Am I the only one who noticed that Sarah Palin has pulled a huge switchover when it comes to her take on energy policy?
Because it’s dramatic, and may presage the switch that I have been hoping for for a while: the divorce of the idea that a Conservative Environmentalist in politics is an oxymoron.
Let’s assume that Sarah Palin is continuing to ride the publicity train because she still has plans for a 2012 run for President. Leaving aside my personal opinion — that such a a nomination would fracture the GOP irrevocably, to the point that we would end up with three parties here in America – lets look at how her energy policy was in 2008 and… beyond.
The Waxman-Markey bill that recently was introduced into the House has already caused quit a stir, and that was before someone found a provision tucked in it’s 600 plus pages that would make it legal to sue the Government if you suffer from Global Warming.
The bill is big, robust, and in many cases even more aggressive in it’s battle against C02 then the Obama plan (maybe for a reason: to make the Obama plan seem palatable in comparison?). This one little subsection, however, has the Washingtin Times all up in arms. They are worried about the huge number of new lawsuits that this could cause tying up the legal system. Wait a second… does that mean that they are admitting that these hypothetical lawsuits would be justified? That the realize there would be a reason to be upset at the Feds for their inaction on Global Warming? Nah…
Legal Options for Those “Harmed” by Global Warming.
According to the Times, the bill opens up a direct legal action option for individuals who feel they have been harmed in some way by Global Warming. I located the passage they are talking about in the bill, and the Times seems to have it about right: here’s a line or two from the SEC. 336. ENFORCEMENT bit of the bill.
The persons authorized by subsection (a) to commence an action under this section shall include any person who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).
What is harm, you ask? Well as near as I can tease out, it’s a wide open definition: “any effect of air pollution (including climate change), currently occurring or at risk of occurring.” Well, I’m an asthmatic, and it’s been getting worse my whole life. Does this mean I now have someone to blame!? Read the rest of this entry »
Even for a group focused on Investing First and Green Second, this is getting a little silly.
The longer I am here at the Wall Street Green Trading Summit, the less this feels like anything to do with environmentalism. At some point, when does off-setting stop being feasible, and when does carbon reduction become the name of the game?
This was driven home to me by a presentation on the investment opportunities presented by species banks. Now, I didn’t even know what a species bank was until today, but apparently you can purchase an offset credit to get around the fact that your company is destroying the natural habitat of an endangered species. And, there is an entire market based around this principle. Read the rest of this entry »
In my recent quest to discover why people feel the need to fight so hard against the idea that humanity might be causing the globe to warm, I’ve started looking at everything I can find that illuminates skeptic science. If you missed this profile of the physicist Freeman Dyson in the New York Times, check it out now. Dyson, I would say, is the most highly respected scientist to publicly come out against global warming.
His point (in a tiny and simplified nutshell)? There really isn’t a lot of proof of global warming beyond a series of simulations and models. If you don’t buy their prognosticating power, you’re left considering the fact that we don’t know, for sure, the exact ratio between temperature and human interaction. Read the rest of this entry »
The Republican Party is in a bit of a rough patch.
The League of Conservation Voters yesterday launched a petition to tell Republican congressional leaders Rep. John Boehner (KY) and Sen. Mitch McConnel (KY) that they have a choice: Either follow the leadership of Republican governors like Charlie Crist of Florida and Arnold Schwarzenegger of California in building a clean energy economy, ending our attachment on foreign oil, and addressing climate change, or; “Follow the leadership of Rush Limbaugh by proposing no new ideas, providing tax breaks to oil companies, and ignoring global warming.” Watch the LCV’s 54-second snark attack:
After years of railing against special interests, I find myself presented with a quandary. Special interests are lining up behind the Smart Grid technology I love and, in doing so, risk saddling this cool program with the baggage intrinsic to special interests.
Even as lawmakers spent yesterday grilling everyone from members of the DOE to representatives from Google about Smart Grids, the groundwork for a Smart Grid might already have been assumed. And, no, I’m not talking power lines and sub stations, I’m talking political donations.
The Current System is… Old. Very Old
It’s a fact: our current system for transporting, producing and storing energy is ancient and inefficient. Plus, as has been well recorded here on Red Green and Blue, Smart Grid technology theoretically does amazing things for how we use power as a nation and maybe even how we think about consumption. By using less energy during peak hours, and even allowing personal rigs to feed back into the electricity grid with ease, the technology refocuses the country on conservation.
Fox News, the champion of conservative politics, is at it again, this time railing President Barack Obama’s plan to create five million green jobs over the next 10 years. The argument is as follows: The European Union and California are at the forefront of creating green jobs, but each continues to see budget and job crises. And the European Union isn’t any closer to meeting its Kyoto target. Looking at these two places, why should we expect that Obama’s green jobs plan should be any more successful, especially in this time of recession? Read the rest of this entry »
In light of California’s third consecutive year of drought, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency, falling short of instituting mandatory water rationing - at least for now.
“Even with the recent rainfall, California faces its third consecutive year of drought and we must prepare for the worst - a fourth, fifth or even sixth year of drought,” said Governor Schwarzenegger in a statement.
Calling the situation a crisis as serious as an earthquake or wildfire, Schwarzenegger said: “Last year we experienced the driest spring and summer on record and storage in the state’s reservoir system is near historic lows. This drought is having a devastating impact on our people, our communities, our economy and our environment - making today’s action absolutely necessary.” Read the rest of this entry »
In response to President Barack Obama’s address to congress last night, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal roundly criticized the President’s stimulus package and path forward. Jindal began his 12 minute response by introducing himself to the nation as the son of an immigrant, whose parents had to work themselves to the bone to make it work in this new country, just so they could give their son a chance in the land of opportunity.
Obama’s story, being the son of a Kenyan father and a white mother, raised by a single parent, pulling himself up by his bootstraps to rise to the highest office in the land, surely helped him win the 2008 election. Last night, Jindal seemed to be drawing comparisons to his own story, perhaps to elevate himself, little known outside his home state of Louisiana, to a political level that would allow him some credibility for what would come next: a resounding critique of the President’s first formal address to the nation. Read the rest of this entry »
“Good evening. I’m Bobby Jindal, Governor of Louisiana.
Tonight, we witnessed a great moment in the history of our Republic. In the very chamber where Congress once voted to abolish slavery, our first African-American President stepped forward to address the state of our union. With his speech tonight, the President completed a redemptive journey that took our nation from Independence Hall … to Gettysburg … to the lunch counter … and now, finally, the Oval Office.
Regardless of party, all Americans are moved by the President’s personal story - the son of an American mother and a Kenyan father, who grew up to become leader of the free world. Like the President’s father, my parents came to this country from a distant land. When they arrived in Baton Rouge, my mother was already 4 ½ months pregnant. I was what folks in the insurance industry now call a ‘pre-existing condition.’ To find work, my dad picked up the yellow pages and started calling local businesses. Even after landing a job, he could still not afford to pay for my delivery - so he worked out an installment plan with the doctor. Fortunately for me, he never missed a payment.
As I grew up, my mom and dad taught me the values that attracted them to this country - and they instilled in me an immigrant’s wonder at the greatness of America. As a child, I remember going to the grocery store with my dad. Growing up in India, he had seen extreme poverty. And as we walked through the aisles, looking at the endless variety on the shelves, he would tell me: ‘Bobby, Americans can do anything.’ I still believe that to this day. Americans can do anything. When we pull together, there is no challenge we cannot overcome.
Red, Green and Blue brings together voices from across the political and ideological spectrums to discuss and debate critical environmental issues and current events.
Am I the only one who noticed that Sarah Palin has pulled a huge switchover when it comes to her take on energy policy?
