A bill described by some as "the most ambitious energy and global warming legislation ever debated in Congress" was passed by the House Energy and Commerce committee and has a real possibility of making it through the House. It was predictably bipartisan with only one Republican crossing over to vote for it. Four Democrats from coal-mining and manufacturing states didn't vote for it either. But in the end, a somewhat watered-down version passed 33-25.
It sounds sometimes like simple-minded ideology; Republican congressman Mike Rogers of Michigan called the bill "the "biggest energy tax in the history of the United States." But I want to allow for the possibility that representatives of folks living in states where livelihoods depend on polluting industries are truly concerned about the well-being of their constituents (and not just their own pocketbooks and power). It's going to be a dilemma we're all going to face. We are eventually going to have to choose lower "standards of living" to avoid catastrophe. For those already living at the margins, there could be tremendous suffering unless those of us with more take their well-being into account.
This is true on a global scale as well. If this bill passes the Senate (there is strong possibility of a Republican filibuster), the U.S. - the largest user of energy - will be finally taking a leadership role in conserving it. This is absolutely necessary for getting other countries on board who otherwise have reason to doubt the difference their sacrifice will make. But some of the very poorest countries will struggle with energy standards they fear will plunge them back into the poverty they've been recently climbing out of. Enter the question of responsibility: should those primarily responsible for the mess we're in now be also primarily responsible for getting us out of it?
It's complicated and requires real debate by statesmen and women (not just politicians) who can see beyond their own party and their own political well-being. It's an issue of both survival and justice. The decisions we make today will determine what kind of world we leave for all of our grandchildren. It's got to be physically inhabitable - which becomes more in doubt the longer we debate the impact our current ways of living have on the planet. But we also need to be able to tell the story of how we all got to that place together - the story of what kind of people we were.
Big consumers (countries and individuals) are going to have to find the moral will to lower their own consumption rates while at the same time supporting the most vulnerable. There's no room for bipartisanship in this.
Comments