There is a lot of catching up I have to do on articles I wanted to republish here. Let’s start with the Green Party. Where have they been lately? It may appear as though they have been missing in action on climate change, (which would be ironic) but there has been some recent news and position statements.
I’ll start with the story of the action against the bill in Congress for climate change: the Waxman-Markey bill. Don’t get me wrong; the Waxman-Markey bill is a good jobs bill and a decent energy bill, (minus the coal) but it’s a lousy climate change bill. Here is the story #1:
“Sedinam Kinamo Christin Moyowasifza-Curry and environmental activist Vincent Pawlowski fasted for a full 40 days in May and June to protest a weak climate bill recently passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.
SKCM Curry is in full agreement with UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s statement at the May 2009 World Business Summit on Climate Change: “Climate change is the defining challenge of our time. I also believe it is the most potent game-changer for business over the next century. It is an opportunity we must seize.”
Seven members of Fast For Our Future fasted for 33 days. The group is calling for a rolling fast to urge continued momentum toward strong international action on climate change. (Fast for our Future wrote:
“In April and May of 2009 over 200 people from 30 states and six countries fasted from 1-40 days (9 people fasted from 25-40 days) to call attention to the need for the United States to give leadership to the world on the climate issue.”)
Two protesters fasted for 40 days to symbolize the 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases called for by scientists. On the 37th day of this hunger strike the Waxman-Markey climate bill was released by the Energy and Commerce Committee, chaired by Henry Waxman. The fasters were critical of this bill and are are calling for stronger climate legislation.
“This legislation is very problematic,” said Vince Pawlowski. “It’s not even close to being a solution to our urgent climate crisis. The whole idea of a cap is to increase the price of carbon-based fuels to drive the transition to clean, renewable energy, and this legislation doesn’t do that. Further, the requirement for utilities to get their electricity from renewable sources is so weak it might be worse than having no federal renewables requirement at all, given the number of states that have enacted stronger renewable mandates. This is in no way the kind of legislation we need.”
“Problematic” is a good description. What do you do when something bad is all you have?
While you are thinking about that, here is story #2. Now this one is the official Green Party statement of individual state Green Party positions. It’s not “necessarily” the position of the Green Party of the USA, (but it pretty much is). I don’t agree with all of it; specifically the anti-nuclear portion of it, but I agree with the rest of its criticisms and general tone of frustration.
“Greens give a thumbs-down to the House energy bill, urge Obama and the Senate to pass stronger anti-global warming legislation
July 15 — The Green Party’s national Eco-Action Committee is sharply criticizing an energy bill passed in the US House (HR 2454), calling the legislation dangerously inadequate and a concession to polluting industries.
Greens, currently preparing for the party’s 2009 annual national meeting in Durham, North Carolina, are urging the US Senate and President Obama to reject the bill and instead enact stronger policies to curb global warming. The meeting takes place from July 23 to 26.
“The Energy Bill passed by the US House of Representatives is not a transition to a sustainable energy future,” said Audrey Clement, a Virginia Green and member of the Eco-Action Committee. “It moves us in the wrong direction by subsidizing more coal and nuclear power, and it”s far too weak in its support of earth-gentle renewable energies and in its effort to reduce carbon emissions.”
Greens called the the bill’s cap on greenhouse gas emissions a fraction of what it should be and said that the cap is undermined by the allowance of annual “offsets” that allow polluters to keep polluting.
“These offsets are a handout to large corporations,” said Ms. Clement.”
To say the least. I agree with the Green Party, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth on the Waxman-Markey bill.
There is more at the Green Party website.
Recent Comments