Tony Massaro of the League of Conservation Voters made the case for Lieberman a few days ago. Massaro cited Lieberman's high rating on the LCV scorecard, his defense of the Clean Air and Water Acts, his high profile fight against drilling in ANWR, his high profile fight against a Liquid Natural Gas facility on Long Island Sound, and his fight against global warming. I appreciate Massaro coming on this blog to argue for the merits of his case, as we are not known for our charitable attitude towards Lieberman.
Now, I expected Lieberman's environmental record to be pristine, and I was told by a friend and a former Lieberman staffer that his record on the environment is unassailable. It certainly seems that it is; after all, the LCV calls him a friend and a leader on the environment. A friend and a leader, those are strong words. But is this strong tone backed with merit? Well, let's look at a particularly revealing passage, where Massaro is discussing the critical environment subject: energy.
Achieving energy independence is arguably one of the key issues for the 2006 and Sen. Lieberman is on the frontlines of this challenge as well. He is a strong advocate for real, clean energy solutions - like conservation, raising fuel efficiency and meaningful investment in renewable sources - which are concrete ways to both reduce our dangerous dependence on oil and combat global warming. In fairness, we are disappointed that he voted for the final energy bill (which is now law), but otherwise his record in among the best in Congress.
I think that Massaro unwittingly reveals the flimsiness of his own argument with this passage. Now, before I go on, let's get something straight - the LCV is not just standing by Joe Lieberman, they are calling him a leader on environmental issues. This is belied by Massaro himself admitting that Lieberman not only didn't lead on this critical bill, but in fact led in the opposite direction. This baffling scenario for an environmental 'leader' is true with Alito as well; Lieberman voted for cloture, and now Alito will issue 30 years of anti-environmental rulings. I'm saddened that the national League of Conservation Voters, which has dedicated members and effective local chapters all over the country, has sunk its political expectations so low as to consider this type of behavior that of its 'friends' and 'leaders'.
The theme of mistaking pandering votes for true friendship and leadership flows throughout Massaro's piece. For instance, Lieberman's opposition to drilling in ANWR and his opposition to the Broadwater LNG terminal are both high profile votes guaranteed to generate massive publicity - it's hard to take anything away from these votes except that political pressure works. After all, Lieberman only came out against Broadwater after Lamont made clear he would become a serious primary challenger, in February. Now certainly this shows that Lieberman is a moveable Senator on environmental votes - but a friend? A leader?!?
But I guess the real argument against Lieberman's environmental record is not any one of his votes, for taken together they look tailor-made for gaming a scorecard by an institutional political group, and as such they are on the 'right' side more often than not. The real argument against Lieberman is that on the fundamental environmental problem of our time - global warming and energy bottlenecks - Lieberman is as anti-environmental as you can get.
The only real solution to global warming that does not involve a significant and massive cut in living standards is a transformation of the American economy away from fossil fuels and towards an electrical basis. This manages but does not entirely solve three very important problems - the energy deficit that we face, the wasteful resource wars that were supposed to keep our SUVs burning for a few more years, and global warming. We did in fact after 9/11 have the opportunity to go down this path, but sadly, Lieberman did not, when it mattered, choose the path of conservation and restructuring of the economy. He chose war. And since he was in the Senate, America followed.
That choice was a serious one, with dramatic environmental consequences. The US military burns around 400,000 barrels of oil per day in Iraq, and that carbon released into the atmosphere can be laid at Lieberman's feet. But Lieberman didn't just choose to burn that oil in a wasteful adventure, as importantly in doing so he chose not to restructure our economy to accomodate global warming. That was his choice. So I could nitpick at his opposition to the Broadwater Liquid Natural Gass terminal, and point out that no natural gas means lots more coal usage and LOTS more carbon. But that's not the larger point.
The real issue for me is that on the essential problem - and it really is THE essential problem of our time - managing global warming and energy bottlenecks - Lieberman led us down an unsustainable path that will cause us and the globe unimaginable and irreversible environmental catastrophes from now on. It really is that stark, and that bad. These catastrophes can be managed, they will in fact have to be managed. But Lieberman cannot be trusted to manage them, because he has proven himself, through his political choices, to be an awful awful 'friend' of the environment. And certainly no leader.
Which brings me back to the League of Conservation Voters, and why they endorsed Lieberman. You see, I don't think they endorsed him because of his political leadership, because Massaro must know everything I'm talking about. So what explains the endorsement, for real? Well, read this statement:
Last week at our endorsement event in Hartford, Connecticut, Senator Lieberman told the story about how when he entered the U.S. Senate in 1989, one of the first meetings he held was with members of the environmental community. Since that day, he has stood by us and therefore we are standing by him now that he faces re-election. In other words, we follow a basic rule of friendship: if you don't support your friends, eventually you won't have too many friends.
To the LCV, Lieberman's willingness to meet with their leadership means he is a friend and a leader. This is a sad statement on the insular nature of the modern environmental movement. The League of Conservation Voters might have done great work at one point, but they seem to have lost the capacity to distinguish between personal congeniality/access and protecting the planet we live on. Lieberman's real environmental record is one of accelerating our headlong rush towards catastrophe, and my generation will pay for his bad judgment forever. I am saddened by Tony Massaro's post, but not surprised. At the same time, I am grateful for the debate on this blog. Hopefully, in having these types of debates, the leadership of these organizations will begin to reconnect with their roots, and realize that a different and much more grounded conversation about the environment is brutally necessary.
There's more...
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------