This post is by Elizabeth Thompson, legislative director at Environmental Defense Fund.
This afternoon, the Senate approved a procedural motion that forces the Senate to take up the Climate Security Act. But the Senate is the Senate, and people who are set on ignoring the urgent need to act are using Senate procedures to slow down progress.
The speeches continue. We anticipate that the debate about the bill itself will start Wednesday or Thursday.
This post is by Tony Kreindler, media director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.
After all the build-up – the opinion writing, the ad campaigns, the committee work, and the economic analysis – we’re in the home stretch. The full Senate is ready to consider acting on global warming.
Today, the Senate is scheduled to kick things off with a motion to proceed on the Climate Security Act. Here’s how we expect the next couple of weeks to unfold.
This post is by Tony Kreindler, media director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.
As promised, here’s a look at the other TV ad we’ve launched as the full Senate prepares to debate the Climate Security Act.
This ad shows a naysayer literally melting away: “Melt” TV ad.
What do you think? Yesterday’s ad, “Grounded”, is my personal favorite. Please pass along whichever one you like better!
This post is by Tony Kreindler, media director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund.
The Senate floor debate about the Climate Security Act is scheduled to start next week, so we have two new ads running in key states.
This one has gotten good reactions (and a few winces): “Grounded” TV ad.
What do you think? If you like it, make sure to rate it and share it! Tomorrow, I’ll post another ad, called “Melt.”
This post is by Tony Kreindler, Media Director for the National Climate Campaign at Environmental Defense Fund. It’s the fifth in a series on Why a Bill in 2008, and was also posted today on Grist.
1. Same Politics in 2009
2. Good versus Perfect
3. The Price of Waiting
4. The World is Waiting
5. Best Answer to High Gas Prices
Over the past few months, I’ve made the case for passing climate legislation in 2008. Now we’re finally on the doorstep of Senate action on a comprehensive climate change bill. Floor debate over the Climate Security Act (was S.2191, now S. 3036) will begin Monday, June 2.
If opponents of meaningful action have their way, the debate will be nothing more than a short, partisan fight over gas prices. You can already hear the predictable scare tactics: “Why would we want to raise gas prices now, when working Americans are already suffering at the pump?”
This post is by Sheryl Canter, an online writer and editorial manager at Environmental Defense Fund.
A new report by researchers at Tufts University (commissioned by NRDC) presents two ways of estimating the costs of inaction on climate change. Both lead to staggering totals – far more than the cost of addressing the problem:
New research shows that if present trends continue, the total cost of global warming will be as high as 3.6 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). Four global warming impacts alone – hurricane damage, real estate losses, energy costs, and water costs – will come with a price tag of 1.8 percent of U.S. GDP, or almost $1.9 trillion annually (in today’s dollars) by 2100.
This report on the cost of inaction is a good companion to our own report on the low cost of an effective policy to fight climate change.
