It’s April 2nd. So you know that what we print here today isn’t a joke.
But after reading the latest energy action plan from House Republicans over the weekend, I wish I could tell you that I’m making up their latest strategy.
Last May, Think Progress reported on the creation of a House Energy Action Team (HEAT), a group of more than two dozen House Republicans pushing an “all of the above” approach to energy. But it should really be called an “all of the below” strategy — as it focuses exclusively on carbon-based fuels buried in the ground.
HEAT has just released its latest messaging plan for House Republicans to use while working in their districts on recess this summer. It’s no surprise that the plan calls for greater domestic use of fossil fuels. But the document reveals just how disconnected Washington politicians are from what scientists are telling us about global warming.
Or, as David Roberts of Grist so eloquently put it last week:
In a sane world, a 2011 filled with spectacularly bizarre weather followed by a winter and spring that are record-shatteringly hot – out of control hot; Biblical hot – would have everyone in the U.S. freaking the f*ck out about climate change.
But the HEAT work plan has absolutely nothing on efficiency, nothing on conservation, and only one token mention of renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. All common-sense talking points on clean energy have disappeared from Republican messaging on energy issues.
The only resources touted in the plan are coal, natural gas, oil, oil shale and methane hydrates. It’s basically a “how to” guide for warming the planet.
(Insert your own joke here about the group’s ironic acronym, HEAT).
The plan, which includes talking points and media strategies on how to talk about energy issues, is couched in consumer-friendly terms to make it seem less preposterous:
We owe it to future generations of Americans to continue to stand as a leader in the global economy, no longer subject to the whims of other oil producing nations, and that’s why we’ll continue fighting for an energy policy that will achieve these goals.
But there’s one major problem. To anyone who’s not thinking about global warming, this may seem reasonable on the surface. Why wouldn’t we want to exploit new innovations in unconventional fossil fuels to become more independent?
Well, at a time when scientists say we are reaching irreversible global warming tipping points, it’s beyond absurd that anyone would propose it: This energy strategy is reckless. Unfortunately, with most politicians silent on global warming, energy plans like this can all too easily become a real part of the debate.
Democratic strategists believe they can win the rhetorical battle over gas prices by focusing on oil company profits and the financial link between Congress and the fossil fuel industry. That may work for short-term political messaging. But it still does not bring global warming into the energy conversation — thus making plans like HEAT seem less threatening than they are.
This is one more reason why leading politicians must stand up for climate science. Ultimately, that’s the only common-sense way to neutralize the “drill-everywhere-exploit-everything” energy mantra.
Related Post:
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga
Similarly with coverage of matters of the economy over here (UK) – always increased growth is the aim but never any mention that we must contain the mining of the planet’s resources and the polluting of the commons.
An example of positive thinking:
The right side of the energy coin The Weekend Wonk: Liquid Metal Batteries – Climate Denial Crock of the Week
This is more evidence that our once great country has been victimized by a coup d’etat, managed by the banks and fossil fuel companies. It’s easy for them to purchase the requisite politicians, including some Democrats.
They won’t give up this power unless, as Leif has pointed out, the people rise up.
Today’s NYT has an article on “Hate Crimes.” I posted this and feel that it pertains to this post as well.
In a slightly different light how should one handle the willful dissemination of misleading information to the boarder public that an action or policy scientifically known to be harmful to many thousands both at home and around the world is not harmful. i.e. move a barricade on a freeway construction site that caused hundreds of drivers to drive off an unfinished overpass? Telling folks that the chemicals running into a watershed are harmless, knowing full well they are not? Polluting the atmosphere with chemicals proven to disrupt living systems the world over because higher profits are assured? Are these “hate crimes”? If not what is it? Is it worse to dismember a Black behind a car than to be responsible for the starvation deaths of thousands of poor scattered hither and yon?
These are not “hate crimes”. They might be better called “love crimes” or “crimes of indifference”. The people/corporations (not that we need make any distinction according to the SCOTUS) who commit these crimes love money, they love profits, they are utterly indifferent to whatever ‘collateral damage’ their actions and policies cause.
History repeating itself… lots of anger about…
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/04/global-warming-denialism-just-foolishness-scientist-peter-raven-says/
Time to visit the garden…
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/video/gardens-science-prevent-war-11860352
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/world/asia/chinese-insider-offers-rare-glimpse-of-us-china-frictions.html?_r=1
China Sees U.S. as Competitor and Declining Power, Insider Says
Unfortunately its happening in Canada as well…. a full dive ahead for fossil fuel utopia.
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=160250557430147&id=139434822741700
Federal budget a disaster for the environment, MPs say | CTV News
http://www.ctv.ca
The federal budget dealt a massive blow to the environmental movement and will result in protests across the country, two opposition MPs say.
How does this fossil fuel bonanza HEAT holds up to the strategic realities of the military?
U.S. Military Forges Ahead with Plans to Combat Climate Change
Climate policy may be a minefield for politicians but the Pentagon sees liabilities from global warming and is both reducing the armed forces greenhouse gas emissions and preparing for climate impacts http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=us-military-forges-ahead-with-plans-to-combat-climate-change
Can this House HEAT team be sued for not considering security implications? For acting un-patriotic, for helping to create potential terror in the world.