Democrats serious about tackling global warming

November 19, 2006

Guest Post by Michael J.W. Stickings

The Post is telling us that “[d]ramatic changes in congressional oversight of environmental issues may pump new life into efforts to fight global warming”.

The good news isn’t just that Barbara Boxer (D-CA) will be taking over the chairmanship of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee but that John Warner (R-VA) intends to take over the top Republican spot on the committee from global warming denier James Inhofe (R-OK):

[Boxer] — a liberal who has called global warming a dire threat — is in line to chair the committee in the next Congress as a result of last week’s elections, which will give Democrats the Senate majority. Environmentalists have been hailing her impending replacement of Inhofe as chairman. Warner’s takeover of the ranking minority member’s slot, they said yesterday, would raise even greater hopes for advancing their agenda.

Inhofe himself has no intention of stepping down, but Warner — who supports “market-based measures and investments in new commercial technologies to slow the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions as we continue to gather further sound scientific evidence to guide national and international decision-making” — looks serious about challenging him for the position. Regardless:

Whoever is the top Republican on the environment committee, Boxer said in an interview yesterday that she plans aggressive hearings on environmental concerns, especially climate change. “There is a pent-up desire on the part of many people in the country to get back to making progress on the environment,” she said, adding that she plans “to roll out a pretty in-depth set of hearings on global warming.”

Beyond even Iraq and terrorism, this is perhaps the most pressing issue of our time. (Nuclear proliferation and global poverty may be other candidates.) Have I mentioned that I’m happy the Democrats won?

(See also Political Animal, MyDD, DownWithTyranny!, and Raising Kaine.)

Is this why Inhofe’s been screaming in the press lately? With him making shrill statements about the horrors of stopping global warming.

Who’ll Stop the Freaks? (based on CCR’s Who’ll Stop the Rain) as sung by Inhofe…
Long as I remember the Freaks been comin ’round.
Charts of facts add to my confusion with their big word sound.
“Wise” men through the ages, tryin to stop the fun;
And I wonder, still I wonder, who’ll stop the freaks.

I went back to Okie, seekin guidance from the storm.
Sat down at the Koch’s table, I watched my money grow.
More Donations and fiction authors, wear’in golden chains.
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the freaks.

Heard the whiners sayin, and we jeered them more.
But then voters voted Democrat, suddenly it felt warm.
Still the freaks kept yellin, echoing in my head.
And I wonder, still I wonder who’ll stop the freaks.

  • I’ll withhold judgement and hope, but would really like to believe it. I’m just too wary corporations will weigh in and flex their monetary muscle and throw the weakling aside.

    The tipping point (a term I hate even though its spot on) is coming and those guys with the “The Day of Doom is Coming” signs will be vindicated.

  • Great, but like SPIIDERWEB(tm) I don’t know if this will just mean dirty tricks from the big polluters. However, at least it will take more effort than a phone call: “James, Ixnay on the global armingway.”

    At the very least hearings will help people separate fact from Crichton. I mean fiction. The sooner the majority of citizens automatically lump Inhofe in with the Flat Earthers and other loons will be an important one.

  • My guess is that should Warner replace Inhofe the GOP will have shifted from a denier to a foot dragger. If you don’t want to do anything about global warming, and you control the committee, a denier will work just fine by keeping a lid on everything. If you don’t control the committee you will have to do your best to keep action to a minimum. A denier can easily be dismissed-certainly Inhofe can. A foot dragger will more effective in the minority in slowing and watering down any action the committee may take.

    To me, this sounds like a foot dragger’s approach to doing corporate America’s bidding :“market-based measures and investments in new commercial technologies to slow the rate of growth in greenhouse gas emissions as we continue to gather further sound scientific evidence to guide national and international decision-making” Further evidence of Warner’s foot dragging is his rating 14% from the League of Conservation Voter. The bottomline is that we aren’t out of the woods yet on this issue.

  • Addressing warming is long past due and I stand behind anyone who seriously and responsibly attempts to take it on. That said, it’s a complex issue that has implications on an unimaginably large scale. To make meaningful reductions will take a worldwide shift in how we as humans see our place in the world. Short term, tangible changes in lifestyle and economics will have to be made in the name of future, abstract (to most) gains. Is it possible to accomplish enough within a reasonable time frame without causing economic upheaval? Perhaps, but it would take overwhelming and sustainable national (and international) will combined with astute leadership to make it happen. Almost unimaginable considering the state of affairs in the US and the most rapidly developing nations. Still, you have to try. Boxer has her work cut out for her.

  • My hope: instead of denying global warming, the thought pattern will shift to “how can we make a profit cleaning up the environment?” Toyota is banking on hybrids and is being rewarded by increased sales. The problem with American corporations is that they can’t see beyond the quarterly returns. The first company to mass produce affordable solar panels could make a fantastic profit and now that the computer industry has made us addicted to upgrading, that profit could continue with each advancement. But industry in general is like the housing industry – they’d rather make huge profits in luxury items rather than making big profits in mass production items.

  • ml (#6) has it right as to probably the best tactic for winning this, and for the institutional resistance to doing that.

    30 years ago, a 7 percent profit with long-term grown prospects was considered the goal aCEO could aim for and plan on occupying his position for a long time, as he did that. Today, a 20% profit is not considered enough, and this is supposed to grow from quarter to quarter. You cannot make effective change when your “horizon” is 90 days out, rather than 7-10 years. The reason the rest of the world will work on this before we will is because they – as demonstrated by Toyota with the Prius – can think long-term, while we cannot, at least not with the current leadership.

    Given the kind of corporate mules we have to deal with, we need some serious sticks (100% taxes on profits above say 8 percent and all income over, say, $2 million/year) so the mules know we’re here, and some good carrots (tax credits/reductions and incentives for all investment of those profits and income that would otherwise be subject to the 100% tax in technological development to fight global warming, create technological revolutions in “green” industry, etc., etc.)

    Do I think such a thing would happen? No. Democrats or GOP, they’re all too used to sucking on the corporate tit to ever do the right thing and the planet if it puts them at the slightest risk.

  • The democrat agenda to fight global warming should read like this:

    1. Hydrogen economy within 6 years.

    2. Achieve zero population growth within 10 years.

    3. Law passed that allowes people who are terminally ill to receive assisted suicide.

    4. Establishment of a Monopolistic economy and reduce consumption
    of energy.

    5. More Service related jobs creation that don’t have to rely on earth resources.

    6. Provide incentives for companies that have technologies that can be used to clean the air on a global scale.

    • Comments are closed.