Shades of Green - Huge Rift in the Environmental Movement

There is a gathering storm in the ongoing public debate over our responsibility to protect our environment. Most people recognize the two sides - environmentalists versus big business, or conservationists versus conservatives. Do we side with corporate interests or wilderness defenders? Many have already decided, taken sides, and that debate is not what this blog is about. It's the conflict that faces the tree-huggers among us that I want to talk about here. Real and substantial differences exist within the environmentalist community over current proposed climate change legislation. Now our side has to take sides.

Making law in a democracy is a result of compromise and negotiation, always has been. This is usually considered a hallmark and strength of the process. We wonder, however, when this process kills leadership, when does the compromise give up too much? How much do we give up to get SOMETHING done? The point of great divergence among some of the most respected environmental groups on the planet has seldom been so clearly drawn. It is the Waxman-Markey act that draws the dividing line today among environmentalists. Also known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act or ACESA (HR 2454), it is Waxman-Markey that needs serious evaluation.

Many Americans turn to national or local organizations to inform them about these issues and possible solutions. From household recycling to greenhouse gasses, from toxic pollution to public transportation, these issues are as complex as they are important. Few people have the time and resources to fully investigate all the options in their personal lifestyle choices, much less the legislation, government regulations, and special interests that weigh in on some of the most important questions facing our society today. We must trust others to keep us informed. Problem now: "Who ya gonna call?"

There is a new coalition emerging in support of the current legislative compromise (ACESA). It is a coalition of divergent interests called the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). This group supports most of the provisions of the new legislation, including the so-called "Cap and Trade" schemes of offsetting carbon impacts with monetary contributions to a public fund. Pay to pollute? Cash for carbon release? Greenpeace and others say WE MUST DO MORE! The current version of carbon offset provisions will result in NO significant reductions for up to ten years! The current version moves enforcement of these schemes from the EPA to Dept. of Agriculture, necessitating a new beauracratic system without experience in this field of regulation.

Some of our oldest, most active and most respected environmental organizations have taken another view. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), and the Nature Conservancy all are members of the US Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). So too, however, are multi-national corporate powers Dow Chemical, DuPont, General Electric and Alcoa Aluminum, General Motors, Ford Motor, Rio Tinto. Fossil fuel giants BP America (formerly British Petroleum), Shell Oil, and ConocoPhillips. Utility conglomerates like Pacific Gas & Electric, Duke Energy, NRG Energy. (A more complete list is here: http://www.us-cap.org/ ) This unsavory alliance played a major role in crafting the Waxman-Markey ACESA bill, passed by the US House of Representatives in July, and expected to make its way to the Senate vote soon.


It is apparent that this legislation represents a dangerous, irresponsible compromise that undermines the best work of scientists in guiding us toward effective climate initiatives. Here are some links to the organizations that stand against this unworkable half-measure:

Greenpeace statement of opposition:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/press-center/releases2/greenpeace-opposes-waxman-mark

Friends of the Earth - "We Can Do Better":
http://www.foe.org/global-warming/we-can-do-better

Rainforest Action Network:
http://understory.ran.org/2009/05/04/hansen-hopes-lawmakers-cap-and-trade-approach-to-climate-will-fail/