This past Saturday, Congress’s best chance to enact considerable climate legislation anytime soon received a devastating blow. Citing his concern over Democrats’ focus on immigration reform, Republican Senator Lindsay Graham withdrew his support for a climate-change bill that was supposed to be announced on Monday. Although it is certainly Sen. Graham’s right to be upset over the Democrats' decision to also begin discussions on a new immigration bill, choosing to pull support, especially when the bill was so close to being formally introduced and stood a good chance of passing, was a terrible decision on many fronts. A member of Congress should never withdraw support for a bill for any reason besides issues with its content; Sen. Graham’s dishonesty is a perversion of the legislative process. In addition, by withdrawing his support, Sen. Graham likely sacrificed the opportunity to make tangible progress in the fight against climate change.

Following co-author Sen. Graham’s decision, the bill likely faces stiff competition. The bill supposedly was to include many important goals such as reducing U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions by 17 percent over the next 10 years, employing an emissions cap on several economic sectors, creating a $10-billion fund for clean-coal power plants and 12 new nuclear power plants, and providing incentives for building nuclear power plants. Although we can only speculate as to its full impact, the proposed bill with the aforementioned specifics is a step in the right direction—even if the measures inside of it may not go as far as all environmentalists would like. Although some environmentalists believe that the current bill is not strict enough, especially since it strips the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate carbon pollution, this opportunity for reform, albeit stunted, cannot be missed.

While this bill is certainly progressive, it does not—as far as the public knows—contain provisions to fully curb emissions, in addition to other measures that would slow the rate of climate change. Even if the current bill passes, Congress should focus on crafting and passing an even stronger bill to protect our environment. Following the global response to climate change in Copenhagen, the U.S. still lags behind its European counterparts in reducing carbon-dioxide emissions; while European countries are offering to cut pollution by 30 percent below 1990 levels, the U.S. commitment totals only four percent from 1990 levels. In particular, although clean-coal technologies sound environmentally friendly, in reality, the transportation and manufacturing of these technologies arguably result in greater carbon-dioxide emissions than merely burning the coal.

As a leader among developed countries, the U.S. must take a more proactive leadership position in the debate over climate change. We are glad that the U.S. has started to take this obligation seriously but ask that a climate change bill not fall by the wayside. The oil crisis of the 1970s highlighted the dangers of relying on a single energy currency, and we have known for decades that diversification is the key to energy independence. A stronger climate change bill could encourage the development of alternative energy sources and help free the U.S. from dependence on foreign fossil fuels.

In addition, we encourage Americans to motivate Congress to pass both this bill and a later, stronger one. Environmental organizations should rally and encourage voters to urge their representatives to bring climate change to the congressional table. With new social tools at their disposal, students and other activists should utilize the numerous and different types of communication to make climate change a priority. Regardless of one’s political beliefs, climate change merits congressional debate, and social activism is a perfect catalyst for such discussion.