Hill Heat: Debate on Cap and Trade with Environmental DefenseScience Policy Legislation Actiontag:hillheat.org,2005:TypoTypo2013-10-06T02:13:58-04:00Brad Johnsonurn:uuid:5bde28bf-32f8-47ac-a9c6-7b4d905dfd852007-08-08T16:37:00-04:002013-10-06T02:13:58-04:00Debate on Cap and Trade with Environmental DefenseEnvironmental Defense was <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/08/06/environmental-non-profits-respond-to-lieberman-warner">one of several prominent environmental groups</a> to embrace the Lieberman-Warner proposal:
<blockquote>Joe Lieberman and John Warner are providing remarkable leadership. By developing an approach that has environmental integrity and support from both sides of the aisle they are doing what is necessary to actually make law.</blockquote>
Matt Stoller of Open Left, who has been <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/24/114618/053">highly skeptical</a> of all cap-and-trade approaches, let alone the Lieberman-Warner proposal, wrote <a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=623">this analysis</a> yesterday:
<blockquote>Anyway, the bill Bush is going to get behind is the Lieberman-Warner bill, opposed by the Sierra Club but supported by the intensely corporate-friendly and compromised Environmental Defense. There’s a green civil war coming, with ED President Fred Krupp playing the role of the <span class="caps">DLC</span>. The other environmental groups are split, with the Pew Center and the Nature Conservancy following Krupp over the cliff. The Union of Concerned Scientists and <span class="caps">NRDC</span> are ‘concerned’, and the <span class="caps">LCV</span> and the Sierra Club are clear that this is a bad move. If you want to see a dysfunctional, degraded, and compromised movement that have lost touch with their mission statements, look no further than ED, Pew, and the Nature Conservancy.</blockquote>
Today, Tony Kreindler of ED <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=645">responded</a> on Stoller’s site. Here’s an excerpt:
<blockquote>What Lieberman and Warner have offered is a blueprint for a climate bill with an airtight emissions cap and a market for carbon that will spur investment in cost-effective emissions reductions. They also have a plan for managing economic impacts, and importantly, it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the emissions cap. Does that favor corporations over the environment? We don’t think so, and we won’t support a bill that fails the environmental test.</blockquote>
<p>The discussion is continued at <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=645">Open Left</a>.</p>Environmental Defense was <a href="http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2007/08/06/environmental-non-profits-respond-to-lieberman-warner">one of several prominent environmental groups</a> to embrace the Lieberman-Warner proposal:
<blockquote>Joe Lieberman and John Warner are providing remarkable leadership. By developing an approach that has environmental integrity and support from both sides of the aisle they are doing what is necessary to actually make law.</blockquote>
Matt Stoller of Open Left, who has been <a href="http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/4/24/114618/053">highly skeptical</a> of all cap-and-trade approaches, let alone the Lieberman-Warner proposal, wrote <a href="http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=623">this analysis</a> yesterday:
<blockquote>Anyway, the bill Bush is going to get behind is the Lieberman-Warner bill, opposed by the Sierra Club but supported by the intensely corporate-friendly and compromised Environmental Defense. There’s a green civil war coming, with ED President Fred Krupp playing the role of the <span class="caps">DLC</span>. The other environmental groups are split, with the Pew Center and the Nature Conservancy following Krupp over the cliff. The Union of Concerned Scientists and <span class="caps">NRDC</span> are ‘concerned’, and the <span class="caps">LCV</span> and the Sierra Club are clear that this is a bad move. If you want to see a dysfunctional, degraded, and compromised movement that have lost touch with their mission statements, look no further than ED, Pew, and the Nature Conservancy.</blockquote>
Today, Tony Kreindler of ED <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=645">responded</a> on Stoller’s site. Here’s an excerpt:
<blockquote>What Lieberman and Warner have offered is a blueprint for a climate bill with an airtight emissions cap and a market for carbon that will spur investment in cost-effective emissions reductions. They also have a plan for managing economic impacts, and importantly, it doesn’t compromise the integrity of the emissions cap. Does that favor corporations over the environment? We don’t think so, and we won’t support a bill that fails the environmental test.</blockquote>
<p>The discussion is continued at <a href="http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=645">Open Left</a>.</p>