Red, Green, and Blue

Like this post? Subscribe to our RSS feed and stay up to date.

Big oil has been spending big money in Washington, but it may surprise you that gas and oil companies spend more money on corporate lobbying than individual campaign contributions.  Why chose lobbying over campaign contributions?  Lobbying is more effective at crushing energy bills, as we have seen this year.  As Ralph Nader explains, “The corporate lobby in Washington is basically designed to stifle all legislative activity on behalf of consumers.”  It’s no coincidence that recently the Senate blocked the extension renewable energy tax credits.

Thus far in 2008, oil and gas companies have spent $55,339,015 million on lobbying in an effort to convince lawmakers to vote in the industry’s favor and against renewables.  Not surprisingly, the top spender is Exxon-Mobil.  At the current rate of spending, the industry is set to break last year’s record of $83 million. Big Oil defends this increased spending in response to more energy bills being on the “menu” and denies it is responsible for the failure of these bills; however, lobbying dollars speak for themselves. According to CNN:

The oil industry may have not gotten its drilling wish list just yet, but so far they have been able to avoid higher taxes.

Meanwhile, the renewable energy folks haven’t seen a big increase in funding.

Looking at the dollars spent lobbying Congress, that may not be surprising. The renewable industry and their allies in the environmental movement have spent a combined $19 million lobbying Congress this year - half what the oil industry has spent. Read the rest of this entry »

On Monday, the Bush administration proposed a policy that threatens to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to the point of extinction. This comes as no surprise. Like the war in Iraq, removing the fetters of environmental protection has been an administrational goal since 2001. Unlike the war in Iraq, this time Bush and his cronies could very well succeed.

Targeting the ESA’s consultation process, the policy changes boil down to this: only when a federal agency feels their intended actions could bring about harm must they consult an outside agency like the Fish and Wildlife Service. Currently,  all of these decisions are subject to an independent scientific review.

If the ambiguity of that policy makes you uncomfortable then please raise your hand because it scares the crap out of me.

First off, our current administration has been, if anything, consistent in its attempt to sidestep environmental policy over the past seven years. Consider this, Bush’s administration has only added about 60 species to the endangered species list. That is about 10-percent of what was listed under the Clinton administration, and only about 3-percent of what the Reagan administration listed. Even George Bush’s dad added around 200 species to the list!

Wait, it gets better. This whole process is incredibly sneaky. These suggested changes are not even subject to Congressional approval. Outside of that, the Interior Department is only allowing comments on the proposal for 30 days, and in an attempt to reduce public outcry they are not accepting any comments via email - snail mail only!

If this sounds sketch, it should. With the proposed changes, for example, agencies won’t even be required to assess how their projects will contribute to global warming, or the effect of those emissions on species and habitat. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, we won’t have many of those around if these changes are allowed.

Fact is, this proposal is obscene and another wicked example of the Bush administration circumventing the law. And don’t let them fool you…the consequences are grand, such that we ourselves might might make the endangered list.

Take Action:

Comment Online via the NRDC

Related Posts:

Where Issues Intertwine: Why Animals Matter
Should All Arctic Species be Listed as Endangered?
Alaska Sues to End the Polar Bear

Image source: Voices at Flickr

And once again I find myself both amused and completely horror-struck by the evangelical cult that resides within the GOP. They’re consistently bested by their faith, and to the point of absurdity. This is especially true with regards to the climate crisis. And quite frankly, I blame Jesus.

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s comments about House Speaker Pelosi brought the issue to the front of the line. In her current bout of political tourettes, she had this to say:

“[Pelosi] is committed to her global warming fanaticism to the point where she has said that she’s just trying to save the planet,” Bachmann told news site OneNewsNow. “We all know that someone did that over 2,000 years ago, they saved the planet — we didn’t need Nancy Pelosi to do that.”

Yes, folks…stop recycling, throwout your reusable bags and just let your cars run all day long. For Jesus, yes the one and only Jesus, has already fixed that whole global warming thingamabob.

Mind you, this lady is notorious for her hair-brained explanations. For example, did you know that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is now 100% wildlife free? Yep, same great taste but less filling. And this is why the Democrats favor high gas prices:

“They want Americans to take transit and move to the inner cities. They want Americans to move to the urban core, live in tenements, [and] take light rail to their government jobs. That’s their vision for America.”

Yes, Al Gore, dressed a la Dr. Evil, is trying to scare us all in to using light rail. Oh the horror of it all! It’s just too convenient. I mean all of it, if the planet is all saved thanks to Super Jesus then why do I keep getting copies of the Watchtower? Just let the guy do his job, already - no one likes to be micromanaged.

But that’s the rub. We’re not saved. He did not save us. None of it is okay. We must stop denying it like that mom in the jaw-dropping Jesus Camp movie?  We cannot lend ourselves to distractions like the plight of the incandescent bulb. There is no time. Accountability is our only salvation, not Jesus.

So I pray. I pray for Congresswoman Bachmann. I also pray for that crazy mom in the movie. I pray that for whatever bulb they choose, they themselves won’t remain perpetually dim.

Related Posts:

Saving More Than Souls: Religious Groups Seek “Renewal” for the Environment
You’re Either with Us, or You’re with the CFLs : Red, Green, and Blue
Jesus Unplugged: Religious Groups Participate in Earth Hour 2008

Image source: Asemta at Flickr

Now I’m scared. Paris Hilton has jumped into the Presidential race fray thanks to John McCain’s perhaps ill-advised decision to compare Barrack Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. (See fellow blogger Clayton’s summary.) In return, Ms. Hilton came out with a professional-looking, tongue-in-cheek riposte that can only be described as… both an illuminating look into American celebrity culture and traditional politics, as well as what we should all understand as a snapshot into how speechwriting can make or break you.

Read the rest of this entry »

Oddly enough, last Friday’s impromptu protest held by a gaggle of rebellious GOP members of the House, gave most of those members more press than they’ve received since their most recent campaign. Odd, because this particular act of political theater was not covered by the cameras of C-SPAN. Before the sit-in morphed into a full-blown press conference, there was no ‘real’ media to speak of. But ‘New Media’ is different. It can slip in, un-noticed, via mobile phone or Blackberry and slip out via 180 character-or-less Twitter updates or YouTube videos; much like this one I came across at Red State (5 mins.)

I’m pretty sure whoever shot this was breaking the law, or, at the very least, House Rules — but I’m quite glad they did. I’m always entertained by politics as theater.

More posts on oil, offshore drilling, and gas prices:

• Obama Campaign Seeks to Make Gas Prices Irrelevant
• Poll: Americans Don’t Think More Drilling Will Lower Gas Prices
• Is McCain Serious About Cap-and-Trade? Economic Adviser Forbes Doesn’t Think So
• New McCain Ad Blames Obama for High Gas Prices
• McCain Credits Bush for Drop in Crude Oil Prices, White House Basically Replies: ‘Wasn’t us’

Globalization is a fact of modern times, and supporters of “free trade” tout it is good for the US economy and supports world peace.  Given that it will take a global effort to solve the climate crisis, free trade has a new spin: The solution to global warming.  In fact, Republican presidential candidate John McCain thinks that a free-market provides solutions to climate change, such as capping carbon emissions, which contradicts the very notion of free trade’s elimination of government imposed regulations.  Even Rush Limbaugh’s not buying free trade is the solution (mostly because he doesn’t believe in global warming).

Free trade puts corporations and profits first, ahead of environmental and social concerns.  McCain thinks this is not a problem, “As never before, the market would reward any person or company that seeks to invent, improve, or acquire alternatives to carbon-based energy…”  Will the market reward alternative energy companies with profit?  The US and EU are already calling on the elimination of tariffs for goods and services that protect the environment and fight climate change to help these companies profit. Read the rest of this entry »

U.S. agencies have taken another step forward in implementing a key international agreement to reduce air pollution from large ships. Yesterday, President Bush signed into law the Maritime Pollution Protection Act of 2008, which clears the way for U.S. ratification of the international treaty regulating emissions – known as MARPOL Annex VI - from large diesel-powered, ocean-going vessels.

Under MARPOL Annex VI, container ships, tankers, cruise ships and bulk carriers must limit NOx emissions from their category three diesel engines. It also sets a cap on the sulfur content of the fuel they burn and includes a program for designating areas where more stringent fuel controls apply, such as near coastlines that have more severe air quality concerns.

According to the EPA, MARPOL stakeholders will work to strengthen NOx and SO2 standards and the sulfur requirements in fuel this October. If adopted, these stronger international standards have the potential to yield significant environmental and public health benefits in the U.S. and around the world (Read more about reigning-in the pollution caused by oceangoing vessels at the EPA’s website.)

Related Posts on Air Pollution and Marine Vessels:

• “China Begins Car-Rationing in Beijing Leading up to the Olympics”
• “Should Ships Slow Down, Go Back to Sails, or Use Nuclear Fission?”
• “Nuclear Power Enables Scheduled North Pole Cruises for at Least Two Companies”

Photo Credit: tinou bao via flickr under a Creative Commons License

With the executive ban on offshore drilling officially lifted by President Bush, the deciding factor now lies with Congress and the legislative ban that must also be lifted in order for drilling to occur. If this were to happen actual prices at the gas pump would not immediately decrease. The White House openly states there is no “quick fix” for the price of oil however starting now can help in the future. More politicians are openly expressing their support for allowing offshore drilling and exploration.

Florida Congressman, Jeff Miller (Rep.) was previously opposed to offshore drilling. He has recently stated it may be time to lift the ban and begin to use the resources available to us. In an NPR news article dated July 14th Congressman Miller is quoted, saying:

“I think when the public begins to change their tune … then elected leaders need to be paying attention as well. The breaking point seemed to be $4-a-gallon gas,”

A fiscally conservative group of Democrats known as the Blue Dog Coalition are also in favor of opening new areas for drilling. A recent CNN Opinion Poll and a Gallup poll show that American’s want to drill. Why? Do people really believe that the price of gas would decrease immediately? Are we, as American’s, tired of purchasing foreign oil?

While the debate about drilling domestic oil continued this week, Al Gore presented an aggressive energy plan for America. A 10 year plan Mr. Gore likened to the Apollo Moon Project, stating that it may seem impossible but it can be accomplished. Mr. Gore emphasized:

“Our success depends on our willingness as a people to undertake this journey and to complete it within 10 years. Once again, we have an opportunity to take a giant leap for humankind,”

Can we combine efforts? Offshore drilling and Mr. Gore’s 10 year goal are both things that will take time. A balanced approach is necessary to accomplish Energy Independence and to decrease (or end) our dependence on oil. Domestic drilling is not the answer, however, it is part of the process.

Related Posts:

• Al Gore’s Call for 100% Renewable Energy Within 10 Years
• Potential McCain Running Mate Florida Governor Charlie Christ has Green Cred - Is it deserved?
• Bush Lifts Executive Ban on Offshore Drilling, Why it Matters and Why it Doesn’t

Photo Credit: Nantaskart! via Flickr Creative Commons License

Earlier this week two members of Congress sent a letter citing “grave concerns” over the implementation of the Clean Water Act to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson.

In the July 7th letter to Johnson, chairmen Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) of the House Government Oversight and Reform Committee and James L. Oberstar (D-Minn.) of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee credit an internal EPA memo, which was given to them by activist group Greenpeace, for leading them to explore the EPA’s inadequate enforcement of the Clean Water Act.

The memorandum, which was sent on Mar. 4, 2008 from Granta Y. Nakayama, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, to Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s Assistant Administrator for Water, points out the conflicting ideals of the 1972 Clean Water Act and the 2006 U.S. Supremem Court decision Rapanos v. United States.

While the Act protects wetlands from urban development for water conservation, the court ruling challenges water protection provisions and upholds individual’s rights to build over wetlands.

According to Nakayama’s memo, the fundamental discord between the federal law and Supreme Court decision has led to confusion about federal wetlands protections which has resulted in the agency’s “conscious decision not to pursue enforcement of 300 Clean Water Act violations because of the jurisdictional uncertainty.”

In a Washington Post article printed Tuesday, EPA spokesman Jonathan Shradar responded to the congressional inquiry. “We will be reviewing the new request and will work with the chairmen to provide information on our enforcement program,” Shradar was quoted.

Part of a series of pivitol environmental laws passed in the 1970s, the Clean Water Act was a monumental step forward for the environmental movement and surface water protection in the United States. The recent Rapanos v. United States ruling, however, overturned earlier decisions that stopped two seperate developers from building on their wetland properties due to environmental regulations connected to the CWA.

In the end, the court ruled 5 to 4 in favor of development and left the CWA in limbo.

Photo: EPA

According to a recent CNN Opinion Poll, 74% of Americans are in favor of offshore drilling. While still split 49% to 44% on prioritizing the environment and the economy. In The Swamp, a Chicago Tribune Weblog, Matthew Hay Brown reports this survey is the latest one showing rising support for drilling, from consumers who are tired of rising gas prices.

The CNN/Opinion Research poll was conducted from June 26th - 29th and included more than 1,000 Americans showed the following:

• 49% of Americans favor environmental protection, even if it means slowing economic growth
• 44% of those surveyed place the economy as their top priority, even at the expense of the environment
• 73% favor more offshore drilling for natural gas and oil

Previously on June 19th CNN reported Gallup Poll findings that support their more recent opinion poll. The Gallup Poll results showed more than half of Americans favor drilling in areas that are currently off limits such as coastal and wilderness areas. Why? Is this really a “drill our way out” mentality? Cathy Landry, American Petroleum Institute spokeswoman stated:

“Any credible energy report will tell you energy demand will increase over the next few decades, we cannot drill our way out of this problem, but drilling is an important part of the solution.”

In addition to major environmental concerns, another concern about domestic drilling is having the mentality that we must fill the oil demand we currently live with and continue to fill the demand as it increases over time. Finding ways to reduce our oil consumption seems to be contradictory to drilling domestically. However, I would like propose drilling domestically could allow us to decrease our oil consumption over time. Allowing us to gain independence from foreign oil, and focus on alternative energy options. Under the guidelines and leadership of environmentalists and agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency, I believe Americans are capable of drilling domestically in an environmentally safe way.

Our presidential front runners recently had the opportunity to speak out about off shore drilling as President Bush called for lifting the ban currently in place. As a result we learned Barack Obama does not want to consider any domestic drilling, while John McCain spoke out in support of offshore drilling on the East Coast. A closed door to our domestic resources from one candidate and a politically convenient statement from the other. Despite which candidate you support, there is a need to take a realistic look at the economy and environment, this internal conflict is really shaping the upcoming election.

I like the words of deputy campaigns director of Greenpeace, Carroll Muffett:

“In truth, what is truly good for the environment is what is truly good for the economy, because a shift to better energy solutions would create jobs.”

She, of course, is not referring to any type of drilling but the concept of environment and economy going hand in hand. I agree with her thought process in that respect. Drilling domestically in America may not ever be considered “good for the environment” it can surely be part of the solution that can help the American economy and ultimately our pursuit of alternative energy.

Related Posts:

• McCain Calls for More Offshore Drilling

• Can We Love Oil and Be Green at the Same Time? Yes Say Republicans

• OPEC and Friends Want Oil Prices to Behave Like a Hot Air Balloon, Not a Bubble

Photo Credit: AV8TER via Flikr Creative Commons License