Waxman-Markey: Disastrous, Destructive, and the Only Game in Town
Sharon June 19th, 2009
“Bart: No offense, Homer, but your half-assed under-parenting was a lot less scary than your half-assed over parenting.
Homer: But I was using my whole ass!”
There’s a lot of discussion about the merits (some) and demerits (many) of the Waxman-Markey bill in Congress. I won’t rehash them here – let us just say that despite the truly heroic efforts of Waxman and Markey, both of whom I admire, they have produced a (maybe) politically possible bill that is, depending on who you ask, either an imperfect first step to dealing with climate change or a disastrous failure to do so. You can read a compelling range of opinions in various spots, and I won’t rehearse the information here.
I will instead simply give my opinion. If you actually care about limiting the worst of climate change, it is a disastrous bill. It enriches the powerful at the expense of the poor world and ordinary Americans. It fails to do anything useful, or to even address the science. We are clearly using our whole asses here, to get the worst possible climate bill. And it is the only shot we’ve got, at least for a while, at getting one passed. I hate it. I support it.
What interests me about Waxman-Markey is the degree to which its accomplishments are very much in keeping with the kind of accomplishments we seem to be able to make at the national level. The bill is woefully inadequate – among other truly disastrous acts, it removes the newly won power of the EPA to regulate CO2 emissions – this alone is sufficient to undermine the bill. The targets are extremely low, the actual science mostly ignored in dealing with climate targets, the coal issue is not dealt with, carbon capture and storage, which doesn’t work and has no merit receives a ton of money, and corporations are unduly enriched and pandered to. And yet, for environmentalists, aware that we are truly teetering at the point of no return, there is a desire to hope, to appreciate the first step, to reassure ourselves that it will be strengthened later, as people adapt.
But what are the odds? The last three decades of US policy has been one of pandering to industry and consistently, across party lines, undermining and weakening inconvenient legislations, whether ecological or economic, that corporate interests claimed hurt them. If we had some certainty that Democrats, who mostly at least deal with the science of anthropogenic global warming, if inaccurately in many cases, were likely to stay in power, we’d still have no real certainty here – Clinton’s commitment to regulation wasn’t any better than many of his Republican predecessors. But that seems unlikely, particularly if we face an extended economic downturn – if the green shoots don’t manifest themselves in a real recovery, the voters are likely to feel very much betrayed at having sold their patrimony down the river to bail out a few Wall Street corporations. I’m not optimistic for the long term stability of Democrats in office.
The truth is that this bill may well be the grounding for everything that comes after it, at least until climate change strikes us in ways that are so acute that we cannot but respond – and at that point, it will almost certainly be too late. We are now creating an offset market that we will be dealing with nearly forever – and with all of its lack of regulation and potential for misuse, I anticipate vast lies and failures – if we actually hit even these ridiculously low targets, I won’t just be surprised, I’ll be stunned.
And yet, even though every environmentalist I know essentially agrees about this, we also know this. If Waxman-Markey doesn’t pass, it isn’t clear that a better bill will. If we go to Copenhagen without a national policy, that’s a disaster. More importantly, if the economy gets worse, which it almost certainly will, our window to address climate change will close altogether – the threats of industry will become too much to bear.
So Waxman-Markey falls into the category of things that I do not like but can’t do a damned thing about. I think it is very likely that Waxman-Markey is the best America can and will do. And it will fail at many levels, most importantly, at the international level – bringing this bill to the table with China, India and Russia will be a disaster. All three nations argue that they are trying to bring their people out of poverty, while we are already rich. If we are not willing to stop using coal, they certainly are not. And yet, given all of these facts, I still support Waxman-Markey, because it does some small good.
And that, I think is the interesting thing about it – it is, I think, a really perfect metaphor for what we can expect in most of our responses to our collective situation. That is, most of what we will be able to do – for political reasons, economic ones, and a whole host of others, is, to create half-assed solutions, while umm..using our whole asses. And we are going to have to put our backs behind all sorts of truly half-assed, stupid things in order to get the little bits of good one can get out of them. Waxman-Markey does something important – it means that we have a climate bill – a stupid, largely useless, sometimes destructive climate bill, but a climate bill. Without it, we can’t meaningfully go to the table in Copenhagen at all. Without it, my bet is that the US won’t pass any climate bill, or if we do, one that could barely pass as quarter-assed, so to speak. We have to support it.
My guess is as the nation awakens to our realities, there will be a lot of holding our noses, or recognizing that the solution is really only marginally better than leaving the problem alone. But the truth is this – we need our little bits better, our small softenings of the blow. We need what we can get, because the alternative is nothing. Waxman-Markey may do little, it may fail miserably, but there is money for renewables we desperately need, and there are emissions targets there, even if they have no relationship to climate reality. I suspect our health care reform, if we get it, will look much the same. So will a host of other adaptive projects. I suspect, for most of us, the national level efforts may become increasingly irrelevant – and yet, we also can’t abandon them. The reason we can’t is this – even the small solutions have some real possibility to mitigate the misery of many. And that’s worth it. But it should also remind us that on smaller levels – state, regional, community – we have to do more. We can’t afford to do a half-assed job, while using our whole asses there. Leave that to congress.
Sharon
- climate
- Comments(27)
Why can’t we use our brains that are in our heads instead of our asses? *sigh*
thanks for the informative post, sharon.
Peace to All (for my BP after reading this!)
shamba
Suffice it to say, ma’am, that you are quite unequivocally shoveling shit uphill if you chose to believe and act as if the current paradigm can in any way function to the benefit of the of the environment. Its the frigging paradigm that has engendered all this crap in the first place, for cripes sake.
David, did you even read the post? Of course we can’t. We’re probably already past the damned tipping points. At best, we can function to the marginal benefit, or at least the lesser evil for peple, not the environment.
Sharon
As long as Waxman-Markey, imperfect and wanting though it may be, does not cause more damage than it will improve, I’d support it. Even baby steps forward are better than any backwards.
Holding my nose,
Kerri in AK
Yes, I read it. And I repeat with David, over and over: Suffice it to say, ma’am, that you are quite unequivocally shoveling shit uphill if you chose to believe and act as if the current paradigm can in any way function to the benefit of the of the environment. Its the frigging paradigm that has engendered all this crap in the first place, for cripes sake.
Fricking waste of attention.
Sharon, love your site, however, as an old fart I feel that it is in your best interests to leave this environmental clap trap alone. You will look back on this as an embarassment. I can remember coming to Kentucky in 1965 and my great uncle telling me that when he was young people couldn’t wear a white shirt outside because of the coal dust emitted from the burning of it. In my 62 years I can honestley say that I can detect no difference in air quality. Are there problems? Certainly. Are they man made? Certainly in some areas, however the United States is not the cause. Many other countries, particularly China have far more serious issues than the USSA (not a typo).
When Mt. Pinatubo, a volcano in the Phillipines erupted, it emitted more pollutants into the atmosphere than all of mankind in the history of mankind. Mama earth is far more resiliant than given credit for.
The sun has far more to do with temperature flucuations, closely followed by ocean currents that man.
Have you ever seen a graph of the earths tempuratures over sever billion years. We are living in a period of time that our tempurature has been ideal. This will not last forever, so we best enjoy it while we can.
My bet: Global cooling will be the coming issue.
Again, I only offer this because I really do feel that lies,deceit, distortians, and greed are behind this nonsense.
If nothing else, reflect on where you live, and what kind of news media you have in NY. Is it possible that these people are duping us? I think it is highly likely.
One more thing and I will leave you alone. Have you researched those who refute the environmentalists? Much credible info is available.
Thanks for allowing me to vent, and congratulations on your wonderful site. You are a wonderful asset to so many of us.
Michael
Talking of tipping points, take a look at Lou Grinzo’s “Cost of Energy” blog:
http://www.grinzo.com/energy/index.php/2009/06/19/co2-checkpoint/
Scary!
Oh dear Sharon, you seem to have picked up a denialist following
CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/06/090618-co2-highest-carbon-dioxide.html
Hi Sharon,
I agree that a small benefit is better than nothing, but besides the political benefit at Copenhagen, I don’t see it.
“…there is money for renewables we desperately need…”
True, but which of the renewables do you think will make any difference in CO2 emissions?
Compare to this situation: a New Homestead Act, where any family who pledges to hand-farm organically gets stewardship of a small plot of unused land as long as they’re producing some food. Politically ridiculous? Yep, but not more ridiculous than expecting a wonderful climate bill. Tiny effect? Probably, since only a few people would accept this deal, but for those who do, the CO2 reductions are almost guaranteed.
Can you convince us that any renewable can almost guarantee emissions reductions?
Thanks,
Mihai
Sharon,
Thing is, the bill is going to get watered down even further by the time the Agriculture committee and the full House get through with it. What then? And after all that comes the Senate.
I sure did read your piece, hon. It wasn’t easy, but I did. I also went and confirmed my understanding of the term paradigm, which is what my comment addressed, on about 8 or so web sites. I could equally ask back if you read my comment, or even that of Orlov, whom you extolled just a day ago, but let’s leave such silliness out of it.
You said, after letting the world know that Waxman and Markey were people you esteemed, that “If you actually care about limiting the worst of climate change, it is a disastrous bill. It enriches the powerful at the expense of the poor world and ordinary Americans. It fails to do anything useful useful, or to even address the science.” And then, “I support it.”
After which you use most of your ink in a twisting, meandering and ultimately insidious rationalization of that “disastrous bill”. If that’s not putting your shoulder to the wheel for exactly the forces that have brought the world to this brink…please help me see the light. You’ve taken something very simple and made it complicated, and in the process made something that is completely antithetic to human interest into something desirable.
My brother works as a greenhouse gas accountant in carbon management services and this is what he had to say:
“the core of the difficulty with Waxman Markey is that we have a very geographically heterogeneous energy grid – so there will be winners and losers and their congressional representatives are battling it out -”
and also:
“there are massive problems in the bill but the core of it is finely tuned, up-to-date and state of the art for managing GHG.”
I think of it like a boat – it’s got holes in it and won’t float but if you did manage to patch those holes at some point, it’d make a fine ship.
one big hole is agriculture – my brother again, commenting this morning:
“Big Ag is off the hook as I predicted – they won’t even have to report, much less be capped – offsets are the only way to bring “big ag” in under the cap. food security is a sacred cow -”
We are not denialists, we are anti-panicmongering, anti-bullshit, and anti-profiteering from said panics & bulshit.
I’d respect the denialists (or whomever) more if they could just comment without using vulgar language that borders on insults.
Talk is that the arctic methane might be cooking off. The choices are narrowing and patience will cost a price not payable.
Neville Chamberlain proved that appeasement (part of the loaf is better than none) might not be a winning strategy when dealing with a system that has stolen all your money, is intent on destroying a social system built over two hundred years and now is sacrificing your children and grand children to the funeral pyres of capitalism. I would call it a war of survival and a losing the war – or perhaps even a battle – will result in the genocide of billions.
I have always been amazed that no one in the early thirties would pull the trigger on Hitler or Goebbels. Surely the detailed future picture might not have been totally in focus but the broad outcome was clear to many. I today saw a news feed with hundreds of people lined up to purchase the latest IPod nonsense and couldn’t erase a black and white image of naked women and children entering the gas chambers at some 1940’s Nazi camp. Propaganda is a powerful task master.
Don’t be the camel sticking your nose under the master’s tent in hopes of being rewarded with a few crumbs. Burn the damned tent down.
I just don’t believe that any measures taken now can possibly make a difference, so I really can’t care. This is just a continuation of the effort to loot everything possible before the whole thing collapses.
This bill is too little to lower emission in the states and too little to convince India and China not to follow the western path. If the US wont accept they must make marked improvements there are 3 billion people on the other side of the world will continue their full speed ahead race for decadance. sigh.
For us in Canada this is also a failure because our neoCon leaders will use this lowered bar as tacid approval to do nothing and continue to support expanded tar sands expansion something that does make coal look clean. Even if there was no global warming tar sands expansion would still poison the entire Athabasca water shed and eventually half the Province.
While this bill may be the only choice you have at this point, we can’t wait for a single baby step each election cycle as populations will grow at a faster rate than reductions.
It’s a good thing that most environmentalists are pacificst/peacenik types because if they weren’t this bill would certainly give them reason to lose trust that gov will ever really act and just might push them to action. Imagine greens with the zeal of pro lifers or jihadists!
Chill out, Stephen B. Nobody is insulting Sharon here. The insults are meant for the BS-spewers our world overflows with. Especially when it comes to politics. And as far as I can see, they deserve worse than just insults.
What hummingbird said. It’s all about looting. The rest? Magicians’ diversions… getting us to look elsewhere while the looting continues unimpeded.
I imagine we can’t do much at this point to mitigate climate change but some of us feel we must try, it is important that we make some effort. Maybe that’s just the human condition to try no matter how little it may change some outcome.
Some of may feel it is our duty or dharma –no not “fate” just a responsibility–to do what we feel we are called to do without attaching ourselves to any particular outcome. Yoga teaches this, maybe Buddhism does, too, and some Christians would view life this way as well.
I ‘m aware that this way of looking at efforts in life aren’t for everyone and I’m not saying we should all believe this. I am not naive or believe that “God” or our efforts will save us. But I am saying that I appreciate Sharon’s viewpoint and understnad her feeling we must try to do what we can to make the world whole.
Peace to all, Shamba
I don’t think the money we invest in renewables now will lower world emissions – what I think is that as the world economy begins to crash in earnest, the infrastructure we build no is probably what we’re left with – that is, the hope of electrical generation in the coming decades depends on us doing some renewables now, because the affordability of oil, coal and natural gas is going to decline. The merits of the renewables are not their ability to prevent climate change, but their ability to give people in cities running water for a while.
I don’t agree with the climate change skeptics, or the PO skeptics, but they are welcome to express their opinions here. I’d appreciate reasonable civility from everyone, though.
Sharon
Michael, in case you’re interested, Greg Craven (http://www.gregcraven.org/) is coming out with a book entitled “What’s the Worst That Could Happen?” on July 7. If you don’t know Greg, he’s a high school science teacher with a great sense of humor and a penchant for crazy hats. He brings a newer, saner approach to the whole “he said,” “they said” debate on global climate change and he does it in a readable, witty manner.
David, I admire Markey and Waxman for managing to get this bill built at all, crappy as it is. Realistically, if you’ve got a good way of making the magic paradigm shift fairies come round and transfer power to you, great, do share how. Otherwise, nice as it would be to awaken in paradise, where all of us did things differently, we’re back to the ugly humdrum of the real world, where things suck, and are still sometimes better than nothing.
Sharon
The Markey-Waxman bill is turning out as expected – the negotiation amongst powerful interests that underlies all American politics is still strong after 200 years.
Is it better than nothing? Answer the question better for what. Nature won’t bother to read it. Anthropogenic forcing of CO2 levels (through the quantity of people and the quantity of use of fossil fuels) has increased CO2 levels away from the prior levels in the Holocene era of the planet (i.e. the conditions which we, humans, arose from). Accordingly, the climate will change, and humans will adapt – possibly through large scale human extinction given our current lifeways. Yikes – that’s pretty grim.
So the bill is for what? Humans, of course. For some, it is a feel-good. For most, it is a do-nothing. Other would suggest it is for Copenhagen, which seems an exercise in window-dressing to point out that we (humans) are in control of the climate-change situation (or at least aware of it). Is this better than nothing? Sure is, because nothing it nothing.
I have a snippet laying on my desk. A piece of paper I cut out at some time in the last 35 years or so. I don’t have the reference.
“It is false reasoning that ‘any method’ is better than none. In the contrary, a poor method has the potential to blind or demoralize the creative search for an effective method.”
About the Waxman-Markey bill.
o It flies in the face of Herr Obama’s stated goal of redistributing wealth. Anything that fails to penalize, punish, and steal from the wealthy and corporations – and thus, hurts common Americans – has two strikes against it.
o Waxman-Markey is likely not the first step, but the last carrot. Especially if it seems to accomplish nothing according to mainstream and industrial science and common understanding, all the pain will do is to create additional government jobs and regulations – and expense. Thus, the bill itself will assure there will not be anything following that is worthwhile, “Oh, but this time we will accomplish something!” – right. It will fritter away any chance of trust.
o Congress has been receiving conflicting science reports for the last couple of years. The appearance of global cooling has been presented as compelling – and, of course, benefits current industry and politicians wanting to avoid passing legislation that irritates voters.
o No one is addressing the absurdity of producing hybrid cars, or the petroleum cost of every one of today’s alternative energy “solutions”. If we want to stop car pollution, we could insist that the most significant environment impact is not the fuel burned, but building the vehicle. Instead of pushing hybrid and battery cars, push for regulations and taxes that punish those that trade cars more than every eight to ten years – and avoid the impact of making 75% of the cars made today. Reserve new cars (hybrid or electric, please!) for replacing worn-out vehicles.
o No one has made significant strides in implementing mass transit in a functional way, outside of a few corridors. Buses, trains, etc. are *not* in a position to significantly increase capacity.
o No one is addressing the deforestation in Asia, Africa, and Brazil – probably the most significant modern climate factor. Whether for charcoal for home heating and cooking or lumber, destruction of old growth forest has to be changing the world. Not to mention that wildfires and control burns (for weed control on pasture and crop land) still go on in Oklahoma, at least. I cannot imagine how many cars it would take to put as much carbon in the air as burning the stubble of an 80 acre (small!) wheat field. However much we can measure the carbon contributed from oil and coal, downing old growth forest has to account for both the short-term carbon released, the decreased ability to sequester carbon, the changed moisture and wind patterns, and the changed albedo and energy absorption function of the area.
o My idea – hydroelectric designed for low water head – one (1) foot – that could be incorporated on any country creek or stream – isn’t going anywhere. Nor my idea to enforce the mandatory safe following distance in traffic – 200 feet where the speed is posted over 45 mph – even for stopped traffic – to minimize pollution concentration, and to reduce or eliminate traffic congestion. Whatever.
o Instituting another government program that makes corporations richer and fails to accomplish it’s stated goal – like the War on Drugs, the War on Crime, the War on Poverty – is not the way to begin to accomplish climate change. The change has to come first, before the pain for greater effect.
o The cynic might point out that since it appears that mere economic collapse – driven by oil volatility – may be enough to rebalance the climate, based on the apparent climate cooling since oil hit $147/bbl.
o There are still those nagging NASA and Army reports that the climate is now cooling, that warming affected all the planets in the solar system – which calls into question whether mankind has or could affect the climate – other than converting grassland and farmland to paved cities, or deforesting areas. The rest of the current efforts seem to be overshadowed by natural events and disasters.
Sharon-
Thanks for posting this. I’m not a fan of the watering down, but it’s important thing to bring something to Copenhagen.
It’s strange how all these denialists attempt to mock instead of persuade, and how civil everyone is to them, instead of banning them. Return kindness with kindness.
What’s been happening in Iran this week has been very depressing, and inspiring.
WHY is it important to bring something to Copenhagen?
US pride?
Is there a real chance that Copenhagen will result in any meaningful global climate policy?
As Sharon points out this bill sure isn’t going to be enough to get past the BRIC vs US problems.
Perhaps, Copenhagen would be more effective if the US WASN’T “participating” or if our participation was laughable.
If this really is the best the US can do, (as Sharon thinks, and seems likely to me too), then meaningful climate mitigation may need to wait until the US’s global power has crumbled enough that they can be swept aside at global talks. And that day may not be so very far away.
I am not a denialist, but I am strongly tempted to the language of Vera and David here, both in position and style.
It is SHOVELING SHIT UPHILL to hope that this crappy little piece of mitigation handouts wrapped in corporatist power grabs, can do anything other than delaying the corporatists day of reckoning a little longer, and maybe give the corporatists a few new tools to wreck and steal with in the meantime. This is one of those occasions that call for either the superb dignity of Wendall Berry, or the guttermouthed angry bruised honesty of Lenny Bruce. This system will not pass a climate change bill unless the corporatist sops are enough to undermine, ruin, and subvert the scraps thrown to the mitigationists. Sharon, so often so wise, is clearly wrestling with this fact which she knows as well. I do not understand why she swollows a hook baited with a few minor concessions.
If you would hope, don’t hope for this bill to pass, hope for the system that created this bill to collapse under its own ponderous weight, and then be ready to build the next system when it does. The “small solutions” of this bill do have the possibility of mitigating the misery of many, but only because the OTHER provisions of the bill will allow those currently in charge to create far more misery.
EVEN YOUR INTRO quote, acknowledges that half-assed under-parenting, and thus under-legislation, is preferrable to half-assed over- legislation.
The perfect must not be the enemy of the good, but the “at best break-even, but will probably do more harm than good” – that is not even worth lending legitimacy to.
Deep changes are not made by incrementalist policies like this. One waits for the moment of undeniable crisis and then institutes a whole new plan. Readiness for the brief window of timing when genuine change is possible is far more important than wasting force on junk like this bill when the window isn’t open yet. Yes, there will be irrepairable damage by then, but that has been inevitable for a while. Mitigate as best you can, and mitigate by creating meaningful change when meaningful change is possible not by aiding the current system in creating the illusion of mitigation, by lending legitimacy to half-assed jokes. The illusion of mitigation will be a serious enemy to real attempts at mitigation, until it is rendered laughable, so treat it as laughable NOW!