As noted the last time I wrote about a big Bush speech, “Bush climate speech follows Luntz playbook: “Technology, technology, blah, blah, blah”

Bush has given us a new drinking game: Down a shot whenever the President uses the word “technology” in a climate speech. You’d get 19 shots for today’s 21 minute speech!

And I’d throw in another shot for every time Bush says the word “goal” or “bureaucrats” with a bonus shot for the famously redundant “unelected bureaucrats.” If Bush proposes a plan with hard targets for the entire economy, all drinking stops (and, of course, Hell freezes over). Since most of the speech will be no doubt be same old, same old, same old, it may be a tough day for everyone’s liver.

THE YOGI BERRA CLIMATE SPEECH?

Now according to Revkin’s blog:

The rumors Tuesday were that the speech would include a plan to eventually slow, stop and reverse emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants.

Hmm. Didn’t Bush run in 2000 on a plan to limit emissions from power plants, only to renege on the campaign promise two months into his term “under strong pressure from oil, coal, and car companies“? Let’s see, I wonder which quote from Yogi Berra will best describe this new speech:

• “This is like deja vu all over again.”
• “You got to be very careful if you don’t know where you’re going, because you might not get there.”
• “When you come to a fork in the road, take it.”
• “Slump? I ain’t in no slump… I just ain’t hitting.”
  
• “I made a wrong mistake.”
• “I wish I had an answer to that, because I’m tired of answering that question.”
  

THE EMPEROR NERO CLIMATE SPEECH

Read more

Here is Gore’s Law:

As an online climate change debate grows longer, the probability that denier arguments will descend into attacks on Al Gore approaches one.

It is modelled after Godwin’s Law from 1990, which states:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Although in fairness, Godwin’s law applies to most heated political debates, including global warming. In fact, famed meteorologist and global warming denier William Gray told the Washington Post last May:

Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews.

Hat tip to Grist, which hat tips to Deltoid, who got it here.

My last post argued “McCain reveals cynicism, hypocrisy with call for summer gas-tax holiday, energy budget freeze.” I received an e-mail whose basic thrust was “but everybody knows a gasoline tax is regressive, so how can progressives endorse it?” Well, as we will see, everybody doesn’t know a gasoline tax is regressive. In fact,

• The poor are more likely not to buy any gasoline (i.e. not own a car at all)
• Poor families own fewer cars (and much fewer of the fuel-inefficient SUVs and minivans), and
• They walk and use mass transit more.

Maybe the best description of the situation is from a December 2003 study for the state of California:

“A gas tax would be regressive only across upper-income groups, in this case only in the top half of the income distribution.”

Here is the data they present for the “Average Share of Income Spent on Gasoline in California, by Decile.” In the table, “Decile 1 is the poorest income group, and decile 10 is the richest.”

And this is not a new conclusion in the economic literature. As James Poterba, an economist for MIT and the National Bureau of Economic Research found back in 1991:

Read more

On CNN this morning, senior business correspondent Ali Velshi discussed the new record high oil prices reached today. American Morning co-host Kiran Chetry asked Velshi about ways to conserve, such as hybrids. His response:

I just spoke to the CEO of Sasol, the old South African oil company. They make gasoline out of coal. If oil is not $50 or higher, it doesn’t make it worth doing that. But at 112 bucks, 113 bucks, why not?

Watch it:

Why not convert coal into gasoline using coal-to-liquids (CTL) technology? After all, the United States does have abundant coal reserves, and CTL is a well-established technology, having been developed by scientists in Nazi Germany:

Liquid coal increases our addiction to fossil fuels. The way to break an addiction to fossil fuels is to figure out how to use less, not consume more. To replace ten percent of our oil consumption would require an increase in coal mining by 40%.

Liquid coal is a climate killer. The energy required to convert coal to liquid fuel doubles the amount of carbon dioxide released compared to petroleum-based gasoline, producing a “ton of carbon dioxide for each barrel of liquid fuel.”

I hope CNN’s Velshi is promoting coal-to-liquid technology unwittingly, and not because his network has been receiving millions of dollars from the coal industry to run their debates — debates where questions about global warming are rarely if ever asked.

Transcript: Read more

Any remaining glimmer of hope that Senator John McCain might be the principled, non-cynical politician to transform our energy policy and avoid the dual calamaties of peak oil and climate catastrophe died today. The Associated Press reported that:

John McCain wants the federal government to free people from paying gasoline taxes this summer … aimed at stemming pain from the country’s troubled economy….

To help people weather the downturn immediately, McCain was calling for Congress to institute a “gas-tax holiday” by suspending the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day….

Among other proposals, McCain said he would … Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans.

Sad. In fact, doubly sad.

Okay — let’s provide more tax relief to the American people, as progressives have been pushing hard to do. So why not cut income or payroll taxes or give the public a larger direct rebate — one that is linked to income so that the rich don’t get yet more money that should be going to middle class and poor. Cutting the gas tax will send a lot of money to the rich, and not bloody much money to the people who can’t afford a car, especially the urban poor. Who is out of touch?

[UPDATE (revised): I examine the regressivity of the gas tax in another post (see here). Bottom line -- as a 2003 study for the state of California found, "A gas tax would be regressive only across upper-income groups, in this case only in the top half of the income distribution."]

The AP describes McCain’s strategy as pursuing “a trickle-down effect.” McCain says “because the cost of gas affects the price of food, packaging, and just about everything else, these immediate steps will help to spread relief across the American economy” [his speech is on his website here]. What? So we have a temporary gasoline tax cut that directly helps people who drive a lot and that eventually trickles down to the price of … “packaging” (!), which in turn will trickle down to the poor and everyone else. Seriously.

Progressives should calculate the value of the McCain tax cut and offer the same amount directly to the poor and middle class. Enough trickle down nonsense already.

And no — I am not terribly concerned that lowering the gas tax will temporarily boost gasoline usage and greenhouse gas emissions (although it obviously will a little bit). What I am terribly concerned about is that this strongly suggests a President McCain would be prepared to walk away from the price for carbon he plans to impose upon the public — the first time there is a recession after a cap & trade bill is passed.

Let’s be very clear — the greatest threat to the long-term health and well-being of this country is unrestricted greenhouse gas emissions. The key strategy that McCain and Obama and Clinton have embraced is a cap on emissions coupled with a trading system that sets a market price for carbon dioxide. That is how you get decarbonization at the lowest possible cost. Now, the greatest threat to the success of a cap and trade system is that somebody might artificially limit the carbon price, either through a safety valve designed into the system (see here) or because some weak-kneed President (or Congress) walks away from that price the first time the economy suffers a downturn.

McCain would appear to be that weak-kneed Presidential hopeful — especially given that he has also walked away from using “mandatory” to describe his cap and trade system (see here and here). Perhaps this is what he means by not “mandatory” — the cap disappears the first time there is a recession or energy prices spike.

MCCAIN’S RECESSIONARY SPENDING CUTS

And then there is his equally lame desire to freeze all increases in nonmilitary discretionary spending — proposed in the middle of a recession no less. Doesn’t he know that government spending is an economic stimulus?

Read more

To the extent that it’s reassuring to know that there are people out there who are even more worried about the future, check out “Collapsing Cities.” The website is “built collaboratively by members of Steering Committee for Pioneer Clusters Intelligent Communities,” whatever that is. I am a tad concerned about their banner motto, “Seeding Socioeconomic Avalanches!” Aren’t avalanches bad?

Still, one has to admire their goal: “Optimum-Energy Communities: Moving Towards Zero Dirty Energy Use!”

[JR: The most important job of the president is to protect the country against all enemies foreign and domestic. But today, the greatest threat to the health and well-being of Americans is climate change. What then is the best way to be a true patriot?]

As you’ll recall, Barack Obama made a controversial sartorial decision last October about what he will and will not wear on his lapel. He declared he will not wear one of those American Flag pins that have become so popular among politicians since 9-11.

“I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest,” he said while campaigning in Iowa. “Instead, I’m going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great. Hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism.”

Read more