{"id":366,"date":"2008-01-25T16:15:12","date_gmt":"2008-01-25T21:15:12","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2008\/01\/25\/why-a-bill-in-2008-same-politics-in-2009\/"},"modified":"2008-06-09T10:10:03","modified_gmt":"2008-06-09T15:10:03","slug":"why-a-bill-in-2008-same-politics-in-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.edf.org\/climate411\/2008\/01\/25\/why-a-bill-in-2008-same-politics-in-2009\/","title":{"rendered":"Why a Bill in 2008: Same Politics in 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"

Steve CochranThis post is by Steve Cochran<\/a>, National Climate Campaign Director at Environmental Defense. It’s the first in a series on Why a Bill in 2008<\/b>:<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

1. Same Politics in 2009
\n2. Good versus Perfect<\/a>
\n3. The Price of Waiting<\/a>
\n4. The World is Waiting<\/a>
\n5. Best Answer to High Gas Prices<\/a><\/i><\/p>\n

\n

The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act<\/a> (CSA) is a solid bill, but it’s not perfect. And this is the last year of the Bush administration. The new administration, whatever the party, may be more supportive of action to halt climate change. So aren’t we likely to get a better bill through Congress if we wait for the next administration?<\/p>\n

In a word, no. And moreover, we can’t afford to wait. Here’s why.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

As David Roberts explains on Grist<\/a>, a new administration doesn’t mean effortless passage of climate change legislation:<\/p>\n