Living the American Green

Well, this is new.

Apparently nervous about declining relevance, so much so that he was thrilled to take credit for a failed attempt at exploding underpants, Osama bin Laden has decided that he will be able to strike fear into the hearts of the West most effectively by warning them that their consumer habits and industrial practices would lead to severe global warming.

I don’t…even really know where to begin on this. I can’t tell whether to be incensed, confused, or really nervous of how this is going to be spun for political points among the American teabagging demographic. I can just hear the frothing sound-bites: “Obama’s new climate czar: Osama bin Laden!” “Climategate’s latest scam-artist: Osama bin Laden!” “If you don’t pump Drano into the nearest protected wetland the terrorists have won!”

Well, it’s either an embarrassment - a kind of freewheeling hopping from cause to cause, with no consistent message but “West bad!” as he  grasps to attach himself to issues that are already terrifying people without his assistance – or…

Or – it’s a brilliantly cynical tactic? Knowing full well that anything he says will instantly polarize, not to mention be instinctively discredited by those who hate him, what could be more nefarious than to drive the crazed extremist fringe to rail against global warming – thereby indelibly besmirching the already fraying global consensus and solidarity necessary to outmaneuver climate change?

Who’d have foreseen this plot twist: Osama bin Laden, eco-sabateur???

Very briefly up for air, we are at LtAG. Three bits of ominous news for you today from the (slightly unintentional) food front.

1. Winning the Why Am I Not Surprised Award, undercover animal rights activists landed jobs at an Iowa chicken factory and released footage of male chicks being dumped, alive, into an industrial grinder. After all, who needs 200 million roosters running around? Look, if we could breed only female birds we would, but we can’t, so we’ll just keep grinding up these male birds. Crystalline logic. P.S. our eggs are 100% local!

2. A Florida man was horrified when he took a big gulp from a can of Pepsi and discovered that all kinds of foul-tasting gunk was inside. He tried to empty the can and shook it until something that looked like “pink linguini” came out, then called the FDA. The FDA’s analysis? Somehow there had been a disemboweled frog inside the closed can of Pepsi. Mmmmmm. The Choice of a New Generation.

3. And far and away my favorite story, likewise not that surprising – just when we thought health care protests couldn’t get uglier, a rally supporting Obama’s healthcare reform turned into a rumble when it encountered our dear friends on the deather fringe, some words were exchanged, some fisticuffs were exchanged, and a dude’s finger got bitten off by what we can only assume was someone who took the notion of “rabid extremism” a little literally. Yeah, uh, I hear that under Obamacare the government is going to make decisions on what fingers you get to keep. No to Body Part Rationing! Free Grandma! On the plus side, he certainly showed the government that no east-coast liberal is going to tell him to stop eating meat! We The People will eat whatever and whoever we damn well please because this is America, not the Third Reich!

A young Dennis K.

So, this is why Dennis Kucinich voted against the Energy Bill that just made it through congress.

Dean Baker thinks (like I do) that the bill sucks, but he still wants it to pass.

Paul Krugman really woke up angry today, and man… do I REALLY agree with him.  Treason is a harsh word, and cuts nicely to the core of the Republican sense of self, but Krugman is really on point with the idea that the “global warming hoax” line comes, not from a legitimate attempt at parsing science, but from an policy standpoint that pushes back on everything that is “liberal”.  That’s not good politics.

A few people I have spoken with recently are pretty staunchly against the new energy and climate change bill that squeaked by the house last night.  The bill is too weak, it has too many riders, and passing a bad bill is worse then passing no bill at all — these are the things that some on the environmental side of things are saying.  (I don’t get to talk to the “Global Warming is a myth and this is an excuse to tax the American worker into obsolescence because the Dem’s hate America people” all that much, so I don’t feel the need to argue with them.)  Another objection, expressed by CheriRobertson on my last not-very-well-thought-out post is that no one has read the damn thing and that its criminal to vote on legislation that you don’t understand.

Ok, lots of fair points here.  I still support the Waxman-Markey bill, and here is why:

It fundamentally changes the way the American Government deals with the problems of Climate Change and our effect on the planet.  My beef from the beginning has been that there is no system for me to be protected if someone wants to endanger me and mine by pumping bad things into the air.  A cap and trade system creates a method – however flawed – to allow the gummit to get insist that people don’t get to endanger me and make money off it free and clear.  They at least have to pay for screwing my world up.

From a fundamentally Libertarian perspective, I think that is the job of Government: to protect me from very real and very prominent threats that the Free Market brings to bear on my world.

Now, would I rather the original bill passed?  Sure.  I would much rather have the EPA be the body that regulates which gases are a danger to us.  I would much rather not have the hat tips that are plugged into the bill for the rust belt, for the oil producing companies, for “clean coal”.  But at the end of the day, this bill really IS a new legislative way of thinking about the environment, and for it to pass means that there are a lot of people on board who feel the necessity of action.

I think that it’s a republican talking point that “no one in either party has read the bill”.  That is simply not the case.  First of all, someone had to write the damn thing, so there are at least a few folks who know whats in there.  Secondly, though, and much more importantly, a vast vast majority of the changes are going to be softening and definitions and clarifications on what was left out of the original draft.  Was the thing perfect?  No.  But it’s also disingenuous to say that you need to read it all to understand it: the law makers had plenty of time to read the first 1200 pages, and not many of them did.  The 300 pages of provisions and changes will now be poured over by anyone who cares, and the Senate will draft a new bill that puts the pieces of the house bill that don’t make sense to the test.  The gist of the bill, that companies who pollute the earth will be held fundamentally accountable in the only way that matters to them (financially) remains strong — regardless of the number of pages, and the fact that John Bohner can take an hour to read rhetorical loops in the writing.   A defeat of this bill, even it’s watered down form, is a defeat for the concept, and that’s not something we can afford to allow to happen.

There was a lot of political wrangling to get this bill to pass to be a law. (and yes, I AM amused that Nanci Pelosi thought Dove Bars would help.  You don’t think that’s funny?  Come on… you don’t think it’s amusing to think that congresspeople vote with their tastebuds?  Oh… ok, yes it’s a little scary… but if we can’t laugh at it, then the world gets awful depressing.)   Lots of Dems voted against it because they were scared to tag their name to something and take the political risk, only to have it fail in the Senate.  And lots of people still view this thing as a big ball of taxes designed to hurt their way of life.  But I think that the political climate isn’t going to be this forgiving for many many years to come, and if we don’t do this now, we may miss our chance for this scale of change.  I feel the same way about health care: it’s now or not for a long time.

It may be that, 20 years from now, I will be cursing this thing for being too weak and watered down.  But there are some really amazing parts of this bill and I love it even despite it’s flaws.  Plus, there are, like, 800 Million dollars for green jobs training and stuff in there.  I’m working in Bed-Stuy, Brooklyn these days: trust me when I say that there aren’t a lot more jobs places like that can loose, so it’s only going to help out.  I wish the Republicans had come up with a counter solution to get the job market back on line: their idea of more capitalism – providing a series of grants to people who come up with good ideas – is so small potatoes that it boggles the mind.  The Republican party’s stance of Nothing is Happening, lets all Stick Our Heads in the Sand and Invoke the American Worker isn’t valid anymore.  They have done nothing for the American Worker for enough years that suddenly raising the middle class and the small business owner as “at risk” rings hollow and even pathetic.

Ethanol production

It’s tricky to get a handle on.  Many forward looking environmentalist types have decided that it’s a past fad; that essentially Corn Ethanol production was a dead end given it’s land and water use, and the amount of energy that goes into it.  People who were very excited about the potential of corn as alternative fuel in the 90’s can’t BELIEVE that people haven’t moved past it in the 2000’s.   More nuance: we might not have DQ’ed things like production of Ethanol fuel from Algae, so over-all reaction against it seems like a bad idea.

However, like everything else, there is a huge lobby for Corn Ethanol, (which has some valid points!) and many Midwestern Democrats are completely unwilling to hear about anything that might touch the status quo of cash for that cause.  It doesn’t matter if it’s good green policy (and evidence suggests that it is not) — it matters if it is good pork.

It’s a mess, to be sure… but a mess worth sinking the Waxman-Markey environmental bill over?

Yup.

Once again, Congress is the place that great ideas go to die.  Look, I realize that the Cap and Trade program is going to be hard on some folks.  But this quibbling, this exempting and counter exempting, this hijacking of the debate over things that are not central to the discussion — this is why the tax code is millions of lines long.  This is why you need a PHD in stupid to begin to track the reasoning that suggests that a bill designed to get this country on track to start combating global climate change issues is getting nickled and dimed into irrelevance by stupid riders and past gripes.

Peterson and the 26 Democrats on his committee say they will vote against climate change legislation passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week unless it better addresses several concerns raised by farmers, including reversing the EPA decision.

(more…)

Honestly, can anyone tell me why we would still listen to what Dick Cheney has to say?

His image is plastered on LtAG too

His face is currently (10:31pm, Thursday Evening) plastered all over the news, generally making him into a rhetorical counter to Obama.  Here’s the problem: he makes things up.

Cheney, on the other hand, built a case on straw men, red herrings, and lies. In short, his speech was classic Dick Cheney, with all the familiar scowls and scorn intact. The Manichean worldview, which Cheney advanced and enforced while in office, was on full display.

Dear Dick: I’m sorry, but you failed.  All of your bluster and all of your prevaricating fail to make a convincing case as to why you needed to drag America through the muck.  You work in a democracy, and as such you need to realize that the people have voted against you.  You controlled everything in terms of message and media for most of your eight years, but eventually the stark reality, the facts of what you had wrought, knocked you off your perch.  You have no one to blame but yourself!

Ok, so why is this on LtAG?

Because I am interested as to why Cheney gets equal airtime to the President, and is viewed as speaking against him with an equal voice.  At what point does what has happened — I’m going to call this “reality” — start to make a difference?

Again, this all has to do with Global Warming.  It all has to do with the fact that everyone is used to having the GOP out there as “equal and opposite” to the Democratic party, so both view points are given equal time.   That’s because we work in an environment that says that journalism = opposition, expounded on.  It’s stupid and damaging, because there are times when that sort of equalization is a bald faced lie.

When the opposition is being responsible, that this sort of journalism makes sense.  Check this, from the New York Times:

The objections of the Republican opponents were summed up in the words of Representative Mike Rogers of Michigan, who said the bill would mean sharp increases in energy costs and the loss of millions of jobs.

“This is the biggest energy tax in the history of the United States,” Mr. Rogers said.

That makes sense to me, because that seems like something I can believe in, and seems like opposition based on the principle that an argument is in good faith.   I don’t agree, but I see how the position can be tenable.  Dick Cheney? The dude doesn’t even believe that himself.  He’s pure spin, total political crap.  Even if he once belived what he was doing, his speech today is point for point designed to obfuscate and confuse.  Global Warming?  Same deal — you can’t really believe they have taken the time to read the science, because if they had… well, they could still disagree, but it wouldn’t be along the lines of HOW they disagree.  “Wind Farms are bad because they slow wind down, thus heating up the globe.”  Really?  That’s the sort of thing that is not good faith opposition.  But it’s covered as if it’s the same.

I need to stop writing this.  I’m getting all worked up, and this point is a broken record for me anyway.  Maybe I should go take a long hot bath to relax… or maybe I could go find a homeless person in the street to beat up.  You know, I’ve heard of people doing both things to relax.  They must be about the same — both are valid, it’s just a difference of opinion.

Absurdity — Thy name is Texas Rep. Joe Barton.  This dude is the RANKING Republican member on the  energy committee.  While he is the official point person on the Environment for the Republicans in the house, he calls the science of global climate change “pretty weak stuff”.   But here we are on the Waxman bill, and even the Republican Party top brass realizes this thing shouldn’t come down to a war on the Science of the thing.  They realize that they are loosing that fight, and think they have traction by painting the Carbon Cap and Trade as a huge tax on the… someone.  Probably the small business owners: they are usually trotted out when the specter of a tax is brought up.

Except, Joe Barton might not have gotten the memo.  Yep, his plan is to keep claiming that there isn’t any science behind global warming science, and play neato tricks like making Waxman read the entire bill.  Really?  You wonder why people think politics are boring: for some reason their is a rule that you can make people read the entire bill on the floor of the senate or congress while everyone waits around.  And then, Barton plans on crashing the party by adding 300+ ad ons to the bill.

I’m all for the rule that lets a minority party put up some sort of defense (and I wish the Dems had done some stuff like this when they were rocking through the Bush years), but there should be a rule that says that one individual can’t hijack the entire proceedings.  I know I might be over reading this thing, as Barton might be given more power in this article then he actually has.  But man, I’m frustrated that some goofball from Texas is holding up what should be the most important legislation of my lifetime.

*(Db = Douchebag)

Leave Sarah ALONE!!!  Why can’t you all just LEAVE Sarah ALONE!

She just love the lime light, don't she?

Seriously though, doesn’t anyone else feel like Sarah Palin has some odd parallels with Britteny Spears?  I mean, say what you will about both ladies, but the national obsession with them has created a false and self perpetuating fame cycle that feeds its self by its very existence.  I mean, Brittany had her fame thing, now she just wants to preform, make her money, and get a modicum of sanity back in her life.    Meanwhile, Palin had her run at Vice President, but really just wants to get back to running Alaska, and let the … wait.  What?  She’s coming out with a book?  Attacking Katie Couric?  Really?

Ok, never mind.  She continues to bring this on her self.

I wrote a long FREAKING article for RGB about Sarah Palin and her energy policy, but contracts dictate that you have to click on the following link to read it.

You should read it.  It’s interesting.  And very surprising.   Sarah seems to no longer be the Drill Baby Drill Sarah of the past.

Today’s story comes to you from the heart of the most beleaguered and yet hard core of the environmental supporters list.  Outsiders for generations, these champions of green are finally getting some traction: that’s right, I’m talking about Nike, Johnson & Johnson, and other BF corporate leaders.

That’s right, retail corporations are putting it to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that things are moving too slowly in terms of environmental regulation.  Whaaa?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is taking heat from Johnson & Johnson, Nike and other corporate members over its opposition to global warming legislation pending in the House.  In a letter to the Chamber, Johnson & Johnson has asked the Chamber to refrain from making comments on climate change unless they “reflect the full range of views, especially those of Chamber members advocating for congressional action.”

Two theories on why these companies, rarely big on Government regulation, might do something like this: (more…)

Danger: Profanity laced rant coming below.

Bad Blue Dogs! BAAAAD!!

DEAR DEMOCRATS:

Get your shit together.  You guys really think the best way to take advantage of a huge majority in two of the three branches of power is to stand up to Obama on the environmental issue?   Really?  You want to use your new-found political clout to protect the segments of our national economy that are putting out the most carbon?  If I see another headline like this one, I think I’m going to lose my mind.

On Friday, former Energy and Commerce Chairman John D. Dingell (D-Mich.) – the man Waxman dethroned to takeover the committee – referred to the cap-and-trade system as “a great big” tax.

“Nobody in this country realizes that cap-and-trade is a tax, and it’s a great big one,” Dingell said at a committee hearing last week. The former chairman backs some form of a direct carbon tax that other moderates prefer over the market-based system.

Yes, it is a tax, if you want to look at it like that.  Here is another way to think about it: Don’t pollute so goddamn much, and you won’t get taxed.  It’s not like you have seen this coming for a bunch of years, and have been studiously ignoring the issue so that, when a cap and trade program arrived, you could whine and complain about the unfair economic burden being put on you by the government, is it?   ‘Cause it sure feels like that from where I am sitting.  The theory of bottom line business was all well and good, and it made a lot of people very rich.  But, for whatever reason (greed), the invisible hand of the market has been giving the earth the finger for years and years.  The point here is not to TAX to raise income, but to incentivize people to care about something that they have ignored — to the detriment of the rest of us.

I can’t get the GM’s of the world to stop putting out SUV’s, and I can’t avoid my tax dollars going to bail out the motherfuckers who ran a bad business.  But can I at least get a representative government that protects me from the people who I, apparently, don’t rank high enough to be able to protect myself from?

And, why is it ok to directly tax carbon producing things like Coal, but not ok to set up an offset program?  That doesn’t even make sense!  That just cuts off a few of the big pollution problem areas, and does nothing to collectivize reduction, so that the same set of issues comes down the pike again later when people figure out something else to burn.  What possible reason is there to piecemeal tax things you don’t like?  Make everyone play by the same set of rules!

It’s absurd and disingenuous to imagine that “the market” could continue to exist in a vacuum that ignored the earth.  It’s impossible.  It can’t happen.  The business minds that realized that something was going to have to be done and started building in some semblance of a triple bottom line — these companies are going to be ok.  The rest of you guys: you reap what you sow.  I hope all the cash that you made in the 90’s was invested with for-sight and… wait, what?  It’s all gone?  Oh man!   Then what DID you get out of all that shit?

Why shouldn’t business models that create huge amounts of pollution and damaging amounts of C02 output be regulated to the trash heap of progressive business?   It’s not even like the cap and trade program is unreasonable.  It is certainly more lax then the one I would like, and it gives businesses every opportunity to scale down their pollution going forward as the cap comes lower.   None if it even comes into effect for years, meaning anyone with a head on their shoulders can avoid the brunt of the tax with a modicum of intelligent investment in their business structure.  The only people who are really worried about this are the folks that are running a business model that studiously ignores reality.  To you, I say: welcome to the brave new world where your customer realizes the real costs of what you are selling.  If you have to charge more for your products because you have been producing too much carbon, maybe that means that you were under-charging before!  Or maybe it means that people will decide they no longer really need what you are pushing.

So why in gods name, centrist democrats, are you carrying the water for people who would rather get theirs then build something intelligent and sustainable?  I expect this from the defunct republican party, that crew who continue to belabor the “tax” point as they grow ever shriller and our country grows ever shittier around them.  But you!  I had thought better of you!  Is the 6 month plan really that important to you?  Can’t you see beyond the end of your next (hopefully last) term?  Is it too much to ask for you to think about the ramifications of NOT putting a carbon cap and trade program into place?

At what point does a complete economic collapse become and indictment of the previous way of doing business?  Is it a good plan to rebuild using the same rules that we were playing by before?  If we are already re-building, shouldn’t we rebuild in a way that makes sense for more then the next year?

You’ve had 8 years of being out of power to think about these issues and these problems.  You are also proposing a tax, but somehow you are managing to rail against the cap and trade program as a hidden tax.  You do not make sense.  You are like Chewbacca.

Love

LtAG