This post, by my friend Lise Van Susteren, M.D., was first published on HuffingtonPost.  It deserves as wide a circulation as possible.

I am a doctor. A psychiatrist. Over the years I have heard many troubling stories about the human condition. I have worked with individuals who were “on the ledge” emotionally. I have worked with people who fantasize about killing people, and some who have. I have listened to people recount being tortured, abused. I have evaluated the psychological states of foreign leaders who threaten world security. I have heard the details about children who have died at the hands of people who were out of their minds with drugs or illness. People have died in my arms, dropped dead at my feet.

Nothing has prepared me for what I am currently hearing: scientists all over the world warning us about the threat of catastrophic and irreversible climate change.

As a member of several organizations that involve professionals working in the field of mental health, I am stunned that this threat to the health of the planet and the public is so underplayed by these organizations and their members. An official from one leading organization expressed regrets that she was unable to attend a recent forum wrestling with the psychological and mental health aspects of climate change and noted, “no one on the staff is interested.” The person she anointed in her place cancelled.

Read more

This post by Brad Johnson was first published at Wonk Room.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, pollution heir and right-wing politician Pierre S. “Pete” du Pont IV launches an attack on green economy legislation, claiming that “our nation’s energy policy may seriously change for the worse.” Worse than the conservative energy policy of increasing dependence on foreign oil and deadly coal, increasing drilling and climate disasters? Du Pont’s most absurd complaint is this attack on President Obama’s plan for carbon market revenues:

Read more

In today’s Wall Street Journal, pollution heir and right-wing politician Pierre S. “Pete” du Pont IV launches an attack on green economy legislation, claiming that “our nation’s energy policy may seriously change for the worse.” Worse than the conservative energy policy of increasing dependence on foreign oil and deadly coal, increasing drilling and climate disasters? Du Pont’s most absurd complaint is this attack on President Obama’s plan for carbon market revenues:

But rather than creating a new subsidy, wouldn’t we be better off distributing those revenues to the American people, who would have to pay the carbon tax through higher-priced electricity and manufactured goods? Such an idea was recently offered by author Peter Barnes: send the trillions of dollars received from the companies buying the permits to people as a “cap-and-trade dividend” in the form of equal personal checks for all Americans. The Obama administration thinks the opposite–that a majority of the money raised by cap-and-trade should be sent only to taxpayers making under a certain amount as a part of his Making Work Pay credit.

The “cap-and-trade dividend” proposal, supported by Obama allies like Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), recommends distributing carbon market revenues to 100% of American households. Obama’s proposal — which du Pont calls “the opposite” — returns 80% of the revenues to 95% of American households.

C’mon, Pierre. What definition of “opposite” are you using?

Even if the Wall Street Journal, like the Washington Post, refuses to factcheck its conservative op-eds, you could do better than that.

Well, Forbes magazine has given progressive advocates of climate action a terrific talking point:  The “best country for business in the world” — for two years running — is uber-green Denmark (photo below courtesy of Forbes).

Denmark has one of the strongest cap-and-trade commitments in the world — 20% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.  And it has a requirement that 20 percent of its overall energy mix be renewable by the end of 2011.  And its efficiency measures are such that Energy Minister Connie Hedegaard said last year, “In 2025, (Denmark’s) total energy consumption will not have risen in 50 years.”

And Forbes says that’s great for business!

Last month, Forbes magazine published its “The Best Countries For Business, 2009.”   Swiss climate change expert Nicolas M¼ller e-mailed me that buried inside was an attack on cap-and-trade — and a delicious irony, which gives us the talking point.

Forbes‘ #2 country for business is the good-ole-USA, but the blurb on our fair country contains this absurd warning:

Read more

[Click to enlarge to big PDF.]

President Obama laid out a sweeping vision for high-speed rail in this country yesterday.  Obama has already secured $8 billion in funding in the stimulus bill and plans to pursue another $5 billion over the next 5 years.

One thing is very clear about transport in this country in the not-so-distant future:  Once the global recession ends, oil prices will resume their inevitable march to record levels (see “Merrill: Non-OPEC production has likely peaked, oil output could fall by 30 million bpd by 2015” and “Normally staid International Energy Agency says oil will peak in 2020“).

Problem is, once you get past $150 a barrel for any sustained period of time, the business model of the domestic airline industry is no longer viable.  What happens beyond $200 a barrel is anybody’s guess.  So even ignoring the urgent need for deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, the future for air travel is not a bright one.

High-speed rail is one of many strategies the country must embrace — and quickly.  I will blog on others in the coming weeks.

You can read the full Department of Transporation strategic plan here.  And here are some excerpts from Obama’s Kennedy-moonshot-esque speech:

Read more

The Republicans for Environmental Protection, conservatives who believe in conservation, are continuing their criticism of their own party for demonizing cap-and-trade legislation as an “energy tax”. In a post at NewMajority.com, REP’s Jim DePeso describes cap and trade legislation as taking as “the fundamental step of putting a price on carbon dioxide emissions,” and hits “party leaders” for “attacking efforts to address climate change“:

Fighting for lower taxes has always been a bread and butter issue for Republicans — and a good thing given the Democrats’ propensity toward raising them and “spreading the wealth.” However, Republican tax rhetoric veered in a perilous new direction recently when party leaders began attacking efforts to address climate change as an “energy tax” on American families and businesses.

Some form of mandatory regulation of global warming pollution is necessary for the continued survival of human civilization. That regulation could come in a variety of forms — the outlawing of coal plants and nationalization of energy companies, a punitively expensive tax on carbon pollution, or a balanced set of standards and mandates that create new markets. The latter is the policy approach being taken by Democratic leaders in Washington as well as Democrats and Republicans in states across the country. However, national Republican leaders are not only demonizing limits on carbon pollution, they are denying the existence of the threat:

By framing the costs associated with reducing greenhouse gas emissions and lowering America’s dangerous dependence on oil as a tax, Republicans are boxing themselves firmly into the corner of climate change skeptics and forgoing any role in — or credit for — solving the problem.

DiPeso concludes that GOP officials like House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) should “rally behind” conservative climate proposals instead of “distorting a Massachusetts Institute of Technology study of cap-and-trade proposals”:

Instead of using loaded language and phony data to poison the climate debate, both the party and the nation would be far better served if GOP leaders would rally behind those in the party who have their own plans for addressing climate change — and let them work constructively to help craft balanced legislation that does not, as Democrats are prone to do on their own, needlessly expand the federal bureaucracy.

That approach would actually make sense to the vast majority of Americans who believe that we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The current one does nothing to earn the confidence of voters, and runs a real risk of landing our party on the wrong side of history.

Read DiPeso’s full post, “It’s a Price, Not a Tax,” at NewMajority.com.

Top Story

Emissions treaty will protect U.S. jobs, Obama admin tells GOP

The Obama administration understands that an aggressive international climate treaty is needed to reduce global carbon emissions. Now they are working to convince legislators that such a treaty would not damage American competitiveness [-- which it wouldn't, quite the reverse, see Why the United States REQUIRES a strong climate bill to remain competitive, Part 1 and Climate competitiveness 2: When the global Ponzi scheme collapses (circa 2030), the only jobs left will be green].

Without committing to any specific measures”””we will evaluate the various options,” said U.S. Trade Rep. Ron Kirk””the White House argues that strong limitations on carbon emissions are needed to build a clean-energy economy and stimulate domestic economic growth.  Kirk’s letter can be found here.  Here are excerpts from the Greenwire story (Subs. Req’d):

Read more

Wind power is coming of age as the U.S. becomes the global wind leader and probably the biggest source of new jobs in the energy industry.  I previously wrote about ITC Holdings’ plans to build a $10 to $12 billion power transmission network to move 12,000 megawatts of electricity from the Dakotas, Minnesota and Iowa to the Chicago area (see here, click on figure to enlarge).

Now this network has received a huge regulatory boost The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), as Energy Daily reports:

Read more

Today’s guest blogger is Sarah Karlin, an editorial intern at Campus Progress, a project of the Center for American Progress.  She crashed the Heritage Foundation’s recent anti-environment anti-humanity event where the speakers was junk-science promoter Steven Milloy — “a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, ExxonMobil and other corporations.“  Her post, “Look Who’s Talking:  Steven Milloy wants you to believe environmentalists harbor a hidden agenda. Projecting much?”  was originally published here.  For more on Heritage’s extreme views, see “Heritage even opposes energy efficiency.”  For a more on Milloy’s background, see “The Shameful and Shameless Links Between Big Tobacco and Global Warming Deniers,” and links below.

In an effort to plug his new book, multiple websites and blogs, Steven Milloy spoke Monday at the conservative Heritage Foundation. His message: For the love of liberty, pollute, pollute, pollute.

Milloy’s book, Green Hell: How Environmentalists Plan to Ruin your life and What You Can Do to Stop Them, describes members of the green movement as communists who are creating and exaggerating environmental problems in order to scare the public into allowing the government to take control of and regulate all aspects of Americans’ lives. Of course all of this freedom to pollute and destroy the planet may ensure that in the years to come our environment will no longer be able to sustain life [-- which is to say a conservative-driven "Hell and High Water" -- ] thus preventing future generations of Americans from enjoying the beauty of American freedom.

But Milloy doesn’t seem too concerned. Refusing to admit that science and facts are not on their side, Milloy and fellow conservatives have resorted to a bizarre assortment of scare tactics and propaganda in a last ditch effort to convince Americans that the right to pollute and destroy the planet must be preserved in order to maintain our freedoms.

Read more