Frank O'Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act.
One of my favorite authors, Samuel Johnson, once remarked that "When a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."
That saying comes to mind as the key United Nations meeting on climate change begins in Bali, with the United States once again risking a virtual hanging in the court of world opinion because of Bush administration intransigence on this issue.
But the Bali backdrop is galvanizing action in Congress – and some of the greatest steps forward for environmental protection in a generation: The House of Representatives is poised to vote on long-delayed energy legislation that includes the first big improvements in fuel economy in more than three decades. Also this week, a Senate committee is likely to endorse imperfect yet still significant legislation aimed at reducing heat-trapping emissions.
A positive House vote ought to be chalked up as a great victory for Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who has fought to months to make good on her pledge to enact legislation that would address both energy security and climate protection. Pelosi had to tangle with one of the old bulls of the House – Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., who tried to carry the gas can for the auto industry.
Dingell, once nicknamed "Tailpipe Johnny" by then-Rep. Edward Madigan of Illinois, appeared to trying to live up to his moniker, as he sought to soften tougher fuel economy requirements and also to kneecap efforts by the U.S. EPA and states, led by California, to adopt tougher greenhouse gases for motor vehicles.
Pelosi prevailed on the key issues, though Dingell did win a few concessions, including the temporary continuation of a legal scam that permits car companies to obtain "credits" for making vehicles that could run on ethanol – whether they actually use ethanol or not.
Imperfect as it is, a plan like this would have been inconceivable only a year ago, when pro-business Republicans still chaired the relevant congressional panels and set a radically different agenda.
It also would have been inconceivable a year ago that the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, chaired then by fanatic global warming denier James Inhofe, R-Okla., would press forward with landmark legislation on climate. But that's just what is likely to happen this week as the panel, now chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., prepares to vote on the latest iteration of legislation drafted by Senators Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., and John Warner, R-Va.
This plan, like the energy legislation, has its own warts, even though it has improved from earlier versions. As Clean Air Watch has noted in a series of reports, the legislation would hand over many billions of dollars worth of emission permits to coal-burning power companies.The worse the past pollution, the more free permits a company would get.
"This is thought to be necessary to attract votes from coal-state senators," eloquent New York Times editorial writer Bob Semple noted this week.
"But it represents a windfall for older, dirtier plants and could keep them running far longer than necessary. This should be fixed before the bill goes to the floor," he added.
Aside from the moral questions involved – do we really believe that big polluters own the sky and should be encouraged to keep dumping their waste into it? -- there does seem to be a shaky political calculation here: despite the windfall, most big coal-burning power companies are still opposed to the Lieberman-Warner plan, because they apparently believe they can get a better deal as legislation proceeds.
As one of my friends who helped behind the scenes with the Lieberman-Warner plan confided, "It would be one thing to give away the permits if that actually bought off the coal-burning companies. But right now they appear to have given the permits away for nothing in return politically."
Even so, the plan is a step towards reducing global warming emissions and it will almost certainly be endorsed this week by the Boxer committee. After that, though, it moves to an uncertain fate as the most reactionary elements of industry begin mobilizing to weaken or kill it. (Note the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already launched a Harry-and-Louise style attack ad online) alleging the Lieberman-Warner plan could ruin the American way of life.
Such phony "patriotism," as Samuel Johnson reminds us, "is the last refuge of a scoundrel."
