As corporate lobbyists and conservative politicians strive to maintain a pollution-based economy, a new progressive alliance has formed to fight back. The Climate Equity Alliance is calling for policies to ensure that energy legislation reaches President Obama’s desk benefiting people instead of polluters. The green economy legislation introduced in draft form by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Rep. Ed Markey (D-MA), the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) — sets national standards for energy efficiency, renewable energy, and global warming pollution — but leaves open whether polluters will be subsidized to achieve those standards.
Today, more than two dozen organizations from the research, advocacy, faith-based, labor and civil rights communities came together as the Climate Equity Alliance. Alliance members include the Center for American Progress, Green for All, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and the Service Employees International Union. Their principles recognize that clean energy legislation needs to be sustainable, honest, and fair:
– Protect people and the planet: Limit carbon emissions at a level and timeline that science dictates.
– Maximize the gain: Build an inclusive green economy providing pathways into prosperity and expanding opportunity for America’s workers and communities.
– Minimize the pain: Assist low and moderate income families in meeting their basic needs.
– Shore up resilience to climate impacts: Assure that those who are most vulnerable to the direct effects of climate change are able to prepare and adapt.
– Ease the transition: Address the impacts of economic change for workers and communities.
– Put a price on global warming pollution and invest in solutions: Capture the value of carbon emissions for public purposes and invest this resource in an equitable transition to a clean energy economy.
The Climate Equity Alliance’s recognition that attention needs to be paid to global boiling impacts is critical, as every state in the nation already suffers from major climate-related costs — costs which will continue to rise as the planet heats up. The full list of members is below.
The alliance specifically calls for “public and private investments that help rebuild and retrofit our nation,” “training and job readiness programs,” “direct consumer rebates” to low- and moderate-income households, “assistance and tools” for workers in carbon-intense industries, and the use of carbon price revenues to invest in the public good, instead of “windfall profits for corporations.”
On Friday, a separate coalition of state-level climate and environmental justice organizations will speak out in support of Rep. Chris Van Hollen’s Cap and Dividend Act (H.R. 1862), introduced last week. Van Hollen’s proposal calls for all revenues of a cap and trade system to be returned in flat rebate to all citizens. Social entrepreneur Peter Barnes, a prominent advocate of the “dividend” approach, has explained how these rebates reward efficiency:
Those who burn more carbon will pay more than those who burn less. If you drive a sports-utility vehicle, you’ll use more sky than if you ride a bus; hence you’ll pay more scarcity rent. Since your dividend is the same no matter what, you’ll come out ahead if you conserve [energy] and lose money if you don’t.
Despite Barnes’ misguided, libertarian reasoning that cap and dividend is needed because government can’t be trusted to invest money in the public good, the proposal does reward work instead of pollution. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has calculated, allocating 14 percent of cap-and-trade revenues makes the transition to clean energy a positive economic gain for low- and moderate-income households — even before the rewards of a healthier economy and planet are delivered. President Obama’s plan to fund a middle-class tax cut with climate revenues also ensures at least $15 billion a year are allocated for green public investment.
Legislators return to Washington with a week of hearings on the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act on April 20th, less than two weeks away.
Founding members of the Climate Equity Alliance:
Organizations supporting cap and dividend:
Strong climate legislation can, and must, be strong economic legislation.
If done right, climate policy can fight pollution and alleviate poverty at the same time. The shift to a low-carbon, clean, green economy can create large numbers of quality green-collar jobs for American workers, and lower energy bills for American households. A federal climate bill must deliberately advance principles of fairness, opportunity, and equal access.


Thank goodness Holdren is surveying the entire geoengineering smörgåsbord. I sure hope we end up with terra preta instead of shooting sulfur into the ozone layer. We need sulfur for lithium sulfur batteries in plug-in hybrids.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:20 amJust to be clear, I have never said — and do not believe — that “government can’t be trusted to invest money in the public good.” I firmly believe that government CAN do that. What I have said is that the revenue from capping and auctioning carbon pollution rights should be returned to citizens on a per capita basis in order to (a) protect not just the poor, but the middle class as well, against the price rises caused by the cap, and (b) to assure long-term popular support for a descending carbon cap. I support a whole host of public investments — green and otherwise — from sources not linked to the cap.
April 9th, 2009 at 1:56 amThe real need is for programs that have the specific goal of phasing out fossil fuels and replacing them with renewable energy sources. Technically, it is feasible, and it would also provide a large economic stimulus, a real one – but the propaganda level is so high that it is politically impossible to even mention it.
April 9th, 2009 at 2:34 amc.c. — I think Waxman-Markey (ACES) has that specific goal — it includes a renewable energy standard, low-carbon fuel standard, and a global warming emissions standard (the cap). The timeline for the shift is too long, however.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:18 amBrad-You are absolutely right that this time line is too long.
April 9th, 2009 at 9:28 amThe problem with the Waxman-Markey bill is that it provides for substantial public funding for carbon capture and sequestration (ccs) technology, which is a completely bogus technology.
In this bill, any coal plant built before 2015 can be built with the current technology. Any facility built before 2025 needs to be retrofitted to be able to perform ccs “technology”.
I for one do not want my tax dollars funding a practice which has already caused seismic tremors, or that requires a gas to stay where we put it. We already know from slurry injection into mine shafts that molecules will go where they will once you put them underground. Plus, this kind of technology will require amendments to the Clean Drinking Water Act–depending on who is behind that, that may not be a Pandora’s box we want to open. It also perpetuates our dependency on fossil fuels.
This bill is a great start, but there is much improvement needed.
c.c. -
April 9th, 2009 at 10:02 amThat’s why Peter Barnes’ proposal is so exciting. By returning all of the money from auctioning all the permits directly and equally to all Americans, Cap and Dividend will create a huge constituency among Americans. People will support strengthening the emissions cap – that will mean higher prices for carbon permits and more money returned to Americans. Also imagine a hypothetical Republican president trying to get rid of Cap and Dividend in 2017, or 2021 – people would never let it happen, no President would be able to dismantle a program that gives direct dividends to all Americans.
Kate — The CCS provision in Waxman-Markey is funded entirely by a tax on fossil-fuel based electricity.
April 9th, 2009 at 12:30 pmYep, you’re right that funding will come from a tax on fossil-fuels. But that is not completely set in stone yet and there is still a potential for public money to be funneled into this area. Hopefully that will be hammered out in fine detail in the next couple of weeks. What I think would be best personally, is a moratorium on all new coal plants–we have enough of them to deal with. (besides, so many plans for new coal plants have gone to the chopping block anyway)
April 9th, 2009 at 4:37 pm