ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Breaking News: 300 Ideas in 100 Days

By Joe Romm on Dec 3, 2007 at 9:13 pm

Climate Progress is getting a 12-hour jump on the release of the new plan from the Presidential Climate Action Project (which should be available in full here Tuesday).

How ambitious should the next President be in tackling global warming? A document being issued tomorrow by a team at the University of Colorado indicates that No. 44 can be, and should be, far more aggressive than any of the candidates has promised so far.

The Presidential Climate Action Project — a two-year effort headquartered at the university — is releasing a presidential action agenda that contains more than 300 specific changes in federal policies, programs and statutes, and proposes that the chief executive act on all of them within the first 100 days of inauguration, under executive authority or by championing them in the Administration’s first legislative and budget packages to Congress.

The plan is being billed as not only the most comprehensive, but in many ways the boldest, climate action agenda yet put before the American public and the presidential candidates.

It calls for the U.S. to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30% below 2010 levels by 2020 and 90% by 2050, in part through an “upstream” cap and auction program that regulates the approximately 1,500 “first providers” of fossil energy — wellheads, mine mouths, etc. That regime is simpler to administer than mid-stream and down-stream regulation and would cover 100% of the economy.

Other key proposals include:
Read more

Politics

Prominent Stem Cell Researcher Praised By Bush Rips White House’s Stem Cell Policies

By Satyam Khanna on Dec 3, 2007 at 9:00 pm

thomson335.gifLast month, University of Wisconsin professor James Thomson — the first scientist to successfully isolate embryonic stem cells — and his colleagues published a paper in Science Magazine stating that human skin cells could be “reprogrammed” into embryonic stem cells.

President Bush has refused to directly fund embryonic stem cell research, twice vetoing such legislation. The White House was therefore quick to herald Thomson’s work, claiming it vindicated Bush’s position:

President Bush is very pleased to see the important advances in ethical stem cell research reported in scientific journals today. By avoiding techniques that destroy life, while vigorously supporting alternative approaches, President Bush is encouraging scientific advancement within ethical boundaries.

Right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer declared, “The verdict is clear: Rarely has a president — so vilified for a moral stance — been so thoroughly vindicated.” “An official of one group fiercely opposed to destroying embryos said the “scientists should thank ‘pro-life voices’ for pushing them to find alternatives.”

But Thomson and American Association for the Advancement of Science President Alan Leshner could care less about the administration’s approval. In a Washington Post op-ed today, the duo slams the right-wing response to their work, stating that the Bush administration’s restrictive stem cell policies are “counter to both scientific and public opinion” and are inhibiting potential treatments:

At a time when nearly 60 percent of Americans support human embryonic stem cell research, U.S. stem cell policy runs counter to both scientific and public opinion. President Bush’s repeated veto of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which has twice passed the House and Senate with votes from Republicans and Democrats alike, further ignores the will of the American people. [...]

[U]nder the policy President Bush outlined on Aug. 9, 2001, at most 21 stem cell lines derived from embryos before that date are eligible for federal funding. American innovation in the field thus faces inherent limitations. Even more significant, the stigma resulting from the policy surely has discouraged some talented young Americans from pursuing stem cell research.

As Science Progress noted, the skin cell research could not have been accomplished without the knowledge from prior embryonic stem cell research.

Furthermore, Thomson and Leshner emphasized that it “remains to be seen whether reprogrammed skin cells will differ in significant ways from embryonic stem cells…it’s too early to say we’re certain.”

In June, then-White House spokesperson Tony Snow said Bush’s veto of stem cell research was evidence of him “putting science before ideology.” In reality, the scientific community — including Bush’s own science advisers — thinks the opposite.

Politics

McCain dodges Bush comparison with awkward laugh.

By Matt Corley on Dec 3, 2007 at 8:00 pm

On MSNBC’s Hardball today, host Chris Matthews asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who is seeking the Republican presidential nomination, “should the Bushies vote for you because you’re the closest thing to keeping him in for a third term.” McCain reacted by laughing awkwardly for several seconds before catching his breath to say, “I hope they would vote for me because they recognize the challenges, particularly in national security.” McCain refused to say whether people who like Bush will like him or not. Watch it:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/McCainBushSuccessor.320.240.flv]

Climate Progress

Bush really, really dislikes renewable power …

By Joe Romm on Dec 3, 2007 at 6:44 pm

dummies-solar.gif… and he’s not that thrilled with efficient use of electricity, either. Pretty irrational, considering that he does embrace both renewable fuels and efficiency in vehicles.

The White House is prepared to veto the entire energy bill if it includes the House version of the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RSP), as made clear in their absurd petty predictable annoying less-than-useful letter to Speaker Pelosi. What is the House RPS? As noted earlier,

The bill would require utilities to provide 15 percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. The provision exempts publicly owned utilities and rural electric cooperatives. Establishes a credit trading mechanism. Up to 4 percent — or roughly a quarter — of the mandate may be fulfilled with energy efficiency measures.

Bush says that is unacceptable, notwithstanding the fact that half the states already have an RPS, many much tougher than the House’s. The White House, however, insists

Inclusion of any mandatory Renewable Portfolio Standard in energy legislation would have several adverse effects. A federal RPS is unfair application, is overly prescriptive in its definition living in low-carbon technologies, and does not allow states to opt out, would hurt consumers and undercut state decisions.

But what would the impact of the House’s RPS actually be? Back in June, the Administration’s Energy Information Administration modeled an earlier, tougher version of the House RPS (no 4% for efficiency) and found

Compared with the reference case, cumulative residential expenditures on electricity from 2005 through 2030 are $7.2 billion (0.4 percent) higher, while cumulative residential expenditures on natural gas are $1.0 billion (0.1 percent) lower.

Throw in energy efficiency, and I’d say the RPS will have no measurable impact on total residential (and non-residential) energy bills. But, of course, pollution would be cut sharply — 222 million metric tons in 2030. If that’s too painful for consumers, no wonder this bunch opposes any mandatory action whatsoever on greenhouse gas emissions. Sad!

Security

Hadley: Bush Learned Of NIE’s Findings ‘In The Last Few Months,’ But Continued To Ratchet Up Rhetoric

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 6:24 pm

This afternoon, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley held a press briefing on the new National Intelligence Estimate, which concludes that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program in 2003. As ThinkProgress has documented, Bush administration officials — despite knowing of the NIE — have been ratcheting up their rhetoric on Iran in the past couple of months.

The central question in today’s briefing for Hadley was whether White House officials intentionally disregarded the intelligence community’s findings in order to bang the war drums against Iran. Reporters repeatedly pressed Hadley on the specific date when the White House learned about the NIE’s findings. Yet incredibly, he refused to give a “precise answer,” instead stating that it was within the “last few months.” From the briefing:

QUESTION: Steve, what is the first time the president was given the inkling that something? I’m not clear on this. Was it months ago, when the first information started to become available to intelligence agencies? [...]

HADLEY: [W]hen was the president notified that there was new information available? We’ll try and get you a precise answer. As I say, it was, in my recollection, is in the last few months. Whether that’s October — August-September, we’ll try and get you an answer for that.

On at least five different occasions, Hadley said the White House learned of the NIE sometime in the “last few months.” Watch a compilation:

[flv http://video.thinkprogress.org/2007/12/lfw.320.240.flv]

The issue is whether the President himself lied to the public about Iran’s intentions, despite knowing that Iran was even “less determined to develop nuclear weapons.” In October, Bush told a reporter that Iran was trying to “build a nuclear weapon“:

Q But you definitively believe Iran wants to build a nuclear weapon?

THE PRESIDENT: I think so long — until they suspend and/or make it clear that they — that their statements aren’t real, yeah, I believe they want to have the capacity, the knowledge, in order to make a nuclear weapon. [...]

So I’ve told people that if you’re interested in avoiding World War III, it seems like you ought to be interested in preventing them from have the knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon. I take the threat of Iran with a nuclear weapon very seriously.

So to recap: Sometime in the “last few months,” Bush learned that Iran is “less determined to develop nuclear weapons.” Yet as late as October, Bush was still claiming that Iran “wants to build a nuclear weapon.” What did Bush know and when did he know it?

Yglesias

Monday Reformation-Blogging

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I read the first two sentences of this Mark Steyn post and had a sinking feeling that he was writing something sensible and important about the Muslim world:

Lisa, your second post is really the answer to your first one. What if we’ve already had the reformation of Islam and jihadism is it?

Fortunately, he turned out not to be going in the direction I feared at all. Where he should have gone, however, is this: People who call for a “Muslim reformation” seem to have completely forgotten what happened during the Protestant Reformation. The dime-store version, though, is massive religious wars in which huge numbers of people died. This happened on the European continent and also in the British Isles. It’s true that in the long-run the Reformation led to the development of doctrines about religious tolerance and liberalism, but it took a good long time. Martin Luther’s 95 Theses were written in 1517 whereas John Locke’s Letter Concerning Toleration was written in 1689. In between came an awful lot of wars, witch-burning, fanaticism, etc.

Clearly, any analogy between present-day circumstances and 16th and 17th century Europe is going to be very, very, very imperfect but this seems to me to be the direction an appropriate analogy would take: the Islamism-related violence we’re seeing is in some ways reminiscent of the violence associated with the Reformation and Counterreformation rather than something that would be solved by something Reformation-esque.

Yglesias

Drug War Optimism

By ThinkProgress on Dec 3, 2007 at 4:48 pm

To try to bolster Brad Plumer’s modest optimism that we really might adopt more sensible drug policy options, let me note that the best available alternative to the “war on drugs” mentality is actually pretty “tough.” The main alternative Brad discusses, based on David Kennedy’s work, has to dow with strictly targeting violent crime and the kind of over open-air drug markets that are associated with violence. A tighter focus of crime control resources on violent murderers and people who destroy neighborhoods with their drug dealing doesn’t strike me as something that’s particularly “soft” or that politicians need to be afraid of.

Meanwhile, in political terms it’s sometimes useful to do things that work. If you’re a mayor and you implement a somewhat controversial new policing strategy at the start of your term, and then three years later the murder rate’s gone way down, you’re in pretty good shape. It often seems to me that there’s a general tendency to underrate the political benefits of implementing policies that work. On some issues, of course, the incentives really are perverse because the payoff is very long term, but policing issues aren’t really like that — if you do things that reduce crime, people will be happy. Smarter drug control policies will reduce crime, so politicians have good reason to seek out smarter policies.

Photo by Flickr user kissthis used under a Creative Commons license

Politics

Fox News won’t run pro-Constitution ad.

By Matt Corley on Dec 3, 2007 at 4:19 pm

The Center for Constitutional Rights recently produced an ad called “Rescue the Constitution” that criticizes the Bush administration for “destroying the Constitution” through the use of tactics like renditions and torture. Fox News is refusing to air the ad, claiming that it needs “documentation” that the constitution “is indeed being destroyed.” Watch the ad:

Fox has previously refused to run an ad that was critical of then-Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito Jr., which was seen as an “effort to shield President Bush’s choice for the high court.”

Climate Progress

California dreamin’ becomes reality, Part II

By Climate Guest Blogger on Dec 3, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Part I introduced some California programs dating back to the 1970s that are relevant to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, even though the purpose of the programs were to deal with other issues. This second part will introduce more recent programs, which are often specifically targeted at GHG emissions. Later posts will provide more detail. California legislation concerning global warming dates back twenty years: AB4420 of 1988 directed the California Energy Commission (CEC) to prepare and maintain an inventory of the state’s GHG emissions.

Recognizing that there no single solution, or even a small set of solutions, but that a lot of small improvements can add up to large results, California now has a broad set of initiatives, ranging from small targeted efforts to a sweeping cap. Even the cap, AB32, will end up been implemented by regulatory agencies as dozens of smaller programs. Targeted legislation includes the Solar Water Heating and Efficiency Act of 2007 (AB1470) to promote solar water heating and other technologies that reduce natural gas demand. The CEC added cool roof requirements to its Title 24 building energy efficiency standards in 2005. (Cool roofs are often overlooked in the war on global warming.)

Read more

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up