It’s showtime! Nearly a year after the House of Representatives passed the Waxman-Markey bill—and after months of Capitol Hill intrigues, cloakroom double-crosses, and whisper campaigns—the Senate is finally set to move on comprehensive climate legislation. If you’re a die-hard green, you’ve probably already seen the slew of coverage here and here about the press conference by Senators Kerry and Lieberman [Wednesday] unveiling the legislation. But, and here’s the rub: Most people aren’t die-hard greens. According to a recent Gallup poll, only about one in five of Americans surveyed would list energy and climate legislation as the highest priority for Congress. Which means that, for most voters—including the enviro-symphathetic—the fight is just getting started now.

There is still plenty of time left to influence the debate in Washington and to mold this (draft) legislation into something that progressives can honestly feel good about.
As debate gets underway, a chorus of voices are arguing (with good reason) that we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Senator Kerry has a well-reasoned and thoughtful piece up on Grist laying out his strategy for getting the 60 votes needed for passage and explaining some of the hard-to-swallow compromises. Influential climate blogger Joe Romm agrees with the Kerry strategy, and says, “We need to keep our eyes on the prize: There is no Plan B.” On NPR, leading climatologist Stephen Schneider of Stanford said that environmentalists shouldn’t be so “pure” that they are unwilling to compromise.
No one in the environmental community (at least as far as I can tell) is under the delusion that this bill won’t include some disappointing concessions. All of the grownups in the room understand quite clearly that politics involves give and take. Yet we also need to remember that politics involves conflict. Politics is about reconciling conflicting worldviews, and struggle is a natural part of that process.
So before making compromises, environmentalists should put up a fight for what we really want.
As I said at the start, most people are just now tuning into the discussion. This is the moment when the major (and minor) green groups need to activate their members and ignite a forceful grassroots lobbying push for a bill that doesn’t have too many polluter giveaways. This is the time when all of those people on the lists of the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, NRDC, and the Center for Biological Diversity need to be pushing, and pushing hard, on their elected officials.
I’m of the school that it’s not citizen groups’ business to craft legislation; that’s the job of our legislators. Public interest groups should stick to principles and positions, and let our paid policy-makers figure out the exact policies. Former Greenpeace head John Passacantando put it best when he wrote a few weeks ago: “I didn’t join the environmental movement to try and become a master dealmaker. Let’s leave that to the politicians and their staff. I’m more interested in the people building a powerful swell of public support that politicians eventually have to follow. Democracy done right means politicians listen to the people.”
When it comes to the Senate climate bill, that will involve putting real pressure on the swing votes, including senators such as Republicans Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska; and Democrats like Michiganers Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Begich of Alaska, and Jim Webb of Virginia, to name just a few of the fence-sitters. We need to try to pull the swing votes toward a better bill before conceding key points. The phone lines, email addresses, and websites of those senators and others need to be lighting up with comments demanding strong climate legislation.
And what does “strong” look like exactly? Well, that’s where things get even trickier. Should environmentalists support a bill that includes massive loan guarantees to the nuclear industry? Should they green light a law that includes billions for pie-in-the-sky carbon sequestration technologies?
There are at least two places where the green groups should hold the line.
The first is the Environmental Protection Agency’s powers to enforce the Clean Air Act. While the current draft retains EPA authority over existing power plants, it still waives some Clean Air Act safeguards. Retaining complete EPA authority is a must.
Second, and more importantly, greens shouldn’t fold when it comes to offshore drilling. Obviously aware of how the Deepwater Horizon blowout in the Gulf of Mexico has shifted public opinion on off-shore drilling, the draft legislation says that states can veto any drilling less than 75 miles from its shores. That’s not enough. Greens should demand a full moratorium on any new offshore drilling: not just in the Gulf of Mexico or the Mid-Atlantic, but also in the Chukshi and Beaufort Seas off the coast of Alaska. This issue will be a major test of environmental organization’s muscle—and also of their principles. If the green lobby isn’t prepared to fight for a moratorium on off-shore drilling as millions of gallons of crude pollute the Gulf Coast, politicians and the public can be excused for wondering if the green groups really stand for anything.
Before accepting this legislation as a done-deal, environmentalists need to remember that this bill is already badly compromised. Its key provision—reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020—is far below what scientists say is needed to stabilize the climate.
At this point, greens shouldn’t give up anything more without a struggle. Will a battle over the Kerry-Lieberman bill give us everything we want? Of course not. But at least we’ll know that, before bending to political realities, we fought the good fight.
Jason Mark is a writer-farmer with a deep background in environmental politics. In addition to his work in the Earth Island Journal, his writings have appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle, The Nation, The Progressive, Utne Reader, Orion, Gastronomica, Grist.org, Alternet.org, E magazine, and Yes! He is a co-author of Building the Green Economy: Success Stories from the Grassroots and also co-author with Kevin Danaher of Insurrection: Citizen Challenges to Corporate Power. When not writing and editing, he co-manages Alemany Farm, San Francisco’s largest food production site.
This piece first appeared in the Earth Island Journal blog.

Photo (cc) via Flickr user dbking

  • Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away
    Dogs have impressive observational powers.Photo credit: Canva

    Reddit user Girlfriendhatesmefor’s three-year-old pitbull, Otis, had recently become overprotective of his wife. So he asked the online community if they knew what might be wrong with the dog.

    “A week or two ago, my wife got some sort of stomach bug,” the Reddit user wrote under the subreddit /r/dogs. “She was really nauseous and ill for about a week. Otis is very in tune with her emotions (we once got in a fight and she was upset, I swear he was staring daggers at me lol) and during this time didn’t even want to leave her to go on walks. We thought it was adorable!”

    His wife soon felt better, butthe dog’s behavior didn’t change.

    pregnancy signs, dogs and pregnancy, pitbull behavior, pet intuition, dog overprotection, Reddit stories, viral Reddit, dog instincts, canine emotions, dog owner tips
    Otis knew before they did. Canva

    Girlfriendhatesmefor began to fear that Otis’ behavior may be an early sign of an aggression issue or an indication that the dog was hurt or sick.

    So he threw a question out to fellow Reddit users: “Has anyone else’s dog suddenly developed attachment/aggression issues? Any and all advice appreciated, even if it’s that we’re being paranoid!”

    The most popular response to his thread was by ZZBC.

    Any chance your wife is pregnant?

    ZZBC | Reddit

    The potential news hit Girlfriendhatesmefor like a ton of bricks. A few days later, Girlfriendhatesmefor posted an update and ZZBC was right!

    “The wifey is pregnant!” the father-to-be wrote. “Otis is still being overprotective but it all makes sense now! Thanks for all the advice and kind words! Sorry for the delayed reply, I didn’t check back until just now!”

    Redditors responded with similar experiences.

    Anecdotal I know but I swear my dog knew I was pregnant before I was. He was super clingy (more than normal) and was always resting his head on my belly.

    realityisworse | Reddit

    So why do dogs get overprotective when someone is pregnant?

    Jeff Werber, PhD, president and chief veterinarian of the Century Veterinary Group in Los Angeles, told Health.com that “dogs can also smell the hormonal changes going on in a woman’s body at that time.” He added the dog may “not understand that this new scent of your skin and breath is caused by a developing baby, but they will know that something is different with you—which might cause them to be more curious or attentive.”

    The big lesson here is to listen to your pets and to ask questions when their behavior abruptly changes. They may be trying to tell you something, and the news may be life-changing.

    This article originally appeared last year.

  • Throughout history, women have stood up and fought to break down barriers imposed on them from stereotypes and societal expectations. The trailblazers in these photos made history and redefined what a woman could be. In doing so, they paved the way for future generations to stand up and continue to fight for equality.

  • ,

    Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

    Mass shootings and conspiracy theories have a long history.

    While conspiracy theories are not limited to any topic, there is one type of event that seems particularly likely to spark them: mass shootings, typically defined as attacks in which a shooter kills at least four other people.

    When one person kills many others in a single incident, particularly when it seems random, people naturally seek out answers for why the tragedy happened. After all, if a mass shooting is random, anyone can be a target.

    Pointing to some nefarious plan by a powerful group – such as the government – can be more comforting than the idea that the attack was the result of a disturbed or mentally ill individual who obtained a firearm legally.


Explore More Articles Stories

Articles

Man’s dog suddenly becomes protective of his wife, Internet clocks the reason right away

Articles

14 images of badass women who destroyed stereotypes and inspired future generations

Articles

Why mass shootings spawn conspiracy theories

Articles

11 hilarious posts describe the everyday struggles of being a woman