ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Can you Digg Climate Progress (please)?

Okay, not only was the “Share This” button NOT causing any of the terrific people who read this blog (don’t be shy, you know who you are!) to send any of my posts to the social networking sites for popular consumption — but apparently some spammer was using it and the Mail feature for nefarious purposes. That was also artificially inflating my page view statistics, which I did not like.

So I decided to go with the Digg button plus counter. Please patronize this button!

If you like ClimateProgress and appreciate the daily content and would like more people to see it — now I sound like NPR during a pledge break, but hey at least I’m not asking for money — Digg the posts you like. The most popular stories rise to the top of the Digg page where millions of viewers will see them, becoming informed on global warming and ultimately saving the planet from general destruction. One does need a lot of Diggs to get noticed on, say, their environment page — but if Desmogblog can do it, why not ClimateProgress?

Once you sign up to Digg, it is incredibly easy — plus you will be able to enjoy all the benefits of Digg, including being able to meet people with similar interests and read blog posts others like.

Also this will give me instant feedback on how many people like a given article, so I can deliver better content.

In addition, I (or rather the brilliant web folks here) have also improved the Feed — and added an explanation of what that is — and even added a way to subscribe to the feed by e-mail, as some had requested.

More improvements will be coming.

Security

McCain Sides With Bush On Torture Again, Supports Veto Of Anti-Waterboarding Bill

mcbush48.jpgLast week, the Senate brought the Intelligence Authorization Bill — which contained a provision banning waterboarding — to the floor for a vote. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), an outspoken waterboarding critic, voted against the bill.

At the time, ThinkProgress questioned whether McCain would stand with Bush’s threatened veto of the legislation. Today, the AP reports that McCain has come out saying Bush should veto the measure, which would make the Army Field Manual the standard for CIA interrogations.

Talking to reporters today, McCain attempted to defend his stance:

“I said there should be additional techniques allowed to other agencies of government as long as they were not” torture. “I was on the record as saying that they could use additional techniques as long as they were not cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment,” McCain said.

“So the vote was in keeping with my clear record of saying that they could have additional techniques, but those techniques could not violate” international rules against torture.

But the vote was not “in keeping” with McCain’s unclear record on torture; in the past, McCain called waterboarding a “terrible and odious practice” that “should never be condoned in the U.S.”

McCain is trying to have it both ways. He claims the CIA should not use “cruel” or “unusual” interrogations, but he is defending Bush’s veto, a clear approval of waterboarding.

Furthermore, what are these “additional techniques” outside the Field Manual that McCain thinks the CIA needs? Marty Lederman noted that the CIA can currently use “stress positions, hypothermia, threats to the detainee and his family, severe sleep deprivation, and severe sensory deprivation.”

A veto would mean the “CIA will continue to assert the right to use all of these techniques.” In standing with Bush’s veto, does McCain, a former prisoner of war, support these types of harsh interrogations, too?

Digg It!

Politics

Top Gitmo lawyer: ‘We can’t have acquittals.’

Col. Morris Davis resigned his position as chief prosecutor for Guant¡namo Bay’s military commissions after being placed under the command of torture advocate William J. Haynes. As a result of a conversation he had with Haynes in 2005, Davis tells The Nation that he doesn’t believe “the men at Guant¡namo could receive a fair trial“:

“I said to him that if we come up short and there are some acquittals in our cases, it will at least validate the process,” Davis continued. “At which point, [Haynes's] eyes got wide and he said, ‘Wait a minute, we can’t have acquittals. If we’ve been holding these guys for so long, how can we explain letting them get off? We can’t have acquittals, we’ve got to have convictions.’”

Yglesias

Photoblog

I normally don’t trust other “Matt”s, but Matt Wright took one of my favorite pictures of me, so in my view his relaunched photo blog definitely deserves a link. But more important than any of that, he’s also the man who took the most politically relevant photo of the month:

Awesome stuff.

Politics

Big Coal Tries To Bribe Kansas Legislature To Approve New Coal Plants

coal-smokestacks.jpgEver since the Kansas Department of Health and Environment denied air quality permits for two 700-megawatt coal-burning power generators near Holcomb, KS, in October, the coal industry has fought back with everything it can muster.

In November, it published newspaper ads comparing Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Vladimir Putin, and Hugo Chavez.

The coal industry has sponsored nearly all of CNN’s presidential debates, and has launched a website and TV ads using children to spout its propaganda.

Now Big Coal is trying bribery. Sunflower Electric, a leading Kansas power company, has offered millions to Kansas State University for energy research — that is, if the legislature approves its bid for new coal plants first. Speaker Melvin Neufeld (R) emphasized the large cash gift yesterday as he urged his colleagues to approve the plants:

Neufeld, R-Ingalls, noted the plant’s developers, Sunflower Electric Power Corp., have entered into a memorandum of understanding to pay $2.5 million to Kansas State University over 10 years for energy research if the plants get built.

If Sunflower Electric doesn’t get state permits to build by June 1, there’s no deal with KSU, according to the memorandum of understanding, which was distributed to all House members for their perusal.

State Rep. Paul Davis (D) said such a bribery scheme was “in poor taste.”

Apparently, the coal industry is willing to pull out all the stops to ensure a victory in a year that has, so far, brought nothing but bad news for the industry. Big Coal has been forced to pay massively expensive settlements for polluting rivers, has suffered the loss of government funding for a new carbon-capturing plant, and has faced a skeptical Wall Street, as big banks indicate that coal is no longer a healthy or wise investment.

Digg It!

Climate Progress

A safety valve in Lieberman-Warner is senseless

I see no point whatsoever in passing a climate bill this year that includes a safety valve. I have blogged on this before, but it bears repeating as we appear to be getting to the endgame negotiations in the Senate on the Lieberman-Warner bill. Bottom line:

If you want to get a 60% to 80% greenhouse gas cut in four decades, you just can’t waste time with safety valves. We need to get to a price of $30 to $40 a ton for carbon dioxide as soon as possible — and if it needs to go higher than that because conservatives block the progressives and moderates from legislating aggressive technology deployment strategies that would keep costs low, well, as the saying goes, “We’ll burn that bridge when we come to it.”

If you just want to pass a bill that makes it seem like you’re doing something while in fact doing little, then go for it! But surely a year’s delay (waiting for a somewhat wiser Congress and an infinitely wiser President) is better than a pointless bill.

In an article, titled “Sponsors of Senate emissions bill seek compromise on cost provisions,” Greenwire (subs. req’d) reports today:

Senate sponsors of a major global warming bill are trying to find compromise on the vexing question of how to cap U.S. emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases without damaging the economy….

Electric utility companies, labor groups and several senators who hold critical votes on the measure still want to set some type of price ceiling on the annual price of a carbon credit….

“There’s a really serious conversation going on in a lot of venues about how this doesn’t become that last issue standing, and it’s a take-it-or-leave-it for environmentalists,” said Tim Profeta, a former senior aide to Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)….

Senate Environment and Public Works Chairwoman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) opposes the inclusion of a “safety valve” in the climate bill originally drafted by Lieberman and Sen. John Warner (R-Va.)….

The safety valve is a favored concept among economists and business types who maintain that a set carbon ceiling gives them enough certainty that the new global warming program would not sink their businesses. They insist it can also help to assure nervous lawmakers about the limited economic effects of the legislation.

It is favored among people who simply don’t get how dire the situation is. You know, maybe 10 or 15 years ago we could have given a safety valve a chance, but you just can’t ignore scientists for three decades and then think it is going to be peaches and cream. We need the full dose of anti-biotics now, not some watered down dosage that allows the fever to fester.

In one bill introduced last year from Sens. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) and Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), carbon prices in the cap-and-trade system would not go above $12 per ton in the first year. After that, the ceiling would rise 5 percent per year above the rate of inflation.

I believe it was $12 per ton of carbon dioxide – $12 per ton of carbon would be utterly meaningless. If you doubled that safety valve, $24 per ton of CO2 and 10% rise per year above inflation, that would probably be the lowest safety valve that could be tolerable — but again, waiting a year would still be better than a safety valve.

Yes, as Greenwire notes, “Three Republican senators — Specter and Alaska’s Ted Stevens and Lisa Murkowski — crossed a major threshold by signing up as cosponsors for the bill in part because of the safety valve,” but as I blogged earlier:

Read more

Politics

The Superdelegate Strategy

Call me crazy, but I think every time the Clinton campaign holds a conference call and and journalists start reporting things like Dana Goldstein’s “they said superdelegates will, indeed, decide the Democratic nominee, regardless of the pledged delegate count in June after all the states and territories have had their say” that they shoot themselves in the foot. To most party activists (from either of Chris Bowers’ two classes of activist) this sounds like a recipe for disaster.

Adopting a Belicik-esque “one primary at a time” line might create the scenario they’re sketching out to Dana. Talking about this scenario, however, only builds the sense that the Clintons care more about their personal fortunes than about the fortunes of progressive politics, and encourages things like this raft of endorsements from New Jersey Democrats including two superdelegates, one of whom had previously been supporting Clinton. Rep Ron Kind from Wisconsin (like all members of congress, a superdelegate) also endorsed Obama today.

Older

Newer

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up