Will Conservative Democrats Follow Graham’s Lead On Climate Policy?
Will Conservative Democrats Follow Graham’s Lead On Climate Policy?
Extensive coverage has been devoted to the fact that Lindsey Graham’s split on global warming and other issues highlights a rift in the Republican Party. While that’s true, another more important development has not been pursued: Graham’s departure from right-wing orthodoxy highlights the potential for conservative Democrats to follow in his footsteps.
Many conservative Democrats have questioned President Obama’s clean energy agenda. Now, a Republican is breaking with his party to talk sense. In a press conference yesterday with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), the author of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), Graham rebuked senators unwilling to address carbon pollution. Saying that he has “seen the effects of a warming planet,” Graham called for the United States to “lead the world rather than follow the world on carbon pollution”:
The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.
Watch it:
Graham sounded more like Van Jones — the author of “The Green Collar Economy” who was branded by Glenn Beck as a “communist” — than many of his Democratic colleagues:
Max Baucus (D-MT): Montana, with our resource-based agriculture and tourism economies, cannot afford the unmitigated impacts of climate change. But we also cannot afford the unmitigated effects of climate change legislation.
Evan Bayh (D-IN): Jobs should be our top priority and we shouldn’t do anything that detracts from that.
Robert Byrd (D-WV): I will actively oppose any bill that would harm the workers, families, industries, or our resource-based economy in West Virginia.
Byron Dorgan (D-ND): I just don’t think climate change is going to be on the floor this year. Trying to restart our economic engine and trying to get this country back to work — to me that is the most important issue.
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR): I am opposed to the House passed cap-and-trade legislation, which in my view, picks winners and losers and places a disproportionate share of the economic burden on families and businesses in Arkansas.
Claire McCaskill (D-MO): I hope we can fix cap and trade so it doesn’t unfairly punish businesses and families in coal dependent states like Missouri.
Ben Nelson (D-NE): I think at the end of the day, the people who turn the switch on at home are going to be disadvantaged.
Jim Webb (D-VA): We can’t just start with things like emission standards at a time when we’re at a crisis with the entire national energy policy.
Do these Democrats agree with Lindsey Graham that our planet “is in peril“? Do they agree with Graham that “limiting carbon pollution is good for business”? Will conservative Democrats follow Sen. Graham’s embrace of the “new green economy” — and shouldn’t they be asked if they will?
- Comments
- 35
Sen. Whitehouse: ‘The Party of No’ has become the ‘Party of No Show.’
Sen. Whitehouse: ‘The Party of No’ has become the ‘Party of No Show.’
According to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Republicans have devolved from the “Party of No” to the “Party of No Show.” Led by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), the Republican boycott of climate hearings has entered its second full day. During today’s hearing on the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act, Whitehouse argued that being the “party of no show” is a miscalculation that harms the nation:
I think it is unfortunate that the party of “no” has now devolved to the party of “no show.” And I hope that they reconsider their strategy here, because I don’t think it’s good for them, I don’t think it’s good for the country, I don’t think it’s good for the legislative process. I think it is a mistake, and I hope it is reconsidered.
Watch it:
Inhofe’s boycott — and other demands for delay by both Republican and Democratic senators — now guarantee that a bill to tackle the climate crisis and rebuild our economy will not pass this year.
Diane Sawyer Uses Glenn Beck To Attack Al Gore For Not Eating ‘Tofurkey’
Diane Sawyer Uses Glenn Beck To Attack Al Gore For Not Eating ‘Tofurkey’
ABC’s Good Morning America host Diane Sawyer sandbagged Vice President Al Gore this morning with an attack by Glenn Beck. Gore was appearing on the show to discuss his new book, Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis. Smiling, Sawyer introduced a mocking clip from the Fox News pundit. “Here’s Glenn Beck,” she said, “giving you a challenge about cows and methane”:
BECK: I’m siding with PETA on this one. Once again asking Al Gore if you really want to save the planet, Al, why don’t you put down the cheeseburger and pick up the veggie burger? Time for, maybe, soy milk and tofurkey?
Watch it:
Sawyer somehow failed to note that Beck denies the science of climate change and has claimed efforts to build a green economy are “fascism.”
Of course, Our Choice addresses the question. Chapter Ten of Our Choice, “Soil,” discusses the complex range of challenges and opportunities related to food production and consumption, noting in particular the costs of industrial agriculture. The chapter concludes with a series of recommendations, including practical ones for American consumers, like supporting farmers’ markets and eating less meat. And Gore follows his own advice:
There is a serious issue about the connection between the growing meat intensity of diets around the world and damage to the environment. And like a lot of people, I eat less meat now than I used to. I’m not a vegetarian, don’t plan to become one, but it’s a healthy choice to eat more vegetables and fruits. So it’s not a laughable issue.
Sawyer laughably replied, “So, tofurkey for you.”
Senate GOP embrace Inhofe’s boycott of Clean Energy Jobs Act.
Senate GOP embrace Inhofe’s boycott of Clean Energy Jobs Act.
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK)
Senate Republicans have endorsed Sen. Jim Inhofe’s (R-OK) plan to boycott the legislative markup of the Clean Energy Jobs and American Power Act (S. 1733), scheduled to begin tomorrow. Inhofe’s GOP compatriots on the environment committee hope to block action by refusing to participate in the markup on the pretext that the Enviromental Protection Agency’s economic analysis of the bill is not “complete.” In a letter sent to committee chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA), ranking member Inhofe and his counterparts on five other committees said any attempt to begin the markup before acceding to his demands “would severely damage” its chances for passage:
We understand that there may be an attempt to report S. 1733 from the Committee not only without a satisfactory analysis, but also without sufficient opportunity to address the bipartisan concerns raised over the course of legislative hearings on the measure. As we are sure you will understand, from our viewpoint, such an approach would severely damage, rather than help, the chances of enacting changes to our nation’s climate and energy policies.
The signatories are the top Republicans on the six Senate committees that will consider this legislation — environment, energy, agriculture, commerce, foreign relations, and finance. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX, ), like Inhofe, flatly deny the reality of climate change. However, several of the signatories have claimed concern about the threat of global warming — Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Dick Lugar (R-IN), who in 2006 warned of the “significant long-term risks to the economy and the environment of the United States from the temperature increases and climatic disruptions that are projected to result from increased greenhouse gas concentrations.” Evidently their commitment to partisan obstruction is greater than their concern for the future of the nation.
Download the letter here.
We're going to be very patient. We're going to wait for them to come. We're going to sit there every day and ask them to please come back to the table. We're not going to rush this through because we don't think that would be the right thing to do.
Inslee slams SuperFreakonomics for ‘absolute deception’ on climate science.
Inslee slams SuperFreakonomics for ‘absolute deception’ on climate science.
During today’s forged letter investigation hearing in the House, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-WA) rebuked the authors of SuperFreakonomics for participating in a “continuing effort to deceive the American public” on the science of climate change. Inslee condemned the coal industry’s effort to “hoodwink, defraud, and deceive the American public now to cover up the toxicity to the world environment” of global warming pollution. Inslee then pivoted to authors Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, criticizing them for “absolute deception” in their work on global warming:
The second thing I want to note is this is not the only continuing effort to deceive the American public. I want to note a book called Freakonomics, or SuperFreakonomics, that some authors wrote, that basically said or asserted we don’t have to control CO2, we’ll just pump sulfur dioxide up into the atmosphere and that will solve the problem. They purported to quote a scientist named Ken Caldeira from Stanford who’s one of the predominant researchers in ocean acidification to suggest that Dr. Caldeira didn’t think we should control CO2. Which is an absolute deception. Dr. Caldeira I’ve spoken to personally. He’s told me we have to solve ocean acidification. You can’t solve ocean acidification without controlling CO2 and yet people are still trying to write books to deceive the American public. And we ought to blow the whistle on them, we’re blowing the whistle on one today, we’ll continue to do it, because ultimately science is going to triumph in this discussion.
Watch it:
Levitt and Dubner’s promotion of geoengineering as a “cheap and simple” alternative to carbon mitigation is in direct opposition to the views of Dr. Ken Caldeira and the world’s scientific community. Although Caldeira objected to the chapter and has since repeatedly said he was misrepresented in multiple ways, the SuperFreakonomics authors have continued their deception, joining the billion-dollar effort by fossil-fuel companies and the radical right to thwart action on climate change.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Jon Stewart Praises ‘SuperFreak’ Author: ‘I’m Sorry You’ve Taken So Much S**t’
Jon Stewart Praises ‘SuperFreak’ Author: ‘I’m Sorry You’ve Taken So Much S**t’
On last night’s Daily Show, host Jon Stewart heaped praise on the contrarian approach to global warming taken by SuperFreakonomics author Steve Levitt, a University of Chicago economist. Stewart was dismissive of the widespread criticism of Levitt and co-author Stephen Dubner, asking, “Have you stepped on a secular religion?” Stewart, often a tough interviewer, coddled Levitt, saying, “I’m sorry you’ve taken so much s**t for it.” He blamed the uproar over SuperFreakonomics on people who “feel you are betraying environmentalism”:
I’ve been somewhat surprised at how angry people are. The global warming chapter, you don’t deny global warming. You don’t say that CO2 isn’t a factor, but they feel you are betraying environmentalism or our world. Why are people so mad?
Watch it:
SuperFreakonomics mischaracterizes the field in order to argue that “moralism and angst” has blinded scientists and policymakers from pursuing the “cheap and simple solution” of geoengineering. Although the book condemns scientists for fearmongering and promotes a radical alternative to existing policy, Levitt tells Stewart, “I don’t try to pretend I know the science.”
In reality, the critics of Levitt’s treatment of climate science and policy are not “dogmatic” believers of a “secular religion” — they are highly respected climate scientists, energy experts, and economists, including climate scientist Ken Caldeira, who has said Levitt and Dubner misrepresented his views. The widespread criticism isn’t based on the book’s personal attacks on Al Gore or its mocking of global warming as a “religion,” but on the multitude of factual errors, misrepresentations, and false conclusions that the authors use to promote their mindless contrarianism. As science journalist Eric Pooley writes, “The book claims the opposite of what Caldeira believes.”
Levitt recommends untested, planetary scale geo-engineering to block the sun as a “band-aid” that “buys us time” if “we might need to do something,” because carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere for a long time. However, scientists concerned that global warming needs to be reduced rapidly have already found a well-proven approach that’s cheaper and safer than pumping unlimited amounts of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere: stopping black carbon emissions of soot from diesel and biomass burning.
Stewart rightly concluded, “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?” However, he failed to understand his mistake when he added that he had “apparently frightened our audience by suggesting that conservation isn’t the only way out of any of our problems.”
Stewart has excoriated other media darlings for their laissez-faire approach to serious issues, from Tucker Carlson to Jim Cramer, and just last week skewered CNN for its failure to do even basic fact-checking of its guests. Unfortunately, in this instance, there was nothing funny about Stewart’s inaccuracy.
Inhofe: ‘Natural warming cycle’ ended ‘about nine years ago.’
Inhofe: ‘Natural warming cycle’ ended ‘about nine years ago.’
At the outset of Senate hearings on clean energy and climate legislation today, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Commitee, mockingly praised chair Barbara Boxer (D-CA) for mentioning “global warming” in a YouTube video about the bill. Inhofe claimed that people “have been running from that term” once “that natural warming cycle” ended “nine years ago”:
I do want to congratulate you on your Youtube, the fact you’re using the term global warming again, I appreciate that. People have been running from that term ever since we went out of that natural warming cycle about nine years ago.
Watch it:
Inhofe’s dangerous nonsense has been debunked repeatedly by scientists, from the UK Met Office and NOAA to independent statisticians. 2005 is the hottest year on record, and the last ten years have been the hottest decade on record. Furthermore, it is clear that fossil fuel emissions are responsible.
Climate Spoof Forces Chamber To Decry ‘Public Relations Hoaxes’
Climate Spoof Forces Chamber To Decry ‘Public Relations Hoaxes’
This morning, activists from the Yes Men troupe claiming to represent the U.S. Chamber of Commerce announced the organization was reversing its years of opposition to any climate bill before Congress, saying in jest that the “Kerry-Boxer Bill is a good start to a strong climate bill.” CNBC and the Fox Business Network cited the many companies who have quit the Chamber as a reason for the fictional about-face.
The Chamber of Commerce quickly tried to quash the reports that it had reversed its “Scopes monkey trial” stance. Chamber of Commerce official Eric Wohlschlegel broke into the press conference held by the Yes Men at the National Press Club, shouting, “This guy is a fake!” After a “mild shoving match at the podium,” Wohlschegel told reporters, “It is a very sad day.” U.S. Chamber of Commerce official Thomas J. Collamore decried “public relations hoaxes” and called for “law enforcement authorities to investigate this event”:
Public relations hoaxes undermine the genuine effort to find solutions on the challenge of climate change. These irresponsible tactics are a foolish distraction from the serious effort by our nation to reduce greenhouse gases.
Of course, it is the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other right-wing corporate groups that have been spending hundreds of millions of dollars supporting “public relations hoaxes” to “undermine the genuine effort to find solutions on the challenge of climate change.” As PG&E Chairman and CEO Peter Darbee explained his company’s departure from the Chamber, “extreme rhetoric and obstructionist tactics seem to increasingly mark the Chamber’s stance on this issue.”
It’s doubtful that the Chamber — chaired by race-baiters and corrupt global warming deniers — will now be decrying clean coal carols, climate skeptics, fearmongering, and broken economic analyses as it spends over $100 million a year to lobby Congress.
SuperFreakonomics Gets Climate Change Super Freaking Wrong
SuperFreakonomics Gets Climate Change Super Freaking Wrong
Today is Blog Action Day, with thousands of blogs discussing global warming. Matt Yglesias, the Wonk Room, and now ThinkProgress have participated.
SuperFreakonomics, the forthcoming sequel to the pop-economics bestseller Freakonomics by economists Steven Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, devotes 44 pages to a contrarian view of climate change, calling global warming a “religion.” Much of the chapter praises Microsoft billionaire and scientific dilettante, Nathan Myhrvold, whose solution to global warming is to pump acid rain pollution into the atmosphere. Levitt and Dubner also claim that prominent climate scientist Ken Caldeira does not think carbon dioxide is the “right villain”:
Caldeira is thoroughly convinced that human activity is responsible for some global warming and is more pessimistic than Myhrvold about how future climate will affect humankind. He believes “we are being incredibly foolish emitting carbon dioxide” as we currently do. Yet his research tells him that carbon dioxide is not the right villain in this fight.
Levitt and Dubner’s portrayal of Caldeira is false. As he told Climate Progress’s Joseph Romm in an e-mail interview, he believes carbon dioxide is the central villain:
Every carbon dioxide emission adds to climate damage and increasing risk of catastrophic consequences. There is no safe level of emission. I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies.
Levitt and Dubner spend much of their time channeling conservative columnist George Will, complaining about a “drumbeat of doom” growing louder from “doomsayers” even though the average global temperature, they say, “has in fact decreased.” The book also repeats Will’s obsession with a supposed consensus about “global cooling” in the 1970s.
Maldives cabinet to hold climate meeting underwater.
Maldives cabinet to hold climate meeting underwater.
This Saturday, the president of Maldives “is set to chair an underwater Cabinet meeting” in order to “highlight the threat global warming and rising sea levels pose to his low-lying nation.” The governments of the world are now negotiating a successor to the global-warming reduction treaty known as the Kyoto Protocol, which will expire in 2012. Maldives President Mohamed Nasheed and his 14-member cabinet “will don scuba gear and descend to a table 20 feet (6 meters) underwater”:
To prepare, the ministers have been learning the basics of scuba diving on the weekends. Nasheed already is a certified diver. At the meeting, Cabinet members will communicate using hand gestures. The president will ratify a pledge calling on other countries to slash greenhouse emissions ahead of a U.N. climate summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December.
The Maldives, a nation of 1,200 coral islands southwest of India, “lies just 4.9 feet (1.5 meters) above sea level.” Sea levels have already risen by 0.2 meters (8 inches) in the past century due to thermal expansion and ice melt caused by global warming. In 2008, scientists warned that the best estimate for sea level rise by 2100 “lies between 0.8 and 2.0 meters” (2.5 to 6.6 feet).
FLASHBACK: In Bush era, Inhofe decried ‘chilling effect’ of probing White House ‘regardless of administration.’
FLASHBACK: In Bush era, Inhofe decried ‘chilling effect’ of probing White House ‘regardless of administration.’
Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who attacked investigations into the political interference on global warming regulation by the Bush White House, is now calling for probes into Obama’s “Presidential czars” who are taking action to crack down on greenhouse pollution. Yesterday, Inhofe sent a letter to EPA administrator Lisa Jackson demanding “all correspondence and records” from “all meetings, discussions and conversations between EPA and Carol Browner,” the White House Coordinator of Climate and Energy Policy whom Inhofe calls a “czar.” This new champion of transparency, however, attacked investigations into the White House’s interference with the EPA last year, saying that “regardless of Administration, the President acting through the entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA Administrator”:
It is my view that regardless of Administration, the President acting through the entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA Administrator, and to expect his subordinate to carry out the judgment of what the law requires and permits. . . . I cannot support any investigations that could have a chilling effect within the deliberative process of the Administration, and cause future career and political employees from refraining from an open and honest dialogue.
By some strange miracle, Inhofe has had a complete change of heart on the inviolability of the “unitary executive” during the Obama presidency. In June, Inhofe even supported a criminal investigation into whether the EPA was “suppressing science” when its officials did not support the report of an EPA economist who had plagiarized blog posts from global warming deniers.
Chamber to Apple: You don’t understand our ’21st century approach to climate change.’
Chamber to Apple: You don’t understand our ’21st century approach to climate change.’
U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Tom Donohue, who last year called for further “scientific inquiry” into climate science because of a “cooling trend,” today rebuked Apple for leaving his organization. Apple — recognized as the most innovative company in the world — had criticized the Chamber for not having a “more progressive stance” on climate change, saying, “We strongly object to the Chamber’s comments opposing the EPA’s efforts to limit greenhouse gases.” In an angry letter, Donohue argued they did not understand the Chamber’s “21st century approach to climate change“:
I am sorry to learn of Apple’s resignation from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. It is unfortunate that your company didn’t take the time to understand the Chamber’s position on climate and forfeited the opportunity to advance a 21st century approach to climate change.
Of course, Apple is right. The Chamber of Commerce has a retrograde stance on global warming, opposes regulating greenhouse gas emissions, and has become an enemy of a clean-energy economy. In fact, in an unusual merger of interests, long-time Apple rival Microsoft has also distanced itself from the Chamber’s radical views.
George Will Believes The Hottest Decade In History Shows An ‘Absence Of Significant Warming’
George Will Believes The Hottest Decade In History Shows An ‘Absence Of Significant Warming’
In the Washington Post’s game of global warming coverage, George Will gets seven strikes and he’s still not out. Will has penned yet another column questioning climate science, the seventh this year. Will’s thesis is that there has been no global warming since 1998, based on his misinterpretation of a poorly written article about temperature trends by New York Times climate reporter Andy Revkin:
By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere “plateau,” not warming’s apogee, the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.
By this logic, we’d have to conclude that the Toronto Blue Jays just clinched the A.L. East division title — after all, they’ve won six games in a row and are 9-1 in their last ten games, while the New York Yankees lost their last game and are only 7-3. (In reality, the Yankees have clinched the division title.) However, when ThinkProgress contacted Will to confirm this theory, he responded:
You don’t seem to understand baseball. The Blue Jays are not even in contention.
Will’s persistent assertion that global warming has stopped during the hottest decade in recorded history is just as nonsensical as the idea that a team that is nine games below .500 is beating one that is 45 games above .500. Unfortunately, Will hung up before we could ask who he believed was the hottest team in baseball.
The Wonk Room has more.
EPA announces plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution.
EPA announces plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution.
Appearing at a climate summit in Los Angeles today, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson will announce the administration’s plan to regulate industrial global warming pollution, with or without the support of Congress. Today’s proposed rule limits regulation to large greenhouse gas polluters, from coal-fired power plants and oil refiners to methane-emitting landfills. The details of today’s proposed rule are explained further in the Wonk Room.
Chamber Of Commerce Rewrites History: ‘We’ve Never Questioned The Science Behind Global Warming’
Chamber Of Commerce Rewrites History: ‘We’ve Never Questioned The Science Behind Global Warming’
Tom Donohue, U.S. Chamber of Commerce President and CEO
Energy companies are abandoning the sinking ship of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in droves over its opposition to clean energy action, whether by the EPA or by Congress.
Under pressure, Chamber president Tom Donohue today claimed the Chamber “continues to support strong federal legislation and a binding international agreement to reduce carbon emissions and address climate change.” And spokesman Eric Wohlschlegel recently argued that the Chamber respects the science of climate change:
We’ve never questioned the science behind global warming.
This is a blatant falsehood, by any definition. Just last month, the Chamber’s Senior Vice President William Kovacs called for the “Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century” to put “the science of climate change on trial.” The Chamber, dominated by pollution-industry skeptics such as Don Blankenship, Harry Alford, and Fred Palmer, has questioned climate science since at least 1992:
2008: Chamber President Tom Donohue Says ‘Scientific Inquiry’ Into Climate Change ‘Should Continue’ Because Of ‘Cooling Trend.’ [U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 3/4/08]
2001: Chamber Claims Global Warming ‘About One Percent From Human Activity,’ Says ‘Things Just Change.’ [CNNFN, 7/16/01]
1992: Chamber Sponsors Global Warming Denier Pat Michaels To ‘Refute The Global Warming Warnings.’ [Chicago Sun-Times, 5/13/92]
In addition to being the Chamber of Commerce president, Tom Donohue works for Union Pacific, a company opposed to climate regulation.
If you want a clean energy future with millions of clean energy jobs, this is the bill. If you want a chance at a global climate deal and hence a chance at preserving a livable climate, this is the bill. . . . This bill is key to taking back control of America’s future from Big Oil, the corporate polluters and their lobbyists, and you can be sure they are going to fight as hard — and as dirty — as possible to kill it.
Nation’s Largest Utility Leaves U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Over Climate Denial
Nation’s Largest Utility Leaves U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Over Climate Denial
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the largest lobbying force in the nation, promoting a right-wing agenda as the “voice of business.” The Chamber claims that a cap-and-trade program to limit global warming pollution would “strangle the economy” and has even called for a “Scopes monkey trial” on the science of global warming.
Today, Exelon CEO John Rowe announced that his company — the largest electric utility company in the United States — would not renew its membership in the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of its opposition to global warming action. In his keynote address to the annual conference of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the nation’s largest association of energy efficiency experts, Rowe said that the Chamber’s multi-million-dollar campaign against clean energy legislation is incompatible with Exelon’s commitment to climate change leadership. As Rowe said when he accepted a leadership award from the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce in 2008:
Exelon has staked out an industry-leading position on the issue of climate change and, in the spirit of Daniel Burnham, we have launched our own “not so little plan” to eliminate the equivalent of our entire carbon footprint by the year 2020. I do not know if it will stir men’s souls, but I hope it will stir policymakers and others in our industry to action.
Confirming Exelon’s decision to ThinkProgress, a spokesperson explained that “Exelon is a big supporter of climate legislation.” Exelon is the third energy company to sever ties with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in the past week, joining Pacific Gas & Electric and PNM Resources.
The carbon-based free lunch is over. But while we can’t fix our climate problems for free, the price signal sent through a cap-and-trade system will drive low-carbon investments in the most inexpensive and efficient way possible. Putting a price on carbon is essential, because it will force us to do the cheapest things, like energy efficiency, first.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski proposes amendment to cripple EPA power to curb global warming.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski proposes amendment to cripple EPA power to curb global warming.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) “wants to put the brakes on the Environmental Protection Agency’s efforts to curb climate change” by barring the EPA from “spending any funds on regulating carbon dioxide pollution from power plants, manufacturers, and other major emissions sources.” Murkowski has proposed an amendment to the Interior appropriations bill (H.R. 2996) under consideration this week by the U.S. Senate to prevent the EPA from regulating global warming pollution from stationary sources:
Effective during the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, none of the funds made available for the Environmental Protection Agency under this Act may be expended to regulate or control carbon dioxide from any sources other than a mobile source as described in section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act or to treat carbon dioxide as a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act except for purposes of section 10 202(a) of that Act.
As international leaders meet in New York City to discuss a global climate deal, the EPA is moving forward with regulatory proposals. “Murkowski’s amendment would thwart the 2007 Supreme Court ruling that said EPA does have authority under the Clean Air Act to deal with climate pollution,” writes Frank O’Donnell in the Wonk Room. “By trying to block the agency through such a sneaky, back-door approach, Murkowski is bidding to become a climate outlaw.”
A $1,761 Postage Stamp: How The Glenn Beck Machine Constructed An Attack On Clean Energy Reform
A $1,761 Postage Stamp: How The Glenn Beck Machine Constructed An Attack On Clean Energy Reform
Fox News host Glenn Beck, the new darling of the radical right, is part of a well-coordinated machine to block progressive reform. Yesterday, Beck fanned himself with a giant $1,761 postage stamp, claiming he had uncovered “outright lies” by a “spooky” White House. According to Beck, “buried” Treasury documents reveal that President Obama’s clean energy agenda “is going to cost a lot of money.” He thanked “our friend Chris Horner at CEI” for revealing the “facts” about the “cap and trade energy bill”:
The Department of Treasury issues a report and says, “Here, Mr. President, boy, that looks like it is going to suck. It is going to cost $1,761.” Got it?
Watch it:
How did Glenn Beck come to be waving a giant postage stamp, accusing the president of a “cover-up”? By following the same process that has been used to create other popular Glenn Beck conspiracy theories: that Carol Browner is a socialist, that millions of people marched in the Glenn Beck 9/12 rally, that the EPA suppressed global warming skeptics:
STEP ONE: “News” generated by right-wing think tank. On September 15, the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Chris Horner begins shopping around two internal Treasury Department memos about cap-and-trade proposals, one written by the Bush administration in November 2008, one written in March 2009. CEI is a corporate-funded think tank that has opposed regulation of dioxin, cigarette smoking, global warming, prescription drugs, alcohol, and bovine growth hormone.
STEP TWO: Right-wing print journalists write “breaking news” story. Chris Horner feeds the documents to Amanda Carpenter at the right-wing Washington Times and libertarian blogger Declan McCullagh at CBSNews.com. McCullagh’s blog post, “Obama Admin: Cap And Trade Could Cost Families $1,761 A Year,” has a better headline than Carpenter’s “Hot Button” story.
STEP THREE: Promoted by Drudge, story repeated endlessly on right-wing blogs, Twitter, and talk radio. On Wednesday, the Drudge Report promotes McCullagh’s story. The “$1,761″ figure is picked up by Politico’s Ben Smith, Hot Air, Townhall.com, RedState, and hordes of right-wing Tweeters.
STEP FOUR: Republican politicians, right-wing think tanks, and polluter front groups release statements of shock and outrage. Despite the rapid response of the Treasury Department calling the stories “flat out wrong” and “misrepresentations of the facts,” the House Republican Conference, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK), the American Petroleum Institute, and the Heritage Foundation promote the figures.
STEP FIVE: On Fox News, Glenn Beck calls President Obama a liar/socialist/Marxist/communist/fascist/racist. On Thursday afternoon, after discussing the story on his radio show in the afternoon, Beck rails for nearly ten minutes about President Obama’s “cover-up” and “outright lies.”
Unreported by Beck, the Congressional Budget Office on Thursday estimated that the average household cost of the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act would be 44 cents per day.
(It should be noted that Ben Smith quickly posted a correction for his blog post when Declan McCullagh’s story was called into question. CBS officials, however, have only made McCullagh stop inflating his job title.)
Michigan Chamber Of Commerce Embraces Glenn Beck, Invites Him To Be A Keynote Speaker
Michigan Chamber Of Commerce Embraces Glenn Beck, Invites Him To Be A Keynote Speaker
On his Fox News show this past Wednesday, right-wing extremist Glenn Beck claimed, “The uber-left is in business with big business.” But next Tuesday, Beck is keynoting a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum in Michigan sponsored by several major corporations, including AT&T, Comcast, and Dow Corning.
Although Beck’s race-baiting and McCarthyism have led a massive advertiser boycott of his Fox News program, the largest business lobby in the United States has chosen to embrace him as the “dinner keynote speaker” for the 2009 “Future Forum” at Michigan State University’s Kellog Forum on September 15th:
Beck has called President Obama a “socialist,” a “Marxist,” and a “racist” with a “deep-seated hatred of white people.” It may not come as a surprise that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, with its right-wing agenda of blocking health care reform, clean energy legislation, and workers’ rights, is embracing Glenn Beck’s hate and fearmongering.
Tomorrow, Beck is broadcasting live on Fox News from Washington D.C. to promote the “9/12 Project,” Beck’s tearful mobilization against “socialism.” The 9/12 march is bankrolled by right wing organizations such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, FreedomWorks, the National Taxpayers Union, and GrassFire.org. These front groups are themselves backed by ExxonMobil, Koch Industries, HealthFirst, and other corporate titans who aim to maintain their windfall profits under the status quo.
The top sponsors of the Michigan event are Comcast, AT&T, and Consumers Energy. AT&T is on the board of the Chamber of Commerce but has pulled its ads from Glenn Beck’s show. Other Chamber members who have stopped advertising on Beck — but are giving him a platform in Michigan — include Aegon, CVS, State Farm Insurance, and UPS.
Dirty coal group’s 14th forgery impersonated American veterans.
Dirty coal group’s 14th forgery impersonated American veterans.
Congressional investigators have discovered that the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity’s (ACCCE) astroturfing effort has impersonated American military veterans in a forged letter sent to Congress. Thirteen other forgeries purporting to be from organizations representing blacks, Hispanics, women and senior citizens. This latest letter, sent in June to influence a swing Democratic legislator on his vote on the American Clean Energy and Security Act, impersonates a local American Legion official in Rocky Mount, VA:
The letter, sent to the office of Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), asks Perriello to “make sure the Waxman-Markey bill includes provisions to promote American energy independence, while protecting already cash-strapped constituents from increases in electricity prices.” It concludes, “Thank you for listening to concerns of vets in your district.”
Yesterday, Alstom joined Duke Energy, Alcoa, and First Energy by abandoning the scandal-ridden organization, as “questions that have been raised about ACCCE’s support for climate legislation.”
Download the forged letter.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll