Archive

Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Sarah Palin on Science

April 12th, 2010

Speaking at the Southern Republican Leadership conference:

“We should create a competitive climate for investment and for renewables and alternatives that are economical and doable and none of this snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff that came down where there was revelation that the scientists, some of these scientists were playing political games.”

video link

So scientific studies of the causes of global warming that are reviewed by peers and agreed upon by something like 97% of scientists working in the field is “snake oil stuff” that should be shoved aside in favor of “doable” things. 

Anybody know what “Gore-gate” is?  This is the first I’ve heard of it.

The bar was set very low for Sarah Palin, and somehow she manages to keep moving it lower. 

One has to wonder how the right would react to President Obama, Harry Reid, or Nancy Pelosi letting a callow statement like that leak out of their mouths.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics Tags: ,

Our Uncool, Unpopular President Don’t Golf No More

May 13th, 2008

Seriously.  From Mike Allen’s interview of George W. Bush today:

For the first time, Bush revealed a personal way in which he has tried to acknowledge the sacrifice of soldiers and their families: He has given up golf.

“I don’t want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf,” he said. “I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal.”

…and about global warming:

“I could have supported a lousy [Kyoto] treaty and everybody would have went, ‘Oh, man, what a wonderful-sounding fellow he is,’” Bush said. “But it just wouldn’t have worked.

“I don’t think you want your president trying to be the cool guy and not end up with policies that actually make a difference. So the policies I’ve outlined are policies that will actually make a difference: nuclear power for generating electricity, battery driven cars, ethanol.”

…and on the Middle East:

— He criticized former President Jimmy Carter for suggesting an approach to Middle East involvement that Bush described as “if you want to be popular in the Middle East, just go blame Israel for every problem.”

“That will make you popular,” he said. “Popularity is fleeting. … Principles are forever.”

You’ve really got to wonder if he’s back on the bottle.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics, War Tags: , , ,

Happy Birthday to the Man who should be President

March 31st, 2008

Al Gore turned 60 today and kicked off a new campaign to cool the planet.

The Alliance for Climate Protection’s “we” campaign will employ online organizing and television advertisements on shows ranging from “American Idol” to “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart.” It highlights the extent to which Americans’ growing awareness of global warming has yet to translate into national policy changes, Gore said in an hour-long phone interview last week. He said the campaign, which Gore is helping to fund, was undertaken in large part because of his fear that U.S. lawmakers are unwilling to curb the human-generated emissions linked to climate change.

“This climate crisis is so interwoven with habits and patterns that are so entrenched, the elected officials in both parties are going to be timid about enacting the bold changes that are needed until there is a change in the public’s sense of urgency in addressing this crisis,” Gore said. “I’ve tried everything else I know to try. The way to solve this crisis is to change the way the public thinks about it.”

Full story here.

Author: Brad Categories: News, Politics Tags: , , ,

A Word of Thanks to Earthjustice

April 18th, 2007

A recent editorial in The New York Times paid just and overdue tribute to those, in particular the federal courts, who have stymied the efforts of the Bush administration to gut America’s environmental laws and weaken the regulatory authority of federal agencies charged with enforcing them. 

States led by California and New York deserve enormous credit for their willingness to fill the void left by a feckless and disinterested federal government and to push the latter to fulfil its environmental responsibilities.  And the federal courts have, for the most part, foiled the Bush administration’s efforts to reverse years of progress in making our air and water cleaner and to protect what remains of our wilderness.

Much credit, however, belongs to a plethora of environmental organizations, such as Earthjustice, Defenders of Wildlife, the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, Natural Resources Defense League and others too numerous to mention.  They have fearlessly challenged the administration at every turn as it sought to open heretofore undeveloped federal lands to oil and gas drilling, withdraw protections from endangered species, help the heaviest industrial polluters avoid the requirements of the Clean Air Act and ignore their responsibility to combat global warming by, for example, regulating carbon dioxide emissions.

In surveying the damage inflicted on our nation domestically and internationally in the Bush era, it is easy to overlook the titanic and largely successful struggle that has been waged in the courts to save our natural treasures.  Almost without exception these fights have been waged in the first instance by lawyers from the various environmental organizations. They have fought to keep the Clinton era rule that protected 58 million acres of roadless national forest land from development, and resist a Bush administration version that would give states more say over the fate of these forests – fig leaf that barely conceals their intention to open some of them to logging and other industries.  They challenged the Bush administration in its attempt to open up the Front Range of the Rocky Mountain West to unprecedented oil and gas drilling; they have fought to compel the Environmental Protection Agency, the Fish and Wildlife Agency and other agencies to enforce the law whether it’s to clean our air and water, or to protect our Pacific Northwest salmon and Rocky Mountain gray wolves.

I must confess I have never understood why these organizations are depicted, as they often are in the media, as just another “special interest”.  How can protecting our planet so that we hand it off to future generations in better, or at least no worse, shape than we found it be a “special interest”?  Isn’t it in all of our interests?  Even of so-called conservatives who these days seem to ignore the “conserve” part of their ideology?  

Without the devotion of these organizations to the idea that no responsibility is more critical than the stewardship of our natural world, and that our children and grandchildren deserve an opportunity to see what we have seen, to know that there exist, in the words of the Wilderness Act, areas:

…where the earth and its community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain.”

I shudder to think where we would be today, with the polluters and developers largely controlling the federal environmental agenda.

Sure the environmental organizations and lobbyists can be a pain in the butt as sympathetic Democrats in particular will ruefully acknowledge.  During the Clinton administration, they had a reputation for a “what have you done for me lately” quality to their remonstrations. 

Nevertheless we owe Earthjustice and the rest of them a debt beyond measure.  The struggle is not over to be sure; but their rearguard action to thwart the pernicious efforts of the Bush administration to unravel our environmental laws, and maintain the status quo until a more environmentally friendly president takes office, has already succeeded in a way few could have expected in 2001. 

God bless them and all who have supported them, and may their efforts continue to bear fruit.

Bush Does Nothing

April 3rd, 2007

The Supreme Court ruled this week that the EPA could not sidestep its authority to regulate CO2 emissions unless it could prove there is no scientific basis to do so. 

Scientists around the world overwhelmingly agree that man’s burning of fossil fuels has greatly contributed to the level of CO2 in our atmosphere, and that the added levels of this heat trapping gas is a major cause of global warming.

Remember way back when Bush wasn’t the president?  Back in September 2000 he was just running for president and, during his campaign, he pledged to “establish mandatory reduction targets for emissions of four main pollutants: sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury and carbon dioxide.”

Well he flip-flopped on that promise just a few months into his first term when decided against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol agreement.  The nations that were on board were none to happy with Bush’s change of policy, especially after Christine Todd Whitman had just met with many European leaders and assured them that the Bush Administration was serious about limiting the emissions of greenhouse gasses.

169 countries went ahead and ratified the treaty in spite of Bush’s refusal to sign on the nation that emits the largest quantity of greenhouse gases.

So what did Bush have to say today?

“Whatever we do,” he said, “must be in concert with what happens internationally.” He added, “Unless there is an accord with China, China will produce greenhouse gases that will offset anything we do in a brief period of time.”

So since China might not do anything, then we’ll do nothing?  Gee… that’s a great strategy.  If the other biggest polluter in the world won’t be good, then we won’ either.  If every nation followed our petulant president’s lead, nobody would do anything, and we’d all live happily ever after on the shores of Kansas.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics Tags: , , ,

Screw hybrids, I wanna go electric

November 29th, 2006

who-tesla-electric-car.jpg

The Tesla Roadster:

  • 100% electric
  • 0-60 in 4 seconds
  • 135 mpg equivalent
  • 250 miles per charge
  • about 1 cent per mile

Check out the Tesla Roadster website and get your order in for a 2008 model.

Martin Eberhard, the Tesla’s inventor, explains to Slate why the Tesla Roadster is different from previous electric cars:

Eberhard says traditional carmakers have failed with electrics for two reasons. First, they market them as “penalty boxes” for environmental do-gooders and gas-mileage-obsessed penny-pinchers. Second, they just don’t understand batteries. The Tesla’s giant lithium-ion battery pack gives it the power to hit 60 in four seconds, to run 250 miles without a recharge, and to charge rapidly at its home charging base (a one-hour charge will take you 80 miles; it takes a 3.5-hour charge to go 250 miles). You can even plug into a wall socket at a roadside stop in a pinch. That makes the Roadster a viable commuter car and weekend day-tripper. The company claims energy costs as low as a penny per mile.

Plans are already underway for a sedan to compete with BMW 5-series cars.  I can hardly wait to see what the big car companies decide to bring to the game.

Uh Oh… There I Go…

May 25th, 2006

Thinking about Gore Again…

Paul Krugman writes today about Al Gore’s movie, An Inconvenient Truth. In his column he talks about the disinformation campaign waged by oil companies, how working to slow global warming would not adversely affect the economy, and…

Why, after all, was Mr. Gore’s popular-vote margin in the 2000 election narrow enough that he could be denied the White House? Any account that neglects the determination of some journalists to make him a figure of ridicule misses a key part of the story. Why were those journalists so determined to jeer Mr. Gore? Because of the very qualities that allowed him to realize the importance of global warming, many years before any other major political figure: his earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious analysis.

Stop. Could anyone use the words “earnestness, and his genuine interest in facts, numbers and serious analysis” to describe George Bush and keep a straight face? No…

And so the 2000 campaign ended up being about the candidates’ clothing, their mannerisms, anything but the issues, on which Mr. Gore had a clear advantage (and about which his opponent was clearly both ill informed and dishonest).

I won’t join the sudden surge of speculation about whether “An Inconvenient Truth” will make Mr. Gore a presidential contender. But the film does make a powerful case that Mr. Gore is the sort of person who ought to be running the country.

If he does run, it won’t just be him that will have an opportunity for a “do over.” Krugman asks if the voters are up to the task of electing the right kind of man for the job. I ask if the media, given the same opportunity for a “do over,” is up to the task.

Given this piece of shit about the Clintons that passes for journalism in The New York Times, I think not.

Author: Brad Categories: Politics Tags: , , ,