« Meet Lori Perdue | Main | Code Blue Alert Part II -- Health Care(less) in America »
Top Energy Scientists Agree, Bush Wrong on Alternative Fuels
(DCP co-founder Richard Bell's new job is Communications Director of the Post Carbon Institute. He has been quite busy attending press conferences and hearings on climate change these past few weeks because the 110th Congress seems to be attending to the issue. He wrote the following report for Global Public Media, Post Carbon's online broadcasting arm.)
Washington, DC -- At an all-day Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee conference on “renewable biofuels,” witnesses from three of America’s premier energy research institutions cast grave doubt on the feasibility of reaching President Bush’s State of the Union goal of manufacturing 35 billion gallons a year of alternative fuels by 2017. The witnesses agreed that DOE’s spending on alternative fuels was far, far below what was necessary to meet the president’s goal, much less the more critical goals of increasing the country’s energy security while decreasing carbon emissions.
Bush’s State of the Union announcement was a major boost for the alternative fuels industry. But if the president has thrown out a number that is not supported by the best researchers in the field, the resulting loss of credibility could undercut investor confidence in the industry.
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), the most senior Republican on the committee and its previous chairman, brought this damaging testimony to light in the last session of an all-day, all-biofuels marathon with some 33 witnesses in six panels. During their respective testimonies, several witnesses on the final panel hinted that we could not manufacture enough alternative fuels to meet the president’s goal without an unprecedented shift in federal priorities.
Looking at the witnesses before him, Domenici plaintively asked why would Bush have used the 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels goal for 2017 “when you’re telling us you don’t know how to do it.”
Before the panelists could answer, Senator Bingaman (D-NM), chair of the committee, suggested that the committee ask the Department of Energy, which was presumably the source of the president’s goal. If there were DOE representatives in the room, they kept quiet.
Dr. Terry Michalske from Sandia National Laboratories said that the country was spending a “shockingly small amount” of resources given the dimensions of the twin problems of increasing the country’s energy security while decreasing its production of greenhouse gases. Dr. Michael Davis of the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory pointed out that the entire Department of Energy annual budget was only $2.5 billion for all of DOE’s programs, while the country was spending $1 billion a day on energy.
Dr. Dan Arvizo, director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, said that we were just “talking all the wrong scale” about the amount of money needed for a crash program. Dr. Kristala Prather from the MIT Laboratory for Energy and Environment referred to a recent study which concluded that the federal government needs to increase funding on energy research by a factor of 10. She noted that when the federal government ramps up an R&D program, private industry spending usually follows.
Dr. Michael Davis of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory suggested what amounted to a way to get Bush off the hook: change the definition of the problem. “Don’t require the 35 billion gallons to be all ethanol,” Davis suggested. “Do more on energy efficiency. Allow for some electricity to be part of the solution.”
So where did Bush’s number come from? It remains to be seen whether the Energy Committee will follow through to find out how the president established one of the country’s most important energy goals, what scientific advice he sought, and if today’s witnesses are correct, what would be a realistic goal for the country’s alternative fuels program. In the meantime, the country just spent another $1 billion on energy today.
I am wondering if DCPers think that global warming and climate change issues are going to e a big part of the 2008 discussions, or if we are still going to be dealing with style/personality issues, or if the war issues are going to override everything.
What do you think?
I think style and personality will be the issues. It's why the Obama v Hillary is selling. And even Edwards with his 'charm' and "Two America's" message is being talked about more than specific strategies.
Personally, I am angry that the 08 election began November 8, 2006. I think it's disgusting that 2 years before an election, we are campaigning instead of working.
And while you're posting on energy...read this evaluation of oil prices and the 06 elections.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x116300
I can tell you right before the SOTU gas was $1.87 here and now it's back to $2.20 and the increase happened almost overnight!
I think it's disgusting that 2 years before an election, we are campaigning instead of working.
Posted by: sparrow at February 3, 2007 10:39 AM
I totally agree, sparrow. It's going to be tough to get people to do what's right, instead of what's politically expedient, for the next 22 months. But that's what we need to be doing here at the DCP. We are not a PAC; we are a nonprofit educational site and we can transcend the personality wars and focus on actions and issues.
Style easier for media. A lot harder for issues, which have never been more dire.
I give the start date as before and during the '04 campaign, when they should have been working to change the country, start the war, with the election at hand.
Bill's inability to get off the stage denied us a better president, a better direction.
Karen
I think global warming is much less debatable than it was in 2004. By that, I mean there is more agreement among the public in addition to scientists that it is real and actual. I imagine that Gore's work, Hurricane Katrina, other extreme weather and just the continuing trickle of information increasing to a more steady flow have had an impact on the public perception. I also wonder if Bush's credibility on other things has spread to include this issue?
Now farmers are debating whether to plant GMO soy that has a lower transfat content or ethanol for fuel. I think people are starting to connect the dots.
A potential problem is that most viable contenders will seem to have a plan for global warming. McCain even has more of an on-going record with it than most Republicans. Kerry was ahead of his time, and certainly Gore. I think they will all have something to say about it but not sure they will all have credibility, if it's the trendy thing to talk about.
We need to pick apart their plans and also highlight the issue. Like with Iraq, they need a plan and one that can be explained to people but that is thorough not superficial. To start with, who is willing to cooperate with the international community? Who can demonstrate that and is already doing it? Do any of them have any answers for why we blew off Kyoto etc?
And then:
"Landmark climate report: Clock is ticking
'It's later than we think,' U.S. scientist and panel co-chair says
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16904988/
PARIS - Global warming is so severe that it will “continue for centuries,” leading to a far different planet in 100 years, warned a grim landmark report from the world’s leading climate scientists and government officials. Yet, many of the experts are hopeful that nations will now take action to avoid the worst scenarios.
They tried to warn of dire risks without scaring people so much they’d do nothing — inaction that would lead to the worst possible scenarios...
In Washington, Bush administration officials praised the report but said they still oppose mandatory cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. The problem can be addressed by better technology that will cut emissions, promote energy conservation, and hasten development of non-fossil fuels, said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
About three-fourths of Americans say they expect global warming will get worse, according to a recent AP-AOL News poll. However, other recent polls have found they don’t consider it a top priority for the U.S. government."
Are we the stupid people, or what?
Another related story:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16948019/
"U.S. backs climate report, but not curbs
Energy secretary calls for 'global discussion,' saying U.S. just small player
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration played down the U.S. contribution to world climate change on Friday and called for a "global discussion" after a U.N. report blamed humans for much of the warming over the past 50 years.
'We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world,' U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said of greenhouse gas emissions. 'It's really got to be a global discussion.'
The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and uses one-quarter of the world's crude oil."
Yep, we are the stupid people...
We need to get people to care about our standing in the world as it is an essential part of peace in the world. We can't just talk on and on about having to defend our interests ("we have ALWAYS had aircraft carriers guarding the Gulf" etc).
Got this today from a former Republican from Florida who is now a Democrat relocating to British Columbia, for political reasons.
The global view of the United States’ role in world affairs has significantly deteriorated over the last year according to a BBC World Service poll of more than 26,000 people across 25 different countries.
As the United States government prepares to send a further 21,500 troops to Iraq, the survey reveals that three in four (73%) disapprove of how the US government has dealt with Iraq.
The poll shows that in the 18 countries that were previously polled, the average percentage saying that the United States is having a mainly positive influence in the world has dropped seven points from a year ago--from 36 percent to 29 percent—after having already dropped four points the year before. Across all 25 countries polled, one citizen in two (49%) now says the US is playing a mainly negative role in the world.
Over two-thirds (68%) believe the US military presence in the Middle East provokes more conflict than it prevents and only 17 percent believes US troops there are a stabilizing force.
The poll shows that world citizens disapprove of the way the US government has handled all six of the foreign policy areas explored. After the Iraq war (73% disapproval), majorities across the 25 countries also disapprove of US handling of Guantanamo detainees (67%), the Israeli-Hezbollah war (65%), Iran’s nuclear program (60%), global warming (56%), and North Korea’s nuclear program (54%).
more at http://www.pipa.com
DiAnne,
I love your optimism, and most of the time, I share it. But I think we are in such a bind economically--addicted to stuff and with waning economic power to live as we'd like to--that we are going to choose the expedient over the longterm solution. And that is a horrifying thought to me, as a mother.
Example: people still shop at Walmart, because the stuff is cheap.
Example: Farmers grow corn and do not rotate with soy because corn is subsidized for use as ethanol. Switchgrass and sugar cane would work better, but we get greedy, don't we?
Example: SUVs
etc.
It's important for us to model the changes we want to see and I know you do. I am discouraged when I read Bodman's statements in my post above. It's just so friggin' TYPICAL.
Richard will be at a hearing with Bodman next week; I just told him he'd better think about asking him some hard questions if he gets the chance...
Posted by: karen at February 3, 2007 11:56 AM
Karen, I don't know if it's greed per se. I think people are just so squeezed financially that they look for the cheapest option or the one that will give them the biggest tax break or refund.
We need to keep pressing the attack on multiple fronts and I think rebuilding the economy and middle class is a good banner. The less money we blow up in wars, the more we have to invest in our country. The more we invest in education and preventive healthcare, the more productive our economy is. The more we invest in "green power", renewable resources, recycling, etc., the lower our energy costs as a nation will be (with benefits to our health, etc). For a lot of people it comes down to the dollar signs and I think that is a useful umbrella under which all our concerns can safely reside.
White House Refuses to Take Action Against Global Warming
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020307Y.shtml
Despite a strongly worded global warming report from the world's top climate scientists, the Bush administration expressed continued opposition Friday to mandatory reductions in heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases.
Well this is a pretty hyper turbo capitalist administration so no restrictions or regulations on business - everything must be voluntary. It is more or less economically libertarian - complete free market. Sink or swim dog eat dog style. Bush was up yapping on Wall Street at the stock exchange the other day - he feels comfortable in that milieu with his business degree he barely made it with out of an Ivy League school. He was saying CEOs got big pay raises for nothing (like 400x what the average worker makes) but that they SHOULD get the pay raise if it is earned. So how does a CEO earn a huge pay raise? By cost cutting through outsourcing and mergers. That is rewarded, not energy efficiency. That is his value system. Is it any wonder our only friends are Princes and Dictators of oil-rich countries and to placate them we will have to take a side against their own enemies in their own part of the world, die for them and arm them?
Some people are squeezed financially. But there is NO REASON for people to second mortgage their houses to buy SUVs and plasma screen TVs on credit and they do it all the time. Our economy runs on that. We have the lowest savings rate in the developed world and the lowest savings rate here in US in 47 years, matched only by a couple of years during the Great Depression. Until average Americans CARE, they will contribute to be greedy. Ted Kennedy pointed out the greed of the CEOs who didn't want to grant minimum wage that would keep people even at the SAME buying power they had a decade or more ago. He didn't address that the greed trickles down. Watch everyone glued to the SuperBowl like Clones, and then going out to buy Bud and Doritos, just like the commercials tell them to. Why do people buy stuff at Walmart? Most of it is really ugly stuff. The stores themselves are foreboding with glaring light and huge ugly parking lots. I know. In some communities, Walmart has KILLED downtown and it is the only option, especially if it is the main employer and also sells food, like a giant company store or PX.
Thanks for calling me an optimist. I do believe in Karma but some people will always get trapped in the middle who didn't create the problem. Ignorance is no excuse though. There are plenty of children around who are infinitely much more environmentally conscious than alot of the adults. I have seen so much whale art and little blue-green planet art on murals and elementary school walls around here. I guess some would blame the dreaded secular humanist public school teachers, but some of them are more like saints, I think.
Karen, I don't know if it's greed per se. I think people are just so squeezed financially that they look for the cheapest option or the one that will give them the biggest tax break or refund.
Posted by: V at February 3, 2007 12:20 PM
You are exactly right, V, and we reward the negative behaviors, and too often, punish the positive behaviors, as DiAnne notes too. I recommend a book written by a friend/colleague of Richard's: The Natural Wealth of Nations: Harnessing the Market for the Environment by David Malin Roodman.
Here is a description from Amazon:
An incisive look at how governments could speed environmental cleanup by ending wasteful subsidies and shifting taxes from workers and investors to polluters. Looking for some concrete proposals about how to clean up the world's environmental problems? In The Natural Wealth of Nations, David Roodman argues that a critical but often overlooked source of solutions lies in the prosaic world of government subsidies and fiscal policy. If governments overhaul how they raise and spend money, they can use the market to protect the environment without hurting economic growth. For starters, why are the world's governments spending over $700 billion a year to subsidize activities that harm the environment, from logging to mining to driving? Roodman shows how cutting these wasteful subsidies can boost the economy, save tax dollars, and help the environment. But governments can do more. Hidden subsidies are only one of several reasons that consumers get misleading signals from the marketplace about the true environmental costs of their activities. Roodman proposes raising taxes on harmful activities like air pollution while cutting taxes on payrolls and profits. This tax shift would discourage pollution and encourage work and investment. The creation of tradable pollution credits is another way to use the market to include environmental costs. These proposals are not far-fetched, having already been tested in the United States and overseas. In a global survey, Roodman provides examples from Sweden to Spain to Malaysia of the growing number of countries that are successfully using these market-based approaches to clean up their environments.
If I were running for President, I'd come out for the kind of dramatic tax incentives that would make it crystal clear to anyone with a brain that clean alternative energy should be the business of America. And I'd raise corporate taxes on producers of dirty energy.
Sometimes you can accomplish more with both a kind word and a big stick that you can with just a kind word.
Note that Matthew posted his ideas just as I posted Roodman's. Synchronicity!
So how do we assist this along?
So how do we assist this along?
Posted by: karen at February 3, 2007 01:54 PM
How about we see if any of these candidates are willing to take up the issue?
The development of cheap, clean energy will positively impact the American economy across the board - from the airlines, to the trucking industry, to the power generation industry, to the produce industry, to direct mail and internet commerce, and, last but not least, to the amount of disposable income that American families have available to them. The price of energy impacts everything - with low energy prices helping the vast majority of American, and high energy prices aiding a few special interests in both parties, and a couple of states.
Just working on taxes now. There are a few good starts at tax breaks for improving energy efficiency of houses and using more efficient cars. We need to continue in this direction. Still don't get how cutting taxes to the top 2% of Americans helps anything.
Cutting taxes for the top 2% doesn't help. Using targeted tax incentives to spur meaningful economic development that serves legitimate national interests does make sense.
I'm sure that, left to their own devices, Bush's economic elite would eventually get around to investing their money in activities that helped remedy either America's energy or trade crisis. But by the time they got around to doing it, it would likely be too little and too late.
Propagandists, Revisionists & Liars.
hris Floyd | Bush Backers Offer Payoffs to Undercut Global Warming
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020307C.shtml
The new report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has just been released, and it looks like bad news for the home team, i.e., the entire human race. Things are going to get hotter, coastlines are going to go under, deserts are going to get wider, and millions if not billions of people are going
to be on the move.
Pentagon Alters Casualty Figures
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020307D.shtml
Statistics on a Pentagon Web site have been reorganized in a way that lowers the published totals of American nonfatal casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan.
From Elizabeth:
http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/2/2/13337/84951
John Edwards speech at DNC Winter meeting
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Obama_Trying_to_figure_out_if_0202.html
Barak Obama at the DNC winter meeting
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how_he_can_win/1
Why Gore Should Run - from Rolling Stone
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Gore_to_testify_before_Congress_on_0202.html
Gore to testify before Congress
This is something we are doing in Seattle that could be done anywhere.
On March 4th, We the People March Forth!
Stand Up for the Constitution & you can sign your name on the giant Constitution, meet Benjamin Franklin, and listen to the music of Emma's Revolution, Rebel Voices, and Spoken Word artists. There will be speakers, activities for the whole family, costumed characters in tri-corner hats, giant plumed pens, a fife and drum corps, and hopefully a marching band!
Why March 4th? Not only is it a fun play on words, but it also happens to be the anniversary of our Constitution, which went into effect March 4th, 1789. “We the People” -- as the authors of the progressive story that is America -- will gather under the mandate to “create a more perfect union” and chart an aspirational course toward greater justice, domestic tranquility, the common defense, and liberty for all.
This event is for EVERYONE, not just the usual peace rally choir. It is a perfect opportunity to bring your favorite right wing relative, neighbor, friend, in-law, and to discover what unites us and what our common goals are. Please help us spread the word!
(This comes from the Backbone Campaign)
My Dear Country - Norah Jones
'Twas Halloween and the ghosts were out,
And everywhere they'd go, they shout,
And though I covered my eyes I knew,
They'd go away.
But fear's the only thing I saw,
And three days later 'twas clear to all,
That nothing is as scary as election day.
But the day after is darker,
And darker and darker it goes,
Who knows, maybe the plans will change,
Who knows, maybe he's not deranged.
The news men know what they know, but they,
Know even less than what they say,
And I don't know who I can trust,
For they come what may.
'cause we believed in our candidate,
But even more it's the one we hate,
I needed someone I could shake,
On election day.
But the day after is darker,
And deeper and deeper we go,
Who knows, maybe it's all a dream,
Who knows if I'll wake up and scream.
I love the things that you've given me,
I cherish you my dear country,
But sometimes I don't understand,
The way we play.
I love the things that you've given me,
And most of all that I am free,
To have a song that I can sing,
On election day.
I'm hoping that with this long campaign season, we'll get all the personality garbage over and done with and then in the final months maybe we'll actually be able to focus on the issues - like Global Warming.
That may be wishful thinking, but it certainly gives us time to flesh things out.
Please DON'T ever say the word "libertarian."
They should be called what they truly are - NEOLIBERALS, who btw are not all that liberal.
In most of the world, liberal is not a dirty word, but neoliberal is about as devastating a label as anything gets.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 3, 2007 11:53 AM
I've seen that report recently. Thanks for sharing!
What's also revealing is that the most staunch supporters of American current foreign policy are the Nigerians - known for their ultra-primitive moral laws.
But I think we are in such a bind economically--addicted to stuff and with waning economic power to live as we'd like to--that we are going to choose the expedient over the longterm solution. And that is a horrifying thought to me, as a mother.
Example: people still shop at Walmart, because the stuff is cheap.
Example: Farmers grow corn and do not rotate with soy because corn is subsidized for use as ethanol. Switchgrass and sugar cane would work better, but we get greedy, don't we?
Example: SUVs
Posted by: karen at February 3, 2007 11:56 AM
And Southern California is as bad as it gets, when it comes to vanity spending.
I blame the wealthy Asian immigrant Republicans, and their hypercapitalist belief systems (thanks to their home countries' faceoff with the Communist Bloc), for much of this.
I'm sure that, left to their own devices, Bush's economic elite would eventually get around to investing their money in activities that helped remedy either America's energy or trade crisis. But by the time they got around to doing it, it would likely be too little and too late.
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at February 3, 2007 03:28 PM
I am not that optimistic. Where is the incentive, when the W regime, through its moronic tax policy, encouraged buying 3+ ton luxury SUVs by writing them off as "legitimate business expenses?"
We are in the midst of waging (and escalating) a war in the countries that have the most oil.
We have a government that has equated taking meaningful and immediate action to prevent global warming with "sacrificing our American Way of Life"
The powers that be in the American government (those who make national policy and can impose environmental standards) are beholden to the Big Oil companies (who are making a killing in Iraq and Afganistan).
And we wonder why NO Action is the only action this government and by association, this country, has taken on the most dire environmental situation to face humanity since the end of the Ice Age.
As long as BOTH parties are more beholden to Big Oil and "securing" its "interests" than in anything resembling moral leadership or ecological responsibility- we are all screwed.
Yesterday the WH dismissed outright the consensus opinion of global experts and scientists with NO political agenda. In addition they claimed they were doing more than anyone else on the planet because of all the hundreds of millions they are throwing at the problem.
The TRUTH is that yes, the govt is wasting the taxpayers money, by requesting proposals to fund studies to study what has already been determined to be scientific fact: that global climate change is real, it is anthropogenic in nature, and the global warming is happening at a far more accelerated pace than previously predicted.
THAT is not progress- it is a stall tactic- nothing more.
And by the by, way to go Richard Bell- gets your facts and give em hell.
The window of opp to diminish the most dire effects is closing fast. There is no time to waste.
I think global warming is much less debatable than it was in 2004.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 3, 2007 11:47 AM
I respectfully disagree.
Dr. Heidi Cullen has been running a program called The Climate Code at the Weather Channel, and she's been crucified by those who still firmly believe that global warming is not attributable to human causes.
The United States of America, or at least my Reagan Country sector, still has a LONG ways to go before it can ever catch up with the more sensible countries of the world.
Some people are squeezed financially. But there is NO REASON for people to second mortgage their houses to buy SUVs and plasma screen TVs on credit and they do it all the time.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 3, 2007 12:32 PM
I'll say this again - vanity spending is out of control in Reagan Country, AKA Southern California. You really need that plasma TV, and you really need that SUV, if only to win respect of your equally vain friends from your fundamentalist church.
I blamed the rich Asian immigrant Republicans for much of this, and I stand by it. The same problems are going on with the nouveaux-riches of China, Taiwan, South Korea, and many other East Asian countries - excessive and wasteful spending as if there is no tomorrow. They have the money, but they haven't been conditioned to respect and conserve that wealth from early on, so excessive spending, just like movies about upper-class America, became their motto. And as they migrate to the US, they bring their wasteful ways back to us.
While on the subject of Asian nouveaux-riches, their wasteful ways brought down the once-vibrant economies of Taiwan and South Korea, and they are projected to bring down the Chinese economy too before long.
We Americans could learn a thing or two from their downfalls.
But the nouveaux-riches have the galls to blame the working class and the labor unions instead. Despite the fact that labor unions are toothless government organs in China, and dismissed as Communist sympathizers in South Korea.
Ally
I am using Libertarian in the sense of complete free market supply and demand economics where there are always losers - no fair trade, no concern for the poor, and no government other than military and roads.
By global warming being less debatable, I mean that I'm seeing far more articles and more mainstream view maintaining that it is not so controversial but is in fact a real threat, and people should listen to science. Remember - Gore was called an "environmental wacko" and even some Democrats said Kerry should not focus on the environment because it wasn't considered a serious issue that people were interested in. How quickly things change.
I think you are sure right that there is kind of a capitalistic backlash among those who reacted against communistic regimes - it's like an over-correction. I know some people from Indonesia who have an autographed framed photo of John Ashcroft on display in their living room and brag about their oil profits.
Wild Salmon is back and started the new chant:
Way to go Richard Bell- gets your facts and give em hell.
Wow - just came from having a crown done. It's a long procedure and you're kind of trapped in the chair - long needles, then gooey material, then chopping, drilling and pounding about, with the smell of burnt protein. I had one done two years ago as well. Both times I was told to "think of something else" an all I could think of was Guantanamo.
Posted by: V at February 3, 2007 12:20 PM
You're right, V. My budget doesn't allow spending on the more expensive, *fair trade* products. So, I do go to the stores that don't have regard for fair trade - and I support them through my need.
But there are things that we all can do. Nike has cleaned up its act a little since world-wide exposure of its practices and costs came to light. Boycotting whole companies does work - but only when the boycotting is so serious that it affects the very wealthy (those who could afford the Nike products even when made under fair trade conditions).
I've decided that I'll do the best that I can do around me - recycling, conserving use of power and water, even though we don't have water restrictions here in Tasmania. At the rate mainlanders are filling Tassie, it will be a most useful skill.
The US and Australia are the laggers on this issue. John Howard said a few months back, "Yes well I don't believe it's as serious as they're making out." And now, with these world scientists reports that, not only is it worse than we expected, but the worsening situation is accelerating.
Amazing what an election year will bring. This week John Howard has been jumping up and down shrieking about how his government is the only one to take us into the future and we have to do it now and get on board the Nuclear energy program.
I thought at the time that he was doing some stand-up comedy.
Hell, the ALP (opposition), got themselves a true Greenie (ex Midnight Oil), for federal politics 3 years ago. Noone doubts Peter Garrett's knowledge and enthusiasm when it comes to environmental issues. Peter Garrett's been on the carbon-taxing-big-polluters bandwagon for the entire 3 or 4 years he's been a politician. The current minister for Climate Change and the Environment has absolutely no idea.
Politicians can be easily identified as those who have learned the words rather than the practice. Peter Garrett has love for the environment and passion for regenerating the planet that is a part of his own psyche. It's a pretend vs the real. They will be debating on tv this week.
Woz
Midnight Oil were really good.
I'm not into football but I heard Prince will be at half time.
That I would probably like.
At the risk of tempting fate, I'll say that the terms of this article come from the (almost) Australian Prime Minister (sometime this year, when Howard decides on the date).
Rudd to convene a climate change summit
February 4, 2007 - 2:54PM
Labor leader Kevin Rudd has sought to trump Prime Minister John Howard by convening a climate change conference involving the nation's best business and science brains early this year.
His move follows the release on Friday of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which stated that man-made global warming was 90 per cent certain and predicted serious consequences for the planet from rising temperatures.
Cont ....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Rudd-to-convene-a-climate-change-summit/2007/02/04/1170523950287.html
Big oil linked to cash for comment
Washington
February 4, 2007
THE American Enterprise Institute, a pro-business think tank that has received $US1.6 million ($A2 million) from ExxonMobil, offered scientists up to $US10,000 for a "policy critique" of the UN global warming report.
The institute, which has close ties to the Bush Administration, denied it was looking for global warming sceptics to cast doubt on the UN report.
The institute made the offers to scientists starting last July, but ultimately abandoned the project, according to Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at the institute who worked on the program. The program aimed to publish scientists' essays to coincide with the release of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Cont ....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/big-oil-linked-to-cash-for-comment/2007/02/03/1169919577814.html
I posted this on another site, but thought it was apropos for this discussion as well:
There was a company named Infracorp - now bankrupt after Bush was elected - whose primary product was "scrubbers" for coal burning power plants. These scrubbers significantly reduced coal fired plants emissions and effectively turned those emissions into steam. If it hadn't been for Bushco policy, companies like Infracorp, dedicated to helping maintain a cleaner environment while utilizing one of our most abundant carbon based energy resources would be world leaders in their industry.
Yet, the Texan oil mafia came to rule and all other viable sources for cleaner energy were eliminated via preferential policies and various tax incentives. Infracorp tried to survive after developing a trenchless system for replacing antiquated water delivery systems. Unfortunately, all the research and investment spent on the "scrubbers" created too deep a hole from which Infracorp could climb out.
George Bush and the Texas oil mafia: Doing for America what they did for Infracorp.
_______________________________________________________________
Personally, I believe that more people will be interested in the global warmning debate as this is the singular issue that effects our survival. I know that seems melodramatic, but when the health and survival of the planet is in question, I believe that most people care more about that than if a candidate wears pant suits or has a charismatic smile. When some smart politician starts showing video clips of New York City residents enjoying seventy degree weather in January, we will know that the debate is turning to more substantial issues. We will also see the public more engaged because this is an issue that effects their being just as much as does the high def. T.V. and the gas guzzling SUV.
I forgot to add:
GO BEARS!!!!!!!
I always love to read Terry Lane's work wherever I find it. This item - not on-track right here - but it is on track for the values we all hold dear - human rights. The apology that Lane is cynical about, is John Howard's refusal to apologise to the Indigenous peoples of this land. It would have been a giant step in the reconciliation process, but John Howard still regards our indigenous brothers and sisters as a nuisance rather than an equal. If that's the beginning of his outright bigotry, wasn't he the most obvious leader to jump at the chance to walk beside another belligerent bigot into Afghanistan and then into Iraq?
Kirribilli House is the Prime Minister's residence in Sydney.
Perspective
Terry Lane
February 4, 2007
ON AUSTRALIA DAY, the Prime Minister looked out over the harbour from Kirribilli and declared that ours is the greatest nation on Earth.
And why not? He didn't have to deal with Connex trains or buy a first home on an impossible mortgage. He probably doesn't care about the mighty mountains and great lakes that we don't have or the first-class education system that has gone missing.
He can be forgiven for thinking himself the most blessed of prime ministers in the happiest of lands.
But is this so? Last Sunday's newspaper had the following headline: "Canada: PM apologises".
Cont .....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/perspective/2007/02/03/1169919582552.html
Woz
Politicians here don't even mention indiginous people much - they don't want to remind us about lobbyist Jack Abramhoff and his Indian casino and other scams.
(Here is where he got 6 years last spring - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5310077)
DiAnne
Thanks - but I can't get the link to work here. I don't know where I read in the last 24 hours or so, that 90% of Americans who have been executed since 19?? were indigenous.
Yesterday was an anniversary of the last execution to have taken place in Australia - that's probably why the above came up in my reading. I have no idea if it's fact or fiction.
No - above is incorrect. It seemed way too high. Perhaps 9% might be closer.
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200702u/congress-iraq
Where Congress Can Draw the Line
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/02/03/scarborough-draws-a-line-in-the-sand/
Scarborough Draws A Line In The Sand
Punch line (video): Scarbourough "Either come up with a new plan or bring our troops home!"
GO BEARS!!!!!!!
Posted by: oncall at February 4, 2007 12:10 AM
"I didn't come here to cause no trouble...
I just came to do the Super Bowl Shuffle!"
http://www.prairiestateblue.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2701
Love Da Bears!!!
This is why I maintain that this Administration is socially authoritarian but fiscally Libertarian. Grover Norquist is having his day. Government is small enough to flush down a toilet bowl, just like New Orleans. The Military-Industrial Complex is a big Welfare State. The rest of us are the Walmart State.
In DC, Contractors Are the "Fourth Branch of Govt."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/020407Z.shtml
In June, short of people to process cases of incompetence and fraud by federal contractors, officials at the General Services Administration responded with what has become the government's reflexive answer to almost every problem. On
the rise for decades, spending on federal contracts has soared during the Bush administration, to about $400 billion last year from $207 billion in 2000, fueled by the war in Iraq, domestic security and Hurricane Katrina, but also by a philosophy that encourages outsourcing almost everything government does.
Heading to Superbelle, at the Pink Door: board games, Tarot readings, high tea, trapeze artists, and "cute boy waiters."
"Acute boy gaiters? Eh? What's that you say?"
Working on my book about Laban, which is coming along, but disturbs me no end. I am writing about the fact that he really wanted dancing to save humanity. I don't know if this paragraph will make the final cut, but today, I wrote it from my heart:
Laban’s life story is a tale of salvation and transcendence, but not the salvation of society. It is a story about the gifts of salvation and transcendence that he tried to give humanity. Humanity has, thus far, refused the gift.
Republican SuperBowl:
Hagel v McCain
http://www.comcast.net/news/index.jsp?cat=GENERAL&fn=/2007/02/04/578442.html&cvqh=itn_mccain
Karen
At least not all of humanity!
Well, yr hmbl otr crspndnt is famously disinterested in watching football on TV. But me, I'm pushing hard for the Colts today anyhow.
Why is that, you may ask? Well, it's like this:
There's a guy by the name of Bob Sanders what plays for the Colts. He spent most all the past season benched on the injured list, but he came back from the edge of being semi-crippled in time to make a real difference in the playoffs. He's 5'-8" and everybody always told him he was way too small to play professional football. He's a minority kid from a small rust-belt city who scored a scholarship to an upscale Catholic prep school that just happened to have a strong athletic tradition, and he grabbed that and growled and took it all the way to the big game. He's smart as a whip, gracious to a fault, kind to puppies and kittens, and he's respectful to his mama too.
Oh, yeah, and he grew up about a mile and a half from where I'm typing this today. Since Freddie Biletnikoff finally retired from the Raiders this past week, that leaves Bob Sanders as the only local homeboy on the big board at the moment.
And besides, all my peacemongering nun buddies are pulling for him. That sounds like sufficient probable cause to me. Go Colts!
This map says it all...
31 Days in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2007/02/03/opinion/04opart.html
Nice to read about Sandra Day O'Connor
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/02/04/oconnor.ap/index.html?eref=rss_topstories
She was part of the Iraq Study Group. Her preference would have been not to retire yet.
This is why I maintain that this Administration is socially authoritarian but fiscally Libertarian. Grover Norquist is having his day. Government is small enough to flush down a toilet bowl, just like New Orleans. The Military-Industrial Complex is a big Welfare State. The rest of us are the Walmart State.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 4, 2007 10:13 AM
That's why we need to either (1) smear the word libertarian, like Reagan smeared the word liberal, or (2) use the existing smear word, neoliberal, which is what the rest of the world uses anyway.
I will admit that business is good for my family business, as we embark on a number of military construction contracts. However, I am in hardly any position to thank the W cabal, because (1) construction contractors for the military are needed regardless of who's running the country, and (2) my contracts come from a special SBA 8(a) setaside, something the large contractors and the Republicans have long opposed.
I'll add one more thing re: my military contracts.
My SBA 8(a) pool consists of three competitors. Of those, two are large businesses who shouldn't have even qualified for the pool - but did anyway, due to their heavy contributions to the W presidential campaigns.
I am the only one of the four to qualify based on merits alone, without any lobbying.
Thanks Madame - I credited the source & linked to that image on our blog. & a hat tip to you. It does say it all.
http://silencedmajority.blogs.com/silenced_majority_portal/2007/02/jpg_large.html
Posted by: madame defarge at February 4, 2007 02:17 PM
Thanks for sharing, Madame. Very grisly indeed. :(
Ally
Just heard on NPR that there are more contractors than federal employees in US now. The trend is toward privatization of everything - except our personal lives. Only half of the contracts stand up to a competitive bidding process. The rest are giveaways and political favors. Henry Waxman is going to name it for what it is.
There is a full page ad in the Sunday Seattle Times-PI today (they merge on Sunday) thanking Lieutenant Watada for standing up for his beliefs. The entire page is made up a tiny signatures below his photograph. There must be thousands.
Here is Watada's website. His Court Martial is tomorrow in Ft. Lewis.
http://www.thankyoult.org/
Posted by: DiAnne at February 4, 2007 03:30 PM
The worst thing is when these contractors are NOT subject to any of the regulations (i.e. Davis-Bacon prevailing wages) that government employees are bound to.
The disgrace is that they also happen to be very strict on non-political small businesses like me (they come down on me really hard if I neglect to pay prevailing wages), but look the other way when the offender is someone like Halliburton.
Another disturbing trend is for some of these contractors to be religious (faith-based initiatives), and therefore be free to openly flout anti-discrimination laws that government agencies must obey.
Maybe Bush has confidence in "surges" because wasn't it a "surge" of Republican conservative church goers in Ohio that suddenly put him over the edge at the last minute on election day 2004? Or wasn't he led to believe that? There has always been someone to orchestrate his life and make things turn out alright, to bail him out of trouble. In his mind, maybe this is no different.
Here is a young evangelical who helps Democrats get votes. It's said 80% of Americans are religious. Interesting.
http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/NEWS/701200388/1326
I have to forbid myself to Google. I am coming across things again that I can't handle - like the Robert F Kennedy Jr. Rolling Stone article and the Greg Palast article that say Kerry really won. They are still convincing. That's one reason it's hard to get excited about the primaries this time. Until the voting system is fair and the media is better, I think it's important to work specifically on those. Then there is the damn war and it's directly related to the environmental issue via oil.
Just ran into a friend who used to live in Iran. We were talking about how wars for oil and spun as "war on terror" but in fact, the more civilians that are killed, the more enemies we have. We are fighting for dwindling strategic resources without thinking ahead and framing it as an ideological struggle that extends decades, maybe centures into the future (at least Bush is).
NY Times also has a long article on how United Arab Emirates is building a "city of culture" - never mind that war has destroyed alot of the ancient Persian and Arabian cultures already and our government doesn't care about things like that. They don't even care if New Orleans culture is destroyed and replaced. There is no sense of history. Will say that UAE is thinking ahead by diversifying away from oil. They have been smart enough to invest some of their oil resources into other areas such as real estate and high technology.
Speaking of Robert F Kennedy, watch him with an "oil industry representative" - entertaining
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org/sgw_feature.asp?id=2
February 4, 2007
After Deadly Blast in Iraq, Shiites Assail U.S. Policy
By DAMIEN CAVE and RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.
BAGHDAD, Iraq, Feb. 4 — Naeem Al-Kaabi, Baghdad’s deputy mayor, nodded toward the gunfire outside his seventh floor office, a few hundred yards from the market where a one-ton truck bomb killed at least 130 people on Saturday and wounded hundreds more. The shots, he said, signaled another body — another son, another daughter — being carried from the rubble.
“The terrorists chose this spot three months ago and again yesterday so they could kill as many people as possible,” said Mr. Kaabi, a Shiite from Sadr City. “Trucks are not even allowed in the small alleys of the market. I wonder how the truck made it in.”
It was a question that traveled through much of Baghdad today, in the wake of the deadliest single bomb blast since the American invasion in 2003. Shiites in particular came prepared with an answer. They said the looming American-Iraqi security plan for Baghdad had weakened the Mahdi army, the Shiite militia loyal to the militant cleric Moktada Al-Sadr, emasculating the Shiites’ only reliable source of security.
Instead of making the city safer, they said, recent American efforts have opened Shiite areas to bombs that have left more than 450 dead since Jan. 16.
“A long time has passed since the plan was announced,” Basim Shareef, a Shiite member of Parliament, said today. “But so far there security has only deteriorated.”
An American military official, responding to the Shiite accusations, said that American checkpoints around eastern and central Baghdad last October seemed to reduce the number of car bombs until the checkpoints were removed because of objections from Sadr officials and Prime Minister Nuri Kamal Al-Maliki. Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, the American military spokesman in Iraq, called for patience as the new security plan rolls out.
“Give the government and coalition forces a chance to fully implement it,” he told news agencies.
His comments, however, came as more than a dozen mortar shells crashed on Adhamiya, a Sunni Arab area of eastern Baghdad, in what appeared to be an act of retaliation from Shiites. At least seven people were killed and more than 35 were wounded.
And in the streets of Sadriya, the poor, mostly Shiite area of central Baghdad where the deadly bomb exploded Saturday, residents and merchants struggled to control their anger and grief.
(snip)
Mr. Abdul Jabbar said he rushed to collapsed buildings, trying to help the wounded, but found mainly hands, skulls and other body parts. At one point, he discovered the remains of his close friend, who was engaged to be married.
“How would you feel if you were in this position,” he said today. “The government is supposed to protect us, but they are not doing their job. I watch the TV and see the announcements on the imminent implementation of the security plan. Where is it for God’s sake?”
“I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all,” he added, “so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil — which is the core of the problem — can come and get it. We can not live this way anymore; we are dying slowly every day.”
- more -
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/04/world/middleeast/04cnd-iraq.html
Should soldiers be able to opt out of wars?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,2006111,00.html
Today is the start of the court martial of a US officer who has refused to serve in Iraq, offering instead to be posted to Afghanistan. Last June, army lieutenant Ehren Watada became the first commissioned officer to publicly refuse deployment to Iraq on the grounds that he found the war illegal and immoral. In the UK, we have already jailed an RAF officer for the same thing.
In the free world, the best armies are volunteer professional organisations. You join as a free person but submit to military law. When the commanding officer of a British unit calls the soldiers together to tell them where they are deploying, he does not expect any discussion. It is not a holiday: you don't get a choice of where to go. On rare occasions some have tried to avoid active service, but this tends to be one way of ensuring you are sent to the thick of it.
Watada can take no comfort from his objection on legal grounds. The legal case against the war is unproven conjecture and, in any case, by submitting to military law, you surrender your citizen rights for the order and discipline of the military. If you have a problem of conscience, you resign your commission. I was careful not to criticise the war - about which I have severe reservations - until after I left the colours in 2004. The odd prima donna believes that what they think matters more than duty. In service life, it does not. There is a clear option to resign.
Watada's mitigation that he would serve in Afghanistan instead holds no water. If only we could all pick and choose our battles. Were it so, such a military would be as much an army as a pile of building materials is a house. It is not about blind obedience; it is about duty and sacrifice and a cause greater than oneself.
· Colonel Collins was commander of the Royal Irish Regiment in Iraq
Well Watada is a hero to me and also to alot of young people here who are cannon fodder.
Posted by: madame defarge at February 4, 2007 02:17 PM
Thanks for posting that madame. I forwarded the link to our local anti-war group.
Posted by: DiAnne at February 4, 2007 11:20 PM
Posted by: DiAnne at February 4, 2007 11:23 PM
Ditto DiAnne. What a shame there were not more of Hitler's armies who refused to serve. Those men would have been the heroes of Germany now.
And the world
"Donald Rumsfeld once labelled those at Guantanamo Bay "the worst of the worst". That being so, harder evidence than this would have been expected."
Yes. It would.
David Hicks' burden of proof
February 5, 2007
FINALLY, David Hicks knows what he faces: charges of attempted murder and supporting terrorism. The chief prosecutor in the United States Office of Military Commissions, Colonel Morris Davis, alleges Hicks trained to kill US soldiers. "Our theory is that Hicks has attended a number of terrorism training courses where he has perfected his skills in killing," Colonel Davis said.
The announcement of the charges, however, is but one step. The charges now have to be decided on by Judge Susan Crawford, who heads the convening authority of the military commissions. She will decide, based on the evidence put to her, whether to proceed to trial, and the trial must start in four months or the charges lapse. The penalty if the charges are proved is life in jail, but the prosecution says it will not press for it.
Cont. ....
http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/david-hicks-burden-of-proof/2007/02/04/1170523956955.html
“I wish they would attack us with a nuclear bomb and kill us all,” he added, “so we will rest and anybody who wants the oil — which is the core of the problem — can come and get it. We can not live this way anymore; we are dying slowly every day.”
Posted by: Matthew Carnicelli at February 4, 2007 06:46 PM
Wow.
Posted by: madame defarge at February 4, 2007 02:17 PM
Is that image copyrighted? It should be on t'shirts.
Posted by: sparrow at February 5, 2007 08:37 AM
It's from the NYTimes. Maybe you should contact them & suggest it. (I'm sure they're always open to revenue-generating suggestions.)
Posted by: monkey at February 5, 2007 08:21 AM
That was certainly my reaction when I read it.
I am wondering if DCPers think that global warming and climate change issues are going to e a big part of the 2008 discussions, or if we are still going to be dealing with style/personality issuesPosted by: karen at February 3, 2007 10:28 AM
From what I've seen from watching the DNC winter conference in toto, I'm not optimistic. Since the only two possible candidates with real credentials and proven strong commitment to and understanding of this crucial issue (Gore and Kerry) are not running (Gore could change his mind, but I see no sign of his candidacy right now) , substantive discussion seems unlikely. And from the emphasis on sniping, carping, sound-bite moments, posturing, utter lack of generosity and just plain smallness I've seen in this campaign so far. . well, I'm not feeling really good right now.If there were any election where substance , experience, and track record really matters , it's this one (as well as 2004, alas, but that's another topic.. .). I'm very worried about my country, as well as my party.
mbk
agreed - Gore and Kerry were prescient in their concern for the environment and we were so fortunate in even having them run in this gas-engorged country. The other contenders would have to hire advisors - they are lacking in fundamental message & record in this area.