Today's post is by Mark MacLeod, Director of Special Projects for our national climate campaign.
Last month, I wrote about the significance of Senators Warner and Lieberman joining forces to craft global warming legislation. I noted Senator Warner's view that global warming is a question of national security.
Today, the senators outlined their plan (which Environmental Defense praised). But I also wanted to call out what I thought was the most interesting line in the Washington Post story. In relating the reasons that caused Senator Warner to become a leader in the Senate on climate change, the article states,
Warner said he was also prodded by retired Gen. James L. Jones and other former military officers who urged him to back a bill to slow global warming.
Those military leaders, like the business leaders in US-CAP, and leaders in the faith community, all show the strong and widespread momentum to deal with global warming.
The author of today's article, Mark MacLeod, is Director of Special Projects for our national climate campaign.
What do you get when a longtime champion of the environment and a respected Republican voice on both the economy and national security join forces in the Senate to write a climate change bill? A real opportunity for bipartisan action on global warming.
On Wednesday, Connecticut Independent Joe Lieberman and Virginia Republican John Warner announced a groundbreaking commitment to develop a comprehensive greenhouse gas cap and trade bill. They intend to bring it to a vote in their panel on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee before the end of July.
A pile of climate bills have already been introduced in the Congress this year – why is this announcement such big news?
Today's guest columnist is Mark MacLeod, Director of Special Projects for our national climate campaign.
When it comes to global warming, this is looking to be an action-packed Congress. There are no fewer than seven global warming bills under discussion. While the titles make the bills sound very much alike, they differ in both subtle and significant ways.
Today's post is by Mark MacLeod, director of special projects for the national climate campaign at Environmental Defense.
Some people have proposed a "safety valve" to control the costs of a cap-and-trade policy to fight global warming. This post explains what a safety valve is, and why it provides only an illusion of cost management.
This post is by Mark MacLeod, director of special projects for the national climate campaign at Environmental Defense.
Cap-and-trade is the structure of most of the global warming bills being considered by Congress.
The "cap" is the cornerstone of the policy. It is an absolute, nationwide limit on global warming pollution. Congress would most likely establish a cap measured as billions of tons of carbon dioxide (or equivalent) released into the atmosphere each year. Over time, the cap would be lowered to cut emissions enough to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. (See our earlier series for more on how much we need to cut.)
The "trade" part is a market that creates powerful incentives for companies to reduce pollution, and provides flexibility in how companies can meet the limits.
Here's how it works: