the Lieberman-Warner bill.

Dole has, in the past, opposed climate legislation. Partly because of ED and NWF's behind the scenes work, she's signing onto legislation that's a giant first step towards tackling the climate crisis -- and she's likely to continue supporting it even if the bill gets stronger. Notably, ED and NWF were the two groups that excluded any suggestion that Lieberman-Warner should be improved. But that exclusion was not essential to getting Dole's support. All ED had to do was include a paragraph acknowledging that the bill had to be improved and all would have been hunky dory and strategically savvy.

OK, hunky dory is pushing it: the rest of the environmental movement is currently furious at Environmental Defense, to the point where they almost booted ED out of environmental movement coordinating bodies. The reason: ED has continued to bad-mouth the Democratic energy bill as a distraction from climate legislation; they even issued a report headlined "New Analysis Shows Energy Bills Would Let Global Warming Emissions Rise for Decades." Environmental Defense is right -- as every other environmental group says, too -- that the energy bill alone is far from sufficient to solve the climate crisis. But everyone else also recognizes that it includes vital increases in funding for clean energy and could mean the long-awaited passage of increased fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks and a national requirement for increased clean energy use -- things that would dramatically reduce greenhouse-gas emissions from where they've been. Leading with the message (not just publicly, but on Capitol Hill, too) that the energy bill won't actually do that much to tackle the climate crisis just feeds into Republican talking points that say, "if it won't do that much, why should we impose the extra costs on corporations included in the energy bill?" We've got to do both, and we've got a hard enough fight getting the energy bill through without having Environmental Defense criticize it.

So, ED, come home -- the truth is that the obstacles to passing both positive climate crisis and energy bills are huge; the environmental movement needs your expertise, policy savvy, and connections with top Republicans and corporate leaders to overcome them, but can't afford the division you've lately been sowing. We're waiting with open arms.

Environmental Defense spokesman Tony Kreindler declined to comment on the record for this article.

For story: ED come home
5 Comments | Post a Comment

Can't have it both ways

I'm a little confused about your reasoning. You're criticizing ED for NOT supporting the Energy Bill because, although it doesn't do enough, the bill does something good. But in previous posts, you've been criticizing ED for supporting the climate bill, even though it's the same situation - it would do something, though not enough.

It seems like the other green groups are contradicting themselves - when is it ok to accept an imperfect bill? If neither bill does enough, why support one and not another?

by juno at 11:36 AM on 22 Oct 2007

It's pretty simple...

Passing the 2007 energy bill has required enormous resources for what will take us off the business as usual path but will allow for a continual rise in emissions.

Lieberman-Warner will REDUCE carbon emissions by at least 70% by 2050. Getting this bill passed now will provide huge dividends for the global climate (much, much, much more than the energy bill).

Here are some of my other thoughts:

-If we wait for the "perfect" bill until 2009-2010, several more years will have passed where we continue to emit and the planet continues to warm. Guess what? The emissions that we will continue to emit until the "perfect" bill passes will be in the atmosphere far longer than 2050

-If this bill passes now, a great deal of the groundwork will already be completed for the Bali COP and the US can initiate meaningful conversations.

Why do we quarrel over the 2050 target? The most important point to take away is that it matches Boxer-Sanders early on. Is there any reason to believe that a piece of environmental legislation will NEVER be amended for 43 years? Of course it will be, and in 2030.... Lieberman, Warner, Boxer, Sanders, Inhofe, and all will have retired.
Why is anyone listening to these other environmental groups about how we should implement an economic policy (that's quite complicated)? You do know that most of these groups do not have a SINGLE economist on staff. In any other scenario, these groups are willing to publish polemical diatribes against the "market-based" system, but for climate change, we're going to rely on them to tell the public what is the best "market-based" approach for reducing emissions, huh? Is there rational behind this?

While I do think groups like the Sierra Club or Earth Action Network have done meaningful work in the past, attempting to prevent this bill from passing is counter-productive. Sure this bill isn't perfect, but it's likely the best we're going to pass in this country for quite some time, and it's better to do it now then later.

by siahtam at 1:21 PM on 22 Oct 2007

Siahtam

Seems like all the weight in your argument is on this:

Sure this bill isn't perfect, but it's likely the best we're going to pass in this country for quite some time ...

I'm not sure why you'd expect green advocacy organizations to accept that as fact. How do you know we couldn't get something better this session, or radically better next session? Most of the groups support the bill, but want it strengthened -- couldn't that happen between now and the time it's passed? Point is, there are plenty of people out there pushing for a weaker bill. It's greens' job to push the other way.

That said, I do think ED plays a unique and not entirely malign role in the environmental world -- something I should probably put in a separate post.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 2:53 PM on 22 Oct 2007

Much ado about nothing

First, ED's and the other groups' positions are not that different.

Second, there is not a snowball's chance in hell that any meaningful climate legislation will be signed by president Bush and there will not be enough votes in congress to override a veto.

What's the difference between a great bill, a mediocre bill, and a bad bill if none of them will be enacted?

All of the enviro's current legislative work is just practice. It is a good exercise to see what can be done when the next president is in office, but until that happens its just practice.

If there has to be fighting within the environmentalist community maybe it should wait until something is really on the line.

by josullivan58 at 6:37 PM on 22 Oct 2007

Some good points there...

You're right that the green advocacy groups play an imporant role right now and that this bill can still be strengthened. I also think it's a great sign that L-W after releasing their initial draft, sought feedback, and came back with a stronger bill.

To me, there is little doubt that this is an honest attempt to address climate change and they really want the best bill to pass. Lieberman has a bad reputation today due to his positions on the war and Iran, but remember that McIntosh was just at NRDC.

Given the nasty climate on the hill, it's the only big bill (climate or otherwise) right now that has bipartisan support. If anyone knows what can pass, it is L-W because they have more information on where other members of congress stand than you, me, or any green group.

As for the role of green groups, I would be interested to hear your own opinions about EDF. To me, the USCAP groups have played an essential role and if this bill is to still improve, I think they will continue to be the most important players (for good or for worse).

by siahtam at 9:07 PM on 22 Oct 2007
[ Parent ]

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.