Cross-Posted from: HERE
Here in the United States, environmental groups are all over the place regarding their stance on the Waxman-Markey bill in Congress. Some say thumbs up, others say it’s better to pass it than pass nothing, and others either cannot support the bill, or want a no vote from liberal Democrats. I explain my position and rationale here. I saw an article in the NY Times today which made me think a lot about the dilemma faced here. On one hand, the 17% target in the Waxman-Markey bill will most likely not lead to a desirable treaty in Copenhagen. On the other hand, what if we show up to Copenhagen with absolutely nothing? One thing I think people overlook is the fact that Henry Waxman and Ed Markey are two of the most progressive lawmakers in the US Congress. They know energy, and they aren’t a bunch of pansies when it comes to global warming. Their bill is as strong as the political system in the US will tolerate.
Australia faces a similar situation. The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd ran on a platform that included taking action on climate change, and he’s put forth a cap and trade plan, but it’s only 5% reduction below 2000 levels by 2020, but Australia is willing to go as far as 25% if other nations step up in Copenhagen. It’s passed out of Australia’s House, but is facing huge problems in the Senate. The labor party can’t pass the law on its own, and the conservatives are vowing to fight it and kill it. However, in Australia they have a 3 party system, and the 3rd party is the Greens party, which is strongly pro-environment. If the Greens party teams up with Labour, they can pass the bill. However, the Greens are saying that 5% is too weak, and they cannot support it. Right now, their position is 25% or bust. If this position holds, we’re going to see a very comparable result as we would see in the United States if the liberal members of the Democratic party listened to their base and voted no because the bill wasn’t strong enough. Would the result be a stronger bill, or an empty sheet of paper in Copenhagen? Of course, Australia has an advantage in that if their bill fails twice, they can call elections and have the people kick out the troublemakers. Let’s see what happens to the bill. In my opinion, it will give a good indication of what would happen here. I highly recommend reading the NY Times article.
If strengthened, the American Clean Energy and Security Act offers our country the most important opportunity in generations to create millions of new, well-paying jobs, boost renewable energy production and limit global warming pollution. En route to the House floor, many of the bill’s stronger initial provisions were weakened, however, leading some like CCAN, MoveOn, and the Sierra Club to call for the bill to be strengthened.
evening with a “green” theme. 
Dominion is strumming a fresh chord with this initiative. Formerly a company who treated the “e” word as if it were lethal, the Smart Grid will hopefully aid Dominion in coming to the realization that money can, and will be, made through more efficient distribution promoting conservation among its customers. In the past, utilities have generated profits through increased demand and production. Massive economies of scale wherein cost is reduced through sheer numbers helped to keep giants like Dominion afloat without the need for increases in efficiency standards. While the world rests in economic purgatory, businesses are forced to remodel the way things get done. We’ve all heard, “small is beautiful.” Well, efficiency is marked by small gains aimed at strategic cost-cutting that serve to save energy producers billions in lost energy due to outdated technology. “Everyone benefits from efficiency,” says Farrell. For the first time in a long time, Dominion may be correcting course from a prolonged history of avoiding improvements in their distribution network and dumping the costs on consumers.