A tale of two letters on #ClimateChange Today, two quotes stand out: Actions speak louder than words. and The noblest motive is the public good. Millions of people took to the streets in cities around the world, motivated by their desire to educate representatives and demonstrate their commitment to turning around the systems that have given us severe climate change in recent years. But when it comes to commitment to environmental principles, how is the game played in Washington DC, as the midterm elections approach, and critical endorsements are requested? Two recent letters offer insights into the process. Remember: Candidates in close elections have to tread carefully. Lobbyists and special interest groups on both sides of the #ClimateChange and #CleanEnergy issue often remind them of these tough choices via letters, phone calls, meetings and promises (or threats) of endorsements, for or against them. Consider these two letters about #HR4923, which was voted out of the House in July. The first letter is from the US #ChamberofCommerce to members of the US House of Representatives. Heres how the US Chamber puts it: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the world’s largest business federation representing the interests of more than three million businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state and local chambers and industry associations, and dedicated to promoting, protecting, and defending America’s free enterprise system, urges you to consider the following recommendations as the House prepares to consider H.R. 4923, the “Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015.” Their recommendation: support. The second letter is also to House members, from the #LeageofConservation voters. The #LCV makes it clear: they will be watching this bill closely, as part of their annual Environmental Scorecard. Heres their closing paragraph: We urge you to REJECT H.R. 4923, a harmful spending bill that prioritizes the dirty energies of the past over the clean energies of our future and OPPOSE any anti-environmental amendments, including those that attack the EPA’s ability to limit carbon pollution from power plants. We will strongly consider including votes on this bill in the 2014 Scorecard. So.... risk losing an endorsement of the US Chamber while in a tight race, or a risk getting a negative rating by the LCV. Which did my representative, Scott Peters Choose? US Chamber. And a few weeks later, they endorsed him over his Republican challenger. How did the LCV react? Oddly, they still show Peters has a 100% Lifetime Voting Record on their Scorecard page. Amazing! Two opposite, contradictory results from one action! It defies physics, but not election year politics. Peters gets the Chamber endorsement in his very challenging election, and the LCV continues to tell voters he is 100% on voting to protect the environment. Actions may speak louder than words, but clearly, the people responsible for the LCV endorsement process must think voters concerned about climate change are deaf. However, we are not dumb. Or blind. Here are the letters. Please let the responsible parties know your thoughts.
Posted on: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 01:20:04 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015