Thoughts on the Climate Security Act?

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act should be coming to the floor of the Senate for debate next month. It is the first piece of major legislation addressing climate change to make it to the full senate after passing through the Environment and Public Works Committe last December (now chaired by Barbara Boxer, formally chaired by James (shudder) Inhofe - climate change deniar extraordinaire)

Some love the Liberman bill, others hate it. And it seems as it reads now it has little chance of passing. Of course there is the typcial misguided assertion that addressing climate change at all will lead to economic ruin (the true alamists). The EPA (apparently passing one past the Bush administration) has released a report stating that the bill won't cause any significant economic harm.

From what research I've done thus far, I think the Sanders/Boxer Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act is better than the Liberman bill - which has some serious flaws. There's a good fact sheet (pdf) the NRDC has put out comparing all the bills currently working their way through the 110th congress.

I think it is important that congress moves forward with this. Even if Lieberman-Warner has little chance of passing and is flawed, the full congress needs to start seriously debating what they plan to do about climate change.

I recently posted at GlobalWarmingisReal about the upcoming debate over the Liberman bill with several links to the various opinions and analysis of the bill.

The challenge of climate change is a "three-legged stool" - it will take individual action, business, and government working toward a solution if we stand any chance of avoiding the worst of climate change, IMHO.

Government, especially at the federal level (and not just Dubya) has failed to show the leadership we need. So it comes back to the phrase "we get the leaders we deserve".  If we think we deserve better, we should let our leaders know.

Any thoughts?

Hm...that's a really good question.  I'm going to have to read a little more about the bill before I have a strong opinion.  At a certain level, I do think you're right, Thomas.  Even if it's flawed, some climate bill is better than no climate bill, right?  Although hopefully the "better than nothing" is not just a stall-out masquerading as action (which seems to be the case in a measure coming up to vote in San Francisco...G and F both talk about cleaning up Hunter's Point/Bayview.  Both call for cleaning up polluted soil, building low income housing, etc in an old shipyard.  But it looks like F might just be a way to get voters confused and keep G from getting passed and actually accomplishing something.)

But back to the Lieberman bill....I think it's interesting that the EPA's analysis didn't calculate the economic benefits of emissions reductions.  Of course, those positive externalties are kind of hard to monetize.  However, I do think some attempt should be made. 

It's definitely good to see congress debating concrete measures to reduce our GHG emissions.  The Lieberman-Warner bill isn't bad.  According to the table you linked, it seeks a 62-66% reduction in our emissions by 2050.  Generally scientists advise an 80% reduction, so this probably isn't a sufficient goal, but it's not too far off, either.  The Sanders-Boxer bill has a better emissions reduction goal (83% by 2050), but doesn't seem to have concrete proposals on how to reach it, according to the table in the link provided.

One thing about the emissions reduction targets. As I understand it, the Lieberman bill is setting it's emissions reductions targets based on 2005 levels, whereas the Boxer bill (and I think most other programs throughout the world) are basing reductions on 1990 levels - obviously a big difference there.

Of course, in my darker moments, I think getting our federal government to do anything is nothing short of a miracle.

...in my darker moments.

Thanks for the input!