Group calls bill weak, says Obama choosing politics over science
A day after President Obama threw his support behind the American Clean Energy and Security Act, one of the world's most prominent environmental advocacy organizations has come out in strong opposition to the bill, which is set to go to a full vote on the House floor as early as Friday.
Greenpeace USA Deputy Campaigns Director Carroll Muffett today released a statement calling the proposed climate legislation "weak" and insufficient to address the severity of the problem at hand. Greenpeace called on Congress to reject the bill and "begin immediate and urgent work on legislation that treats seriously the dire threat of climate change."
"We are calling upon Congress to vote against this bill unless substantial measures are taken to strengthen it," said Muffett.
Greenpeace's biggest bone of convention was that emission reduction targets in the bill are "far lower than science demands," and that the giveaways and preferences in the bill will spur the growth of a new fleet of nuclear and coal-fired power plants "to the detriment of real energy solutions."
"Despite President Obama’s assurance that he would enact strong, science-based legislation," Greenpeace's Muffett explained, "we are now watching him put his full support behind a bill that chooses politics over science, elevates industry interests over national interest..."
"To support such a bill is to abandon the real leadership that is called for at this pivotal moment in history. We simply no longer have the time for legislation this weak," said Muffett.
Mixed support and strange bedfellows
By staking-out opposition to the bill, Greenpeace now joins the conservative-leaning PAC, Americans Solutions for Winning the Future, which just launched a fear-based TV ad about the dire economic consequences of passing Waxman-Markey.
Greenpeace, however, does not represent the entire universe of environmental advocacy organizations. Many organizations and environmental advocates have expressed their concerns with the bill, but see its passage as better than the other alternative of doing nothing at all. The Sierra Club and The League of Conservation Voters, for example, just produced a new advertisement in support of Waxman-Markey featuring the words and images of President Obama.
Although President Obama has not aggressively shaped and pushed ACES, he is expected to sign the bill as it is currently written if it gets to his desk. But that may never happen.
Even if a single Republican does not vote for the bill, it likely has the numbers to pass a full vote of the House. The same cannot be said for the Senate, where getting the bill through with a veto-proof super majority of sixty votes will prove much more difficult.
Image via Greenpeace Italia
Follow Tim Hurst on twitter
![Obama Urges Congress to Pass Waxman-Markey Climate Bill [video]](http://ecopolitology.org/files/2009/06/obama_press_conference-150x150.jpg)
Follow Timothy Hurst on Twitter: 
Wow is it just me or is Green Peace in the news a LOT lately??
RT
Green Peace has firmly established its irrelevance. Obama got what he “hoped” for and isn’t going to “change”.
If you think otherwise, you’re probably eating granola. Get over it.
You have got to admire the way Greenpeace won’t compromise. Facts are facts, and the most respected climate scientists have said more is required. Why spend millions of dollars on something that is going to fall short? I stand with Greenpeace this time. Enough lipstick for pigs, do something meaningful, before it’s too late. BTW, Greenpeace takes NO corporate sponsorship and NO government support – integrity. Other groups mentioned here cannot make that statement.
Greenpeace really has lost all grasp on reality…I’m all for preservation of the climate, but Greenpeace has to realize that they’re not going to win the war on climate change if they keep voting against bills that “aren’t strong enough” because they don’t ban every car on the road….
James
Could you please post a link to the Greenpeace statement, press release or policy calling for “the ban of every car on the road”
Greenpeace and other political groups who campaign against measures that “aren’t strong enough” are what’s a huge problem in America.
Part of what makes our political system work is compromise, even when it’s compromise on an issue that myself and others might feel strongly about. Without compromise, very little can be accomplished in politics.
Greenpeace can go to hell.
This bill is just a first step. As soon as industries are comfortable with the initial requirements, it should become possible to phase in additional changes.
jesus all these comments seem so naive, why dont you look at the facts taken from real climate change scientists research and then say oh greenpeace are too harsh. Obama is just like all recent presidents of our past, putting big industry before the good of the people. Idiots don’t recognize the dire position this world is in. And they never asked to ban every car on the road, goin a little overboard there aren’t we? You sound like bill o’rielly, stating falsity as fact that which is completely unreal to change mass opinion.
oh and a little article to read about new orleans being underwater by 2100 – http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/29/rising-sea-level-new-orleans
You guys are all living a pipe dream. It is not “big industry” that is being protected here, it is the consumer. That means you and I. What greenpeace doesn’t realize is that if they get all the harsh regulations that they want, big industry will either not meet them due to unrealistic expectations or will forward the extremely high costs directly to the consumer. Then all these half-breed greenpeace idiots will be whining and complaing about high energy costs, high food costs, high fuel costs and the rest of inflation that comes with it.