Environmental Defense has sent out an e-mail to Senate staffs and Senators specifically calling out this blogger for attention and calling for advertising coordination between Senators and Environmental Defense in support of the Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act (CSA, mistakenly called the Climate Security Act), to respond to advertising, here at DKos and elsewhere, by Friends of the Earth in their Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill campaign.
To put it simply, FoE is right. From my earliest comments on Lieberman-Warner, comments on Lieberman-Warner,
From my perspective, we have just one shot at good Global Warming legislation and "almost good enough" isn’t, well, good enough.
My statement:
I am saddened that Environmental Defense seems far more interested in pushing forward fatally (and, I do mean fatally ... and I think of my/our children when I write that ... ready to provide details to those interested) flawed legislation than in positioning the nation for a move to meaningful action.
Now, if anyone actually cares to read what I wrote, this is how I ended the specific post in question:
And, this is the saddest thing about this issue, about having to write this diary. When it comes to sensible approaches to Global Warming, Senator Boxer gets the science, she gets the challenge, she understands the risk for her grandchildren. It is sad that Boxer is aiming her 'left hooks' at strong voices for environment, like FoE, rather than humanity's real foes exemplified by Senator Inhofe (R-Exxon).
It is sad that Environmental Defense (which gets the science, gets the challenge, and understands the risk for our children/grandchildren) is aiming their left hooks at strong voices for the environment, like FoE (and myself), rather than at humanity's real foes as exmplified by Senator Inhofe.
Wouldn't it be better if Environmental Defense (and the Senators that they contacted) were spending this money and energy educating Oklahomans about climate change and how Senator Inhofe is working against their interests?
A Siegel
PS: Thank you ED for your back-handed compliment. Didn't realize that I'm a "major DailyKos contributor" and that anyone, at the end of the day, really gave a damn.
Environmental Defense's e-mail to Senate staff:
From: Mark MacLeod, XXXX@environmentaldefense.org
To: XXXXXXXXXX
Cc: Elizabeth Thompson XXXX@environmentaldefense.org
Sent: Mon Feb 04 XXXXXXXX 2008
Subject: Need your help challenging attacks on Chairman Boxer, the EPW Committee, and climate bill
Yes, this was sent out earlier today. While easily traceable, I am not one who puts out e-mail addresses and phone numbers on the net.
Dear XXXXXXXX,
Nor, by the way, does Environmental Defense need to know which (the multiple) staffs and Senators forwarded this to me.
Senator Boxer and the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act have come under attack in ads placed on liberal blogs. Some blog posts have picked up on the claims in these ads (see http://www.dailykos.com/...).
Yes, with good reason, the Climate (in)Security Act is seriously flawed. Among its failings:
- More than $500 billion (and maybe in the $trillions) in pollution permit giveaways to serial polluters. Notably, this amount could potentially cover the financial investment required to meet serious US requirements for carbon reduction investments over the next 20 years. Giveaways that will mean windfall profits at the cost of the average Americans pockets being emptied.
- A large amount of resources dedicated to an uncertain technology: carbon capture and sequestration
- A Carbon Board with the authority to weaken, but not tighten, caps. Nor provisions for scientific lookbacks to keep temperature increases below 2 degrees.
- Inadequate long-term targets, of less than 70% reductions by 2050, when scientific consensus states that 80% is a bare minimum (to provide a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change) and even the 80% targets might be inadequate.
Now, there is something interesting to note: Environmental Defense talks about "claims" on liberal blogs. Is there any suggestion in this email that these "claims" are not factually accurate? The challenge, it seems, is that Environmental Defense does believes Friends of the Earth to be politically naive, calling for a position (100% auction) that they (ED) see as impossible to achieve. A year ago, not one of the Democratic Presidential candidates (that I am aware of) supported a target of 80% reductions by 2050 nor did they support 100% auctioning. Now, both Clinton and Obama do (as did Edwards and Richardson (actually, 90% by 2050) and Dodd). Hmmm ... Lieberman and Warner both support Senator McCain. Their bill puts forward a target below that of the Democratic candidates. Their bill rewards serial polluters and won't achieve necessary reductions. And, we should be pushing for that bill because? As per FoE, we should Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill.
Even Environmental Defense once spoke of needing to improve Lieberman-Warner. Hmmm ... seem to have forgotten that necessity.
Environmental Defense has been defending the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act and the work of the EPW committee on these blogs and through posts on our own blog http://www.climate411.org, but we feel at this point it would be very helpful to have members of the Committee voice their support for Sen. Boxer, the committee, and the LWCSA. One idea we have would be to run ads on the blog sites and we would be happy to work with your office to arrange for filming of a short statement of support. Other ideas include a joint letter from the members of the committee who voted for the bill. The more members that would participate - the stronger the message (further details below).
Well, it is nice to see that Environmental Defense is trying to wrangle up resources to attack FoE and others concerned with the environment (such as ME!) rather than figuring out how to take up Senator Inhofe (R-Exxon) and the real foes to achieving a path toward a Prosperous, Climate Friendly Society
Please let us know if you would consider participating in such an ad or taking other action. Time is of the essence. FYI - I am sending this message to all the offices that voted for the bill as well as other prominent supporters
Mark MacLeod
202-XXXXX
Wonder who those "other prominent supporters are"? Do you?
ED's 'fact sheet' supporting the letter:
Friends of the Earth (FOE) is running ads against the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, calling for killing the bill (if unrealistic dramatic changes are not made).
Damn right they (Friends of the Earth) are. And, they're right. Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill.
There are growing calls in the liberal blogosphere for opposition to the bill; and a general push against passing any climate bill in this Congress. This position has NOT yet solidified, but will become orthodoxy if we do not present a counterview from respected pro-environment voices.
This is the problem. So-called "pro-environment voices" will try to convince us that this is a situation of "Perfect being the Enemy of the Good" when, in reality, this is a case of the "Inadequate being the enemy of the absolute minimum necessity."
A major DailyKos contributor today (2/1/08) ran a full-throat expression of the FOE point view, directly attacking Sen. Boxer for wanting to move forward and for objecting to the FOE ads.
Wow. I'm "major". Pause for an ego-boost moment.
Did Boxing our way to disaster? attack Boxer? I guess so, painfully so since I do believe that Senator Boxer understands Global Warming. After all, it was the Sanders-Boxer bill that called for 80% reductions by 2050 rather than the Coal-Subsidy Act's failure to maintain that minimum target.
Environmental Defense and many other major environmental groups (Friends of the Earth is small and fairly isolated) are in favor of moving forward to get a strong bill like Lieberman-Warner. We may differ on details and areas which require improvement, but are still pushing for action in this Congress.
First of all, the comment about FoE is a snide one. If small, are they wrong? But note, "differ on details and areas which require improvement". The key difference: Environmental Defense is so desperate for Climate Change legislation that they will, it seems, work hard for fatally flawed legislation rather than stake a claim: here are "must" requirements, at a minimum, before ED will provide its 'seal of approval' to a bill.
For scientific reasons, and to take advantage of political momentum (which should not be taken for granted), we think it is important to make a strong start on global warming by passing a bill like Lieberman-Warner this year. If there are more environmental supporters in Congress in the future, we can improve it, as we did the Clean Air Act and other important first steps. Delay only makes the solution harder and more expensive.
Note that Environmental Defense is making the bet that the political situation when it comes to Climate Change and Global Warming is better today (with 49 Republicans and Joe Lieberman in the Senate and Bush-Cheney in the Oval Office) than a year from today. Is that a bet that you agree with?
They are also arguing that we can improve on the situation in the future. Anyone see a path to get $100s of billions from serial polluters once they have been granted pollution permits?
Now, as I've often written, if the inadequate 2050 targets were the sole problem, then Lieberman-Warner would not be such a flawed bill. That is 42 years from now and there would be many chance to revisit targets versus requirements in light of progress. But, that is not the only problem.
We need a strong voices to stand up for Sen. Boxer, the committee, the LWCSA, and for the importance of acting NOW on climate change. Environmental Defense is interested in running ads featuring that voice on the same blogs where the FOE ad is appearing.
Well, Environmental Defense, Friends of the Earth, and this isolated blogger agree: we must act in regard to climate change, NOW! But, action does not mean sacrificing basic science for political expediency. "Environmental Defense"'s read on "Political Reality" does not trump scientific reality as seen in melting ice caps, changing weather patterns, mounting CO2 levels, acidification of the oceans, and all the other Climate Change impacts we are seeing and, sadly, are likely to see in the face of catastrophic climate change.
NOTE:
ACTION: It is time to add your voice: Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act. It is time to listen to Nancy Reagan and "Just Say No" to the opiate of poor climate change action embodied in the Coal Subsidy Act!