Tumblr Icon RSS Icon

Can Gov. Manchin kill something that’s already dead? Guess that’s why they call it ‘almost’ heaven.

Posted on  

"Can Gov. Manchin kill something that’s already dead? Guess that’s why they call it ‘almost’ heaven."

Share:

google plus icon

Back in July, the mostly dead climate bill went belly up.  As I noted here , the bill has passed on!  It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies!  ‘E’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil and joined the bleedin’ choir invisibile!! THIS IS AN EX-CLIMATE BILL!!

Still, it appears news travels slow these days, at least into certain states.   That’s the charitable view of this ad by Gov. Joe Manchin (D-WV) — an ad that is otherwise notable for its faux bravado.  After all, it’s not bloody hard to kill something that is dead:


Hmm.  Perhaps Manchin is practicing trying to kill dead things because he’s in a tough race with John Raese (R), a climate zombie who blames volcanoes for global warming.

Either way, it seems like “almost heaven” will be purgatory once Manchin or Raese get through with it (see Science bombshell explodes myth of clean coal: Mountaintop “mining permits are being issued despite the preponderance of scientific evidence that impacts are pervasive and irreversible and that mitigation cannot compensate for losses”).

Somehow, I think John Denver would approve of this spoof:

We can now truly appreciate it what a great tragedy it was to lose Robert Byrd:

« »

16 Responses to Can Gov. Manchin kill something that’s already dead? Guess that’s why they call it ‘almost’ heaven.

  1. Rick says:

    Once again, I’m ashamed to be a West Virginian. Joe Manchin continues to sacrifice both current and future generations for a few votes and a few jobs. Since when has someone’s job been considered justification to sacrifice the future’s right to clean water, clean air, and a healthy, livable landscape? To argue otherwise is beyond shortsighted; it is insane. We’ll look back on simple-minded fools like Manchin and his ilk with the disdain that they deserve.

  2. Robert says:

    As a Brit I have almost reached the point where I would like to see our Climate Change Act repealed. How can I go on supporting legislation which puts our economy (representing less than 2% of global emissions) in a low carbon straight jacket when the giants on the stage (US, China and others) dance round the issue and show no signs of even wanting to take action, either now or in the future?

    http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/legislation/cc_act_08/cc_act_08.aspx

    The only remaining reason for supporting our push to a low carbon economy is fossil fuel depletion. It is an absolute and undeniable fact that we will have to wean ourselves off it at some point and the sooner we start the better.

  3. Will G. says:

    MTR must end, coal must end. Sad to see people like Bill Clinton, who at least appears to understand the climate and ocean destruction caused by fossil fuels, supporting Manchin.

    [JR: Consider the alternative -- a Tea Party-controlled Senate.]

  4. Wit's End says:

    “Why are the big greens and compromised NGOs spewing out meaningless targets for legislation which do nothing more than ensure a death sentence for humanity? It is because they have become corporations themselves. They are, in essence, subsidiaries of the very corporations that they claim to oppose. There can be no meaningful mass movement when dissent itself is generously funded by those same corporate interests who must be targets of the protest movement.”

    This is really scary stuff!

    http://www.unitedprogressives.org/pages/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=990%3A101010-350org-marketing-manipulation-and-the-status-quo&catid=302%3Agregory-vickrey&Itemid=80

  5. Harold Pierce Jr says:

    Rick says on October 12, 2010 at 6:14 pm

    Since when has someone’s job been considered justification to sacrifice the future’s right to clean water, clean air, and a healthy, livable landscape?

    You should obtain and study a recent atlas of the earth. Humans occupy a small portion of the earth’s surface. Presently about 50% of humans live in urban areas and they are moving in ever increasing numbers to urban areas. Most city slickers aren’t all that interested in “the great outdoors” and for most of them the “clean enviroment” is the urban enviroment.

    The atlas shows vast areas where there are few or no humans such as Siberia and Canada which are squeaky clean except large open pit diamond and gold mines.

    Presently in most of the advanced countries pollution of air, water and the land has been declining.

  6. Ben Lieberman says:

    What sort of a person takes pleasure in destroying his or her own landscape? At what point do citizens of a state forget what their state even looked like before they started to rip the tops of the mountains?

    @ Robert: if the US and China continue to do nothing to actually curb emissions how will other countries respond?

  7. Rick says:

    Harold Pierce Jr says (October 12, 2010 at 9:00 pm) claims that

    “Presently in most of the advanced countries pollution of air, water and the land has been declining.”

    Really? I’m well aware of the US Clean Water and Clean Air Acts, and they’ve had a positive effect relative to the absolutely horrific conditions in many pre-1970 US rivers and streams and in many US airsheds, but that ain’t saying all that much given that we’re *still* living in highly unhealthy conditions (check the cancer rate stats world-wide). Not to mention Chinese and Indian water and airsheds – good god. Zoom in in your precious atlas and objectively examine the conditions in arable areas and you’ll soon find the basic ecological conditions in various states of unraveling in one way or another. And by the way, if I’m not mistaken, CO2 is a pollutant and increasing, simply as a function of increasing population and industrialization.

    And finally, the health of the people in the Appalachian coalfields is dismal, among the very worst in the US but most measures. Ever been there, Herald? I didn’t think so.

  8. Ken Johnson says:

    “already dead”?? Tell that to people like David Roberts, who says “Unfortunately for Manchin, the only way to raise enough money to make an appreciable difference on CCS development is … you guessed it … a cap-and-trade bill.” Or Robert Stavins, who keeps beating that dead horse long after rigor mortis has set in.

    [By the way, the Oct 12 Energy and Global Warming News has relevance to this story: "Researchers have uncovered the largest geothermal hot spot in the eastern United States. ... West Virginia ... could become a producer of green energy for the region."]

  9. Ron Broberg says:

    To Robert@#2: unfortunate but entirely logical

  10. Robert says:

    Ben @7 and Ron @10 – I think we are already seeing resistance and apathy building up in the UK. The push for climate legislation was on the back of intense media interest from the BBC, ITV, Guardian and Independent, plus of course pressure from the EU.

    This year it has gone so quiet it is eerie. I get the feeling that the BBC (particularly) feels it has pushed the issue too hard and been somewhat responsible for the resulting legislation. This year it has scarcely mentioned climate change and then only in the context of the manufactured ‘gate’s.

    Ben – to answer your question, I think it will be impossible to sustain any form of momentum in the UK if the large emitters do nothing. Nor would it even be worth maintaining an emission reduction programme because the entire CO2 output of the UK now equals the GROWTH in China’s emissions in just 3 months. Maybe we will just have to run the fossil fuel course and keep our fingers crossed that the results are not as catastrophic as predicted – a cynical if realistic view but now probably the one most people take (at least, for that small number of people that even think about it at all).

  11. Lewis C says:

    Robert at 2 -

    I share your concern at the UK’s efforts being ignored by the US and other major polluters – it is tempting to propose that we offer to cut our goal from 30% by 2020 off 1990 down to say 2% to allow the US 3.67% ‘pledge’ to show its clear ‘leadership’ on the issue.

    Yet that would be to cede soveriegn policy to comply instead with the reckless ‘brinkmanship of inaction’ that has blocked the necessary treaty for too long. I suggest that we can but persevere in exposing and opposing that brinkmanship, not least by encouraging the efforts of the EU and others to develop ways to put an end to it.

    Regards,

    Lewis

  12. jcwinnie says:

    Happiness is a warm gun
    (bang, bang, shoot shoot)
    Happiness is a warm gun
    When I hold you in my arms
    And I feel my finger on your trigger
    I know nobody can do me no harm
    Because happiness is a warm gun.
    Yes it is.

    (Lennon / McCartney)

  13. Dana says:

    Nate Silver did an analysis of the differences between Senatorial candidates in various close races. Manchin was by far the closest ideologically to his opponent; in fact he fell on the conservative end of the spectrum. He might as well be a Republican, but at least he would be a moderate Republican as opposed to his opponent, who’s fairly extreme.

    Still, considering how conservative his positions are, and that he’s only running for a 2 year term so he will need to remain conservative and stick to his guns (a painful pun considering this ad), West Virginia is basically a no-win for Democrats. Especially when it comes to the climate and environment, apparently.
    http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/west-virginia-poses-dilemma-for-democrats-must-win-or-no-win/

  14. Robert says:

    Lewis – to be honest, I think the UK Climate Change Act in its current form is a completely mad piece of legislation. What on earth did we think we going to achieve by enacting it? This is the Act in full:

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/27/contents

    My view is that no country should do anything until a global treaty which includes all the biggest emitters is agreed. As a UK citizen I feel as if I am being mugged by the rest of the world and they are having a good laugh at our expense. I also think that this type of legislation is far too complicated to work at any level – country or global – due to the difficulty of measuring emissions. I prefer the “Kyoto2″ model where the world agrees to monitor and limit fossil fuel inputs:

    http://www.kyoto2.org/page5.html

    “regulate industrial greenhouse gas emissions ‘upstream’ at or close to production by requiring that the companies responsible surrender Permits based on the greenhouse gas pollution implicit in their production, expressed in tonnes of CO2 equivalent (tCO2eq). In the case of fossil fuels this would be at the points where flows are concentrated and easily measured such as the oil refinery, coal washing station, gas pipeline or gas tanker”

  15. Robert says:

    The “kyoto2″ idea is explained in more detail in this document, circulated to anyone who would listen after the failure of Copenhagen. It makes complete sense to me:

    http://www.mng.org.uk/gh/private/after_copenhagen1.pdf