Screw Greenpeace, can't we still pretend that the upcoming energy "reform" bill does more good than harm?

Under the Bush regime, the EPA's environmental mission was turned from protection to ravagement. Now the idea seems to be to make sure it can't ever be part of the solution.

“Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.”

-- Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford, in a statement announcing that the group will oppose the energy "reform" bill soon to be taken up by Congress

by Ken

Politico's Jeanne Cummings reports, in "Greenpeace says no to energy bill":

Among Greenpeace’s chief objections are the measure’s “inadequate emission” reduction goals, a provision that strips authority from the Environmental Protection Agency, and the billions set aside for the coal and nuclear industries for research and expansion.

“We call on the president to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse emissions,” he added.

I have a feeling I'm not much different from a lot of folks on the left when it comes to environmental issues. As hard as I try, which in truth isn't all that hard, I don't have more than the most general grasp, and even though I know it isn't going to happen, deep down I keep hoping those issues will just go away.

This is, note, very different from the way folks on the right deal with these issues, which they understand a lot less well than I do -- a terrible thing to say, I know, but I have no doubt that it's true. Over on the Right they learned their catechism of reality from the ultimate saint, Ronnie of Raygun, who taught them that the only test of reality you ever have to apply is whether it makes you feel good. By that test, of course, all inconvenient environmental issues are fake, part of the liberal-socialist conspiracy.

In a feeble attempt to bridge my knowledge gap, I try to keep an eye on the people I've come to trust on the subjects of energy and the environment. Of course those folks do often disagree, but their disagreements are usual particular. For example, with the oh-so-harmoniously named American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, the only question was whether the thing had been so compromised by agents of the polluting industries that it was worse than doing nothing.

Once again that seems to be the standard. There seems no hope of bringing a bill to the floor of either house of Congress which might actually attempt to deal with all that stuff we have less and less time to try to deal with. The only question in play: Will what's being offered do more harm than good?

Greenpeace’s pre-emptive move surprised some in the environmental community for its timing but not its final judgment. Greenpeace was among a handful of major environmental groups that didn’t participate in the discussions that have gone on as the bill was being drafted.

Contacted on Friday, leaders of other green groups said they would wait to make their assessment of the legislation until after it is unveiled.

“We are not going to make any decisions on our views of the bill and our support until we see the details of it. There are a lot of moving pieces still and those pieces are really important to us,” said Josh Dorner, a spokesman for the Sierra Club.

That’s not to say, however, that other environmentalists don’t share Radford’s concerns and could wind up opposing the legislation.

Here's the complete Greenpeace statement:

WASHINGTON - April 23 - Greenpeace has highlighted crucial elements of the draft climate bill necessary to address the catastrophic effects of global warming pollution. Senator Kerry, in a teleconference Thursday, organized by the We Can Lead coalition, outlined specific details from the draft Climate Bill expected to be released Monday that had not previously been publicly available. In response Greenpeace Executive Director Phil Radford issued the following statement:

"Although we appreciate the Senate’s efforts to reduce global warming pollution, it’s clear that polluter lobbyists have succeeded in hijacking this climate policy initiative and undermined the ambitious action necessary.

"We cannot support this bill unless the following elements change:

"Inadequate Emissions Targets: The Nobel Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has shown that to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, the United States and other developed nations must achieve emissions cuts of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 and 80-95 percent by 2050. But this legislation only sets the goal of reducing emissions by some 4 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. Rapid reductions in the short-term are critical to avoiding catastrophic impacts from global warming. With this weak start, it is clear that achieving the needed reductions would be impossible

"Eviscerating the Clean Air Act: The bill is expected to strip the authority that the Environmental Protection Agency has to regulate emissions under the Clean Air Act and the states' authority to set tougher emissions standards than the federal government.

"Money for Dirty technology: The bill is expected to include financial incentives for, among other things, nuclear power, offshore oil and gas drilling, and coal fired energy. This includes billions for "clean coal" technology development, as well as free permits for heavy emitters like manufacturers, oil refiners, and merchant coal generators.

"We call on the President to push leaders in Congress to get back to work and produce a climate bill, that presents a clear road map for significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, transforms our economy with clean, renewable energy technology, generates new green jobs and shows real leadership internationally. None of this is accomplished by giving billions of dollars to the coal and petroleum industries.”

Uh-oh!

#