Waxman-Markey

Whew! The crush of news about climate over the past few days was breathtaking:

First, late Friday night, details finally rolled out about what exactly the Kerry-Boxer climate-change bill in the Senate says. Journos were scrambling around 'til all hours trying to figure it out, and even today the smoke is still clearing.

David Roberts at Grist had an incisive if bleary-eyed look at why the common wisdom -- that Kerry-Boxer is more ambitious than the House's Waxman-Markey -- is wrong.

On Saturday -- even as the journos were still slaving over the details of Kerry-Boxer -- worldwide demonstrations called attention to the need to reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide to a pre-industrial level of 350 parts CO2 per million parts of atmosphere.

The folks at Bill McKibben's 350.org apparently did a fair job turning out demonstrators around the globe, according to The New York Times' coverage. Marketplace had a worthwhile curtain-raiser.

Today folks in D.C. are still scurrying around trying to find out what this Kerry-Boxer thing says. It starting to sound like both the House and Senate bills allow lots of offsets for industries to get out of the greenhouse gas caps   -- offsets that may not, in fact, do anything to reduce global warming (so-called "anyways" offsets for stuff that was going on already.)

Lobbyists for industry are saying the analysis coming from the government is questionable. For example, Frank Maisano of the Bracewell & Giuliani firm charged in his weekly note advancing D.C. goings-on:

 There are a few flaws in EPA's analysis. Besides using insufficient models and old data, there are overlapping mandates and caps that will increase cost and diminish the effectiveness of the trading system. . .

Here's something you don't see every day: Battle-hardened military veterans out advocating for an environmental cause.

Oh, I have little doubt that most soldiers and sailors -- like most Americans -- consider themselves friends of Mother Earth. And it's also true, as we wrote recently, that former generals and admirals count energy independence a national security issue. 

 But one doesn't necessarily associate: Military = Green. In fact, waging a war produces a heck of a lot of greenhouse gases.

 So we noted with surprise this week that a group that calls itself votevets.org is launching a $400,000 blitz of radio ads urging key senators to get moving on legislation to safeguard the climate. Here is how the group describes itself:

The leading progressive, pro-military organization of veterans, dedicated to the destruction of terror networks around the world, with force when necessary. It primarily focuses on education and advocacy on issues of importance to the troops and veterans, and holding politicians accountable for their actions on these issues.

The radio spots feature actual vets of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, giving a pitch in their home state. They will run in conjunction with a bus tour making its way Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, Missouri, South Dakota, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Maine.

Here's the script:

ANNOUNCER: There's a new generation of American patriots - young veterans who've fought for our country overseas. Now, they're on a new mission? right here at home. (Home State) veteran (Name).

Local Veteran: Growing up in (Home State), nothing prepares you for the things you see over there.

[caption id="attachment_4715" align="alignleft" width="150" caption="Seems the folks at Greenpeace were also focused on December. Photo courtesy Greenpeace."][/caption]

Well, President Obama should be landing in Copenhagen right around now. His mission: bring the Olympics to Chicago.

There's another job he has that even the president would admit is a lot more important. Sure would be good to see him arriving in Copenhagen in December.

Congress: Are you listening?

-- Robert McClure

Americans make up 5 percent of the world's population, and with that we manage to crank out 25 percent of the greenhouse gases that have us hurtling toward climate catastrophe.

[caption id="attachment_2708" align="alignleft" width="300" caption="Gnu free documentation license"][/caption]

So, we're the worst offenders, you'd think. But no. That would be Australia, where the per capita greenhouse gas production rates are even higher than here in the U-S of A.

Writing for The Wall Street Journal from Canberra, Rachel Pannett offers an interesting look at what she bills as a possible preview of what's to happen here on the Waxman-Markey Cap'n Trade bill.

The report from Down Under definitely inspires a sense of deja vu:

Like the U.S.