The New York Times has a good editorial today on the “The dirty energy party” aka the GOP. It only makes one historical error:
President Obama has decided that the failure of last year’s comprehensive climate bill does not have to mean the death of climate policy. Instead of imposing a mandatory cap and stiff price on carbon emissions, as the bill would have done, the president is offering a more modest approach involving sharply targeted and well-financed research into breakthrough technologies, cleaner fuels and more efficient cars and trucks.
This is all part of a broader investment-for-the-future strategy that he outlined in his State of the Union address, and it all makes sense as a way of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, creating more green jobs and reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil.
Yet even this retailored approach is sure to whip the Republicans into a fresh frenzy of opposition. They have already made clear their determination to cut off financing and otherwise undermine the Environmental Protection Agency, which plans to regulate carbon emissions from power plants and other industrial sources using its authority under the Clean Air Act.
But basic scientific research? Energy efficiency? Cleaner fuels? The House Republican budget resolution gives the back of its hand to even these worthy and unobjectionable strategies, which until now have enjoyed reliable bipartisan support.
Ahh, if only transparently worthy investments in energy efficiency and clean energy and basic scientific research had been previously unobjectionable to Republicans.
In fact, following the first presidential effort to seize leadership in energy efficiency and renewable energy and basic research into clean energy (by Jimmy Carter), Reagan almost single-handedly killed America’s global leadership in renewable energy (see “Who got us in this energy mess? Start with Ronald Reagan“).
“President Reagan cut the renewable energy R&D budget 85% after he took office and eliminated the wind investment tax credit in 1986. This was pretty much the death of most of the US wind industry” (see “Anti-wind McCain delivers climate remarks at foreign wind company“). Same for solar power.
And let’s remember the last time a Republican Congress took over during a Democratic presidency. In the 1990s, the Gingrich Congress tried to shut down the Department of Energy, slash all clean energy research (including biofuels), stop the joint government-industry effort to develop a superefficient car, and zero out all programs aimed specifically at reducing greenhouse emissions and accelerating technology deployment (for some history, see my 1996 Atlantic Monthly article and this 1997 article).
President Bush gutted clean energy deployment programs and, other than the always-two-decades-away hydrogen car program, also cut most clean energy R&D programs.
In the Senate, as I wrote in 2008, even the “maverick” John McCain, who back then supported action on global warming, voted with uber-denier James Inhofe and against clean energy and the environment a staggering 42 out of 44 times since the mid-1990s.
Every time Democrats get in office they raise the budget for clean energy until Republican get into power and stop or reverse the effort. The GOP has always been the dirty energy party.
Back to the NYT:
Mr. Obama’s outlays for the Energy Department would jump 12 percent next year to about $30 billion, despite planned austerity elsewhere in the government. Of this, $8 billion would be devoted to research and development, aimed broadly at a greener economy.
Inside the research-and-development budget are robust investments: a $450 million increase in basic science, doubling (from three to six) the number of Energy Innovation Hubs to encourage collaboration among universities, government labs and the private sector; $550 million for the fledgling Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy, known as ARPA-E, which looks into cutting-edge ideas. There’s also a $1 billion increase for renewable energy and energy efficiency, and a $588 million jump “” 88 percent “” for advanced vehicles.
The main area of agreement between Mr. Obama and the Republicans seems to be nuclear power. Both sides support extensive loan guarantees to an industry that hasn’t built a new reactor in years but could supply a lot of clean power if it ever got going.
Otherwise, as expressed in their budget resolution, the Republican agenda is breathtakingly negative: a mere $50 million for ARPA-E, $900 million less for basic science, $900 million less for energy efficiency and alternative fuels, a much-reduced loan program for deploying clean power sources like wind, solar and geothermal.
Some of these programs would take extra hits because the bill would, unconscionably, strip them of unused stimulus money, a hefty $10 billion in the case of efficiency and renewables.
The message to the White House and the Democratic leadership is clear: get ready to fight. Mr. Obama was AWOL in last year’s struggle for a comprehensive climate bill “” a great pity because he had more support in Congress than he does now. He’ll need all the energy he failed to expend last year “” and more “” to achieve even his slimmed-down objectives this year.
The Republican agenda is breathtakingly negative — ain’t that the story of the decade.
Related Post:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
I can’t help but think of Republicans when I read Gadhafi’s quote about ‘being a martyr’ – they are both so out of touch with reality.
I fear that President Obama is beating a dead horse until such time as the public forces a system change. That will not happen until the population becomes aware of the gravity of the situation. As pointed out often we need a climatic “Pearl Harbor” event here in the States. However, IMO, a preemptive “State of the Climate” speech by the President and a serious bully pulpit effort to educate the masses would go a long way. As long as the “Commander an Chief” sits on the sidelines and plays patty cake with the opposition the population likewise assumes that things are under control.
Make those phones ring today. Flash Mob the WH. 202 456 1111. ~ 1 hour left!
I see the Prez. recently met with Apple, Google, Facebook, et. al on R&D. Did any of these innovative and cutting edge companies get where they are by relying on government sponsored R&D? I don’t remember Apple (or almost any good high tech company) getting its start that way.
Face reality: The government has an extremely poor record of good results, other than the nuclear bomb or Apollo, when they get involved sponsoring research. Greed for money is what has fueled the capitalist system and given us DVDs, i-Phones, and almost anything cool that we like or use. What the government needs to really do is stay the hell out of the way. If the government had sponsored Intel’s development of microprocesors, we’d probably still be using laptop computers the size of the original Compaq “luggable”.
When people have a collective sense that green energy is really “cool” it will have droves of companies investing in it, to make money. I remember the years before cable TV, when most households had TV antennas on their roofs. If people considered a wind generator on their roofs to be cool and trendy, instead of something ugly on their roof, we could solve 20-30% of the household energy usage in 5 years.
Any President will not respond to change until the public begins to understand what we are facing, as Leif says #1.
Considering the rapid rise of C02- which continues, to the historical gelogical levels they are now. That ‘time’ when the public ‘wakes up’ is closer then we may realize.
Obama has turned out to be merely a caretaker President, nothing more or less. His leadership abilities remain in question. The hard decisions regarding climate change will begin in the late decade.
Like I said before this is WAR. This is a direct threat to anyone with kids, to yours and mine, and the people who stand in the way need to FEEL the gravity of the situation.
I’m really beginning to dislike this country. I’m sick of it. unfortunately and I’m an altruistic Viet Nam era VET here. If I was foreign I’d have an attitude toward the US with its ugly anti-science mania, but I live here and its extremely emabarassing
The right in the US have always been thus and appears they always will be.
“The main area of agreement between Mr. Obama and the Republicans seems to be nuclear power. Both sides support extensive loan guarantees to an industry that hasn’t built a new reactor in years but could supply a lot of clean power if it ever got going.”
Wrong. Both sides of Congress do not support more damaging corporate bailouts.
Nice to know The Times wants the fix to be in. Uranium mining, irradiated “nuclear waste” and nuclear weapons proliferation as a solution no less. Any ideologue calling atomic fission “clean” is a proponent of corporate fascism.
Get ready to politically rumble against corrupt shadow banksters and bankrupting fission technocrats that the Times seems in favor of.
Oh My
I’m sorry: Every time I read an editorial in The New York Times on this stuff, I have to restrain myself from laughing, crying, and frustration.
Even though they occasionally make a valid point that we can agree on, they continue to water matters down, confuse them, get important details wrong, and criticize people for things that they themselves do. Don’t you just “love it” when the Times criticizes the President (correctly) for being “AWOL” regarding the climate issue last year — when the Times itself was far more “AWOL” than the President, although to this day I don’t think the Times realizes that?
Given the way that humans work, that cultures “evolve”, that editorials are interpreted (not the same as “news”), that policies become white-washed, that we settle for less and less, and so forth, it’s far from clear to me that The New York Times’ role is more positive than negative on the whole matter of climate and energy. They certainly aren’t living up to their responsibilities — not even close. So, although today’s editorial makes some points that we agree with, I’m not so sure that celebrating it makes sense. After all, The NY Times has been AWOL, a great deal, and they also are partly responsible for the sort of thing that the Science Advisor in the U.K. was (rightly) critiquing.
Regarding climate change, The NY Times has been failing, and the President has (unfortunately) been failing. It’s obvious that the Repubs are a problem, and have been failing when it comes to climate change, but that point is so obvious that it makes me yawn. I’d like to know what WE are going to do differently, and I’m given that a great deal of thought.
Cheers and Be Well (and sorry for the grumpiness),
Jeff
David Koch is the Gaddafi of the USA.
And the US CC’s….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-mckibben/chamber-of-commerce_b_826636.html
Flash Mob News! My take. I did get thru about 15 minutes before closing time by waiting ~6 minutes on hold.
I tried numerous times, (30+), thru-out the day to no avail thou I did not try holding for long. Most of those I know who got thru had to be on hold ~8 minutes. There is no way to know if the efforts were infiltrated by the Tea Baggers. I did ask the volunteer for his personal assessment on the matter but he would not offer anything. Perhaps Joe or some others might have an inside contact and report back.
A special thank you to Joe for allowing us all the use of this site as a clearing house and for organizing. I trust that we have not abused the privilege.
Thank you Roger for original motivation.
Two Palms Up
Leif
This is worth repeating….
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
….
“The dirty energy party” aka the GOP
The Republican attitude is only to be expected. The Right in Australia acts in exactly alike fashion. They are motivated first by ideological hatred, so they oppose everything that emanates from the ‘Left’, no matter what. No matter that it is sensible, that there is money to be made or that our predicament demands it. If it comes from ‘the other side’ it will be destroyed, either through opposition or later abolition when they gain power. They are remorseless in pursuit of these politically incorrect ideas, forgetting nothing, no matter how inconsequential or even successful. It feeds their egomania and lust to dominate others. Second, they are happy enough with the mega-billions to be made from the dirty fossil fuel industry and their patrons that profit from that business. And third the Right is where human stupidity and ignorance are seen, not as faults or deficits, but as signs of high eminence. If you believe that dinosaurs sailed in the Ark with Noah, that the world is 6000 years old, and that climate science is a gigantic conspiracy to destroy capitalism, then you are dumb enough to hate science and research for their own sake.
Simply put the birch society or tea baggers have got to go. They were a black spot on America in the 50s. They are a cancer now. We have lost the generation that understood where these nutters could lead us to, they had to fight a war over it.
Now if we had one cow and one bull, progressives would want a committee to manage the breeding and milking programs to make sure everyone got their share. The conservatives would just want to give the pair to a friend so he could sell what he could to make a lot money and just look the other way if someone couldn’t afford to eat. Typically americans would come together and come up with workable solution.
Along comes the tea party and all they can come up with is SHOOT THE DAMN BULL
@#3 johhnyx, first off, government research money is in addition to private sector money not replacing it. So there would be no net loss from the government pitching in. Secondly, you can’t rely on the free market for everything. By that logic, if space travel was so cool, the private sector would’ve flown to the moon. The private sector would’ve invented the internet. If interestate highways were so important, the private sector would’ve built it. We NEED more clean energy. Regardless of how much people want it, we need it to stop climate change and survive. And lastly, public support for clean energy is high but the public doesn’t get to pick and choose which type of energy it wants. The utilities just get the cheapest energy sources possible to reduce their costs and increase their profit. Rethink your statements.
@johhnyx #3
“Face reality: The government has an extremely poor record of good results, other than the nuclear bomb or Apollo, when they get involved sponsoring research.”
I suspect you do not understand the role of government funding when it comes to research. Private money, in general, will not fund research which does not offer a reasonably short term return.
Now that government research has produced the ‘most expensive’ answers private companies spend money on how to build better satellites and rockets. Private companies would have never financed the basic space program.
If you look behind almost any area in which private money is funding research you will find that it is building on research previously performed with public money. The entire pharmaceutical industry is a prime example. Without the decades of basic research done in universities financed by tax dollars we would not have modern medicine.
You can take that further to solar and wind energy harvesting. EV battery development. Plastics. Superconductors.
Name your industry and you will find that almost every single technology is based on successful federal government sponsored research.
johhnyx said:
You mean aside from the fact that they depended on microelectronics developed in large part for NASA and the military, and aside from a little DARPA project that we now call the internet.
Which like getting the USA off of fossil fuels as quickly as possible, were large scale projects. They involved an investment in the necessary tech and resources, and in this case (like the atomic bomb) the USA is dealing with a direct and eminent threat to both it’s economy and national security. In this case the Republicans (and the teaparty) are not just ignoring the threat, they are actively giving aid and comfort to the “enemy”.
Granted, but you seem to be ignoring the massive market failure when it comes to pollution and especially CO2e emissions.
How do you propose pricing carbon without some-sort of government mandate? If you don’t price CO2e emissions and other pollution, then how are fossil fuels really fairly competing against renewable tech and not getting a hidden subsidy, which is then being paid for by the rest of the taxpayers?
Agreed, yet such tech has been forced to unfairly compete with fossil fuels that have been far more heavily subsidized (both hidden and direct) for decades.
The other problem is can we do enough, fast enough, to make a difference, especially with the astroturfed teaparty and Republicans demonizing any reasonable actions and even basic scientific research?
johhnyx #3, all that unregulated capitalism fueled by greed gets us is a housing crisis, a financial crisis, a resultant depression, a trashed planet, and runaway climate change. All the shiny gadgets are just trinkets in the big scheme of things. One can’t eat ipods, etc., but one does need a healthy planet and a stable climate to do so, whether the people want them or not.
Let’s start writing to Republican climate change deniers and demand that they also investigate the Galileo hoax: http://www.galileowaswrong.com/galileowaswrong/
Maybe one will take the bait.
@ Mike:
I wouldn’t be at all surprised to find a few geocentrists among them, we already know that Rep. John Shimkus thinks that god won’t allow any bad consequences from AGW since the bible says god promised no more flooding after Noah.
Mike @19 — Maybe they’ll all take the bait.
#12 by paulm led me to post this link to a short posting by me:
OK, trying again:
#12 by paulm led me to post this link to a short posting by me:
The Republican Trash the Environment Bill
at the end of which I proposed several GOP campaign slogans, such as:
Vote Republican and Show Your Support for Increased Hurricane Damage!
and also
Smell That, America? Take a Deep Breath, that’s REPUBLICAN Air!
The environment and climate change might not be foremost right now amongst the concerns of American citizens. But if we progressives widely publicize the level of DISDAIN the GOP is showing for the health and welfare of the citizenry, that could change. Since the Chinese are wrecking what’s left of their country’s environment in the name of economic domination, the GOP apparently thinks that they only way to compete is to emulate them and turn back the clock on the USA’s world-leading environmental protection programs.
Question: Does anyone believe that sustained decades-long federal government action to address climate change will be possible without widespread support from CONSERVATIVE voters?
Leaders follow where followers lead. Science-denying nit-wits in House and Senate will be swept away only when their erstwhile supporters awaken to the reality of the climate-change challenge.
So here’s a challenge for you, Joe. Start assembling on this blog an honor-roll (with contact info) of CONSERVATIVE groups, business organizations, opinion-leaders and web-sites (www.rep.org is an example) who do NOT believe that chemical and physical laws are a matter of opinion.
Cultural cognition (look it up) is not insurmountable, but it will take more than whining and name-calling to address it. Climate change is a non-partisan issue in fact; if we are to survive it, we must make it so in practice.
Hugh,
Why don’t you help us out? I am familiar with http://www.rep.org , but please do provide us with other such “CONSERVATIVE groups, business organizations, opinion-leaders and web-sites.” (Maybe this could be a separate thread. Others can of course make suggestions.) Joe may or may not use them, that is up to him, but others here will.
It is difficult because many outstanding conservative leaders who supported the science of climate change have back tracked. My own Senator, Mark Kirk, is one of them. Write him!
Joe: I would like to nominate http://www.rep.org for your “Link” listing.
#3, if it were not for the U S government, there would be no apple, google, or facebook, because it was the U S government that invented the first electronic computer, the ENIAC project during world war 2.
It would be very hard to run modern programs on the ancient I B M holorith machine, which was the closest to electronic computing that the private, for profit sector could produce prior to the U S government’s ENIAC computer. Couple this with the U S government’s development of the internet, much of our 21st century lifestyle originates from government research, not the private for-profit capitalist system.
Thank you, Leif (#2 &11) and Peter M (#4), for taking action on the phone flash mob idea that was suggested.
Is it asking too much for ALL CP readers (or AT LEAST the climate hawks amongst us) to call President Obama at 202-456-1111 (or 202-456-1414) and suggest to his comment operators that he give a “State of the Climate” address so that Americans at least know the truth about climate change? You comments to the White House will have an even greater impact than your comments on Climate Progress.
And, hey, acting all together now, we might just be able to get our elected chief executive to do his job, part of which involves protecting us from harm. YOUR call might be the one that serves as the tipping point that gets Obama to act in time–before Mother Nature activates her (slowly) lethal climate tipping points.
And please don’t anybody try to tell me that THE President of the United States of America, the most powerful man in the world, is powerless, in February 2011, to figure out SOME way to get the God Almighty TRUTH about climate change out there to the American people–in a way that will inspire action, and avoid consternation or panic!
Warm regards,
Roger
I also second Hugh’s proposal @24, and would suggest a link to The Green Conservative blog of Jim DiPeso, who is associated with REP (Republicans for Environmental Protection).
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/blogs/republican/
Re nyc-tornado-ten said “because it was the U S government that invented the first electronic computer…”
You might want to read a little bit about Operation Paperclip. It is thought that the space program “Sputnik Moment and with Manhatten Project implications”and some agencies are only what they are today, because of the work of many germans.
And regarding the first computer “But while this electronic brain, as headline writers called it, took the spotlight, ENIAC had a lot of unsung rivals, many of them shrouded in wartime secrecy. At Bletchley Park, Alan Turing built a succession of vacuum-tube machines called Colossus that made mincemeat of Hitler’s Enigma codes.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,990596,00.html
Again the germans …
The mechanical parts act in such a way as to form a varying electrical circuit; the actual letter substitution is indicated electrically
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enigma_machine
What happens if you attack the science …
World’s First Computer Rebuilt, Rebooted After 2,000 Years http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2008/12/2000-year-old-a/
I always think it’s astounding the way the Republican party fights tooth & nail against alternate energy sources. You’d think that they, being ‘fiscal conservatives’, would *like* the idea of America saving half a trillion dollars a year by not importing oil…
(simple calculation: US oil imports are ~12,000,000 bbl/day, oil is currently ~$100/bbl -> $1.2billion per day in oil imports -> $438billion per year in oil imports. That’s a significant chunk of change going overseas…)
Well it’s been a few days and it looks like “johhnyx” was just another drive-by do-nothing-ist. Oh well.
———————————————————————————————-
@ Bern:
Yeah if they really were being “fiscal conservatives”you’d think that about them wouldn’t you? Not to mention the money saved on health care and environmental cleanups.
Well I guess that they do tend to be vague about exactly who’s money it is that they are conserving, don’t they?