RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

Clean Energy and Security Act: If Everyone’s Unhappy, It Must Be a Good Compromise

by Elizabeth Denlinger Reaves 06-30-2009

I rode my bike to work today. Despite the summer heat, it is not a bad trip – in fact, the 30 minute ride is not much longer than if I took the Metro. However, I was reminded why I don’t do it more often: air pollution. By the time I powered my way through downtown Washington, D.C., my throat was scratchy and irritated.

It made me think about the clean energy and climate change bill that the House of Representatives passed by a mere 7 votes on Friday night. (Yes, when you work on public policy for a living, you actually think about these things in your free time.)

Will my future children be able to ride their bikes to work, or will pollution make it unsafe and miserable?

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, a hefty 1,092 pages long, is full of complicated provisions, technical guidelines, and financial initiatives.  Its provisions touch almost every sector of the nation’s economy – kind of like pollution.

As far as the bill goes, it meets the criteria of a “good Washington D.C. bill” – it left all parties disgruntled and angered. If the final product makes everyone unhappy, common wisdom says it is probably a good compromise.

As maddening as that wisdom may be, and as contrary to our Christian dedication to truth, I find it to be relatively useful in analyzing the climate change bill.

As readers of this blog may know, Sojourners supported the House bill, despite its many problems: not enough support for vulnerable countries adapting to climate change, too many give-aways to the energy industry, and insufficient support for developing clean energy technology in the United States.

Why support such a bill? It is a vital first step, far surpassing anything we’ve accomplished in the past and giving us a vehicle to build upon and modify moving forward.

Climate change is a multi-faceted issue, and one piece of legislation will never address it perfectly or completely. However, this act will begin to change destructive or ineffective behaviors in our industries, our foreign aid programs, and our consumption patterns.

Now, the debate moves to the Senate where hundreds of groups will try to improve the bill — including Sojourners. Getting a better bill is important to our international climate change negotiations in December, so we must keep the process moving forward as best we can and with many voices at the table.

It is not a clear cut decision to support a very imperfect bill, but riding my bike to work today – breathing in the heavy air pollution – the basic questions we have all heard came to mind:

What kind of future do we want our children to inherit? How can we be more responsible stewards of the earth? Are we content with our current energy consumption patterns and consequences?

If we are concerned, if we desire to pursue healthy lives for all people, then we have a responsibility to work together and pursue smart climate change policies for our country.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act in the House is a first pedal in that direction, but we’ll still need to raise our voices and our values with the Senate to improve the legislation before it goes to the president.

Elizabeth Denlinger is the deputy director of policy and organizing for Sojourners.

Categories: Environment
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • ando
    Some say climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time. Last week, NPR's Talk of The Nation did a segment on shootings in inner cities. I was surprised by the number of people calling in from different parts of the country to tell stories about shootings in their neighborhoods. Eight-year old girls, teenagers, the elderly, the list goes on. I would think that Christians might want to focus a little more on the here and now and figure out ways to stop these bloodbaths; otherwise, it really isn't going to matter what happens a hundred years hence.

    BTW: Malaria used to be prevalent throughout the country. It was largely eradicated -- albeit through drastic means and is now not an issue at the forefront of the US. It has always been an issue in much of the developing world. A NG article last year notes that perhaps one-half of all deaths throughout human history have been due to malaria or similar insect-borne pathogens.
  • WaveTossed
    Thanks. Good article. One of the key points in the article is:

    "Wow, this energy thing isn’t just about global warming!"

    While China develops all sorts of energy efficiency and clean energy: in the U.S. we go whole-hog on "global warming" and at the same time, subsidize pollution-causing companies like GM.

    Our environmental policies have to be a lot more diversified that simply dealing with carbon emissions. Cutting carbon emissions while ignoring other very important environmental issues -- and the Chinese will most certainly clean our clock.
  • Anothernonymous
  • Anothernonymous
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/opinion/05fri...

    Take a look at this column by Thomas Friedman in today's New York Times.
  • "Poll Shows Clean Energy Act Could Force Nearly 20 Percent of Manufacturers to Close"

    http://mfrtech.com/articles/2293.html
  • WaveTossed
    I can only dream of being able to buy electricity from a company that uses only wind, solar, and other renewable energy sources -- that was also affordable.

    However, due to the various manipulations of local politicians, we basically have a monopoly and are forced to buy electricity from one company. This company has taken advantage of its monopoly and has jacked the rates way, way high.
  • Anothernonymous
    Here's hoping the free market continues to fix the problem. :-) It's already given me the choice of buying my electricity from a company that uses only wind, solar and other renewable energy sources. Thus, my electric car, when I get it, will be pollution-free.
  • WaveTossed
    "but we do have a choice about what kind of car we drive. As soon as I can get an electric car and charge it with renewable energy,"

    It's not quite that simple. No one is making completely electric cars right now. So that isn't a choice. Also, coal-firing electric plants have to make the electricity that goes into recharging and running an electric car. And even when electric cars become available, most low/moderate income people won't be able to afford it. Of course low/moderate income people can't afford a car that gets 8 miles per gallon.

    As for Humvees and other cars that get 8 miles per gallon -- the free market is fixing this problem. Humvees and gas-guzzling cars/trucks have been sitting on dealers' parking lots while people have been choosing to buy more energy-efficient cars. I read somewhere that the Humvee brand has been sold to China because not enough people in the U.S. are interested in a Humvee. Of course if the U.S. government keeps subsidizing these automakers who make these gas-guzzling cars, that may very well ruin the change to allow the market to fix this problem.

    As I said (and I think you would agree): What Michael Moore said was to let GM, Chrysler, and the others go bankrupt and stop subsidizing them. And hire the out-of-work autoworkers to build new trains and buses.
  • Anothernonymous
    And we used to have good public transport in the US too, but the oil companies conspired to get rid of it. The LA freeways are built on what used to be streetcar routes. So our dependence on our cars isn't our fault, but we do have a choice about what kind of car we drive. As soon as I can get an electric car and charge it with renewable energy, I will do so. In the meantime, I will do everything possible to speed that day's coming. Michael Moore's plan sounds good to me.
  • WaveTossed
    And if they drive a Prius or Yaris, the same happens: fouling and polluting the air with auto emissions. So should everyone ride a bike and dump their cars? I'd love to ride a bike but I am mobility-impaired.

    We just had a major crash on the Washington Metro system. Nine people died and eighty people were injured because the Metro doesn't get the subsidies that the car and oil companies get. So the Metro wasn't able to do the upkeep that it needed to do.

    More Michael Moore. I heard him on an interview. His solution for GM and other auto companies demanding a bail-out: let them go bankrupt and hire the auto workers to build trains and buses for public transit. I agreed with Moore on that plan.

    I have visited Japan twice and got completely spoiled by their wonderful train system where a person can travel all over the country without having a car. The trains are all run by private companies and I'm not sure of the arrangement with the government. All I know is that the trains run wonderfully.
  • Anothernonymous
    Well said. To extend your smoking analogy, however, somebody who opts to drive a Hummer on his or her own nickel is still fouling my air as surely as if he or she were smoking in my presence. There is no right to do that.
  • WaveTossed
    "For some reason, this prospect scares a lot of people who seem to think that it will mean a loss of personal freedom. It is this position for which I have zero sympathy. The right to pollute is not God-given."

    Most libertarians have a very important caveat about pollution and liberty. One's "right" to pollute ends where it affects someone else. If someone wants to smoke in their house and destroy their lungs -- that's fine with me. However, if they walk on the street and blow their noxious smoke in my direction, that is NOT fine.

    Same with companies. They do NOT have the right to pour noxious fumes into the atmosphere or pour noxious sediments into rivers or into ther people's drinking water.

    " Nobody - nobody - has a right to own a car that gets 8 miles to the gallon just because they like feeling powerful."

    Hey, if someone want to spend their own money for gas, that's their choice. As long as I don't have to subsidize their spending or the gas (or oil) that they might need. However, if my tax dollars go for subsidizing oil companies so that people can speed away in cars that get 8 miles per gallon; or if my tax dollars go for sending our soldiers overseas in a very expensive and life-taking foreign military operation in order to protect oil interests: Then this is NOT their right; they are encroaching on my rights.
  • lumens
    Godspolitics is still under Beliefnet. It's not Disqus that makes the decisions.

    And you remember incorrectly. He was banned because he allegedly misconstrued an argument presented by an original poster. By pure coincidence, he happens to be a Republican. Funny how that works.
  • lumens
    "I never said--or insinuated--that you lied, Kevin."

    Yeah, you did.

    "You sincerely believe you were blocked from posting here. "

    A belief I base on the fact that, when I try to post as Kevin47, I get a message that says "you have been banned", and my message does not appear. Which again, I'm happy to demonstrate to you.

    I did ask Disqus the reason. They don't know, and they referred me to Sojo, but without providing any contact information.
  • BuckeyeDon
    Wolverine was banned before God's Politics moved here to the Disqus format, when it was still being hosted by Beliefnet. If my memory serves me right, the reason was because he had written some things that could have been construed as insulting to another poster here. And it was his third "offense." Many of us, myself included, protested his banning, feeling that it was unjust.

    But again, that all happened under Beliefnet, not here with Disqus. Since nobody to my knowledge has posted here under Disqus as Wolverine, we can't really say he was banned here.
  • BuckeyeDon
    I never said--or insinuated--that you lied, Kevin. I only said I wasn't convinced. They are not the same thing. You sincerely believe you were blocked from posting here. By repeating that assertion, you are not lying.

    But having said that, did you ask Disqus for the reason(s) why you were blocked? If so, did they answer you? What reason(s) did they give?
  • weiwentg
    They say the love of money is the root of all evil. People perceive that their economic security will be threatened by cap and trade. This leads to the global warming denials.

    Frankly, those who deny global warming are doing great evil. This is a threat that will disproportionately hurt the poor of the world. The evidence is good enough for me to at least invoke the precautionary principle.

    Additionally, we have ample time to rearrange our economy such that the effects aren't disproportionate. Without putting an explicit price on carbon, no one will do squat. With an explicit price on carbon, people will act. And the US has the resourcefulness and technical skills needed to make things happen. I'm not saying the new green economy is some sort of panacea that will replace wholesale the old manufacturing economy overnight - but we have the resources to adapt. We do at least need a price signal to start the adaptation process, so I pray the Senate passes the bill.
  • neuro_nurse
    Sorry, it's a habit that I'm NOT trying to break
  • Anothernonymous
    I understand. As someone who's been on board with the environmental movement since the early 70s, I share these concerns.

    What virtually all of them have in common is that any effective solution is going to have to be international in scope. Nobody owns the oceans, and nobody owns the sky, so no one country can control the pollution of either. It will take coordinated, top-down efforts by all of the major industrial countries working together, and in turn setting an example for those that are now developing.

    For some reason, this prospect scares a lot of people who seem to think that it will mean a loss of personal freedom. It is this position for which I have zero sympathy. The right to pollute is not God-given. Nobody - nobody - has a right to own a car that gets 8 miles to the gallon just because they like feeling powerful. This belief is an idolatry that places personal freedom over respect for God's creation, and there is no credible Christian theology that supports it.
  • WaveTossed
    Thanks for your thoughtful answer.

    "This doesn't necessarily prove that the human activity causing climate change is the burning of fossil fuels, but I'm not aware of any other plausible *human* cause that has been suggested. Are you?"

    There are all sorts of human actions that cause loads of pollution. Factory emissions spreading not only carbon, but soot and all sorts of noxious gases. Then there is acid rain. I don't hear or read too much about acid rain any longer.

    Then there are all of the cars and buses and diesel vehicles, emitting exhaust fumes that cause overloads of choking ozone. Plus again, factory emissions.

    People and institutions throwing all sorts of garbage in our seas. The overgrowth of algae that is choking many of our fish and other species. Farm emissions running down our rivers into our bays. Mercury getting into swordfish and other fish species.

    I don't know if any of this is causing -- or not causing global warming/climate change. What I'm concerned about is all of these other issues are being ignored by what seems almost like a panic reaction to the climate issue.
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008