Greenpeace Says 'No' to Climate Bill: ACES Is Too Weak

Greenpeace came out against the House climate bill today, joining Friends of the Earth in urging Congress to vote no on the critically weakened American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) climate bill.

The legislation, headed for a House vote as early as tomorrow, falls far too short of what the science says is necessary to prevent serious climate change, and it gives away far too much to polluters, Greenpeace said.

Unless the bill is significantly strengthened – and the proposed amendments submitted this week give little indication of that happening on the House floor – then, Greenpeace says, the legislation isn't worth passing.

"To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak."

The Greenpeace statement (below) was issued a few hours after President Obama gave a short televised statement strongly urging House members on both sides of the aisle to pass the legislation. Obama spoke of the bill in terms of reducing the nation's dependence on foreign oil, creating jobs, and seizing the opportunity to lead in the development of clean technology.

For ACES to become the strong climate bill that was initially promised, one that could restore the United States' position as a world leader in environmental protection, Obama will have to invest his political capital, Greenpeace Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett says.

The bill was already marginal when it came out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, where coal-state Democrats extracted concessions for the industry. Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford took a stand then in calling for a stronger bill. Greenpeace kept working behind the scenes, but none of the group's efforts to fix the bill paid off, Muffett said.

The tipping point came this week when bill sponsor Henry Waxman bowed to the demands of farm-state Democrats, led by Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), and agreed to shift authority over offsets from the EPA to the Department of Agriculture.

That shift was made "with the express political purpose of making it easier for industrial agriculture to access offset credits," Muffett said. "The big problem with offsets is if they aren't stringently policed, you have a great risk of undermining the system."

On top of that, Waxman agreed to block the EPA from considering land-use changes when calculating the lifecycle emissions of biofuels, a move demanded by Peterson to protect large ethanol producers.

Another serious flaw was the change to Section 116 to allow any coal fired power plant that has received even just its initial permits to avoid regulation under this bill, "yet another concession to the coal industry," Muffett said.

"You’re talking potentially 100 coal-fired power plants that are now exempted from these rules."

Then came the EPA's analysis, showing that the bill would lead to burning more coal and more than doubling nuclear generation, with marginal benefits for renewable energy and a delay in real emissions reductions.

In its statement today, Greenpeace – backed by 2.8 million members – urges Obama "to move beyond rhetoric and deliver on his commitments to 'restore science to its proper place' and to lead the world in addressing climate change," but Muffett doesn't see that happening through the ACES bill.

"The received wisdom inside the beltway is that things can only get worse in the Senate, and when you look at the array of Senate committees that have jurisdiction, and the composition of those committees, you can see why."

Attachment	Size
Pingree-Ellison Climate Letter.pdf	586.99 KB

• 1
• 2
• 3
• next page »