ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

Artur Davis: Clean Energy Reform Will ‘Wreak Havoc’ On Alabama’s Struggling Economy

In a C-SPAN interview today, Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) attacked green economy legislation, claiming it would “wreak havoc” on Alabama’s manufacturers. Even though a record-breaking heatwave has killed a woman in his state this week, the dynamic congressman now running for governor in Alabama explained his plan to vote against the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2998/H.R. 2454) today by arguing it would destroy his state’s fragile economy:

– “This bill is still going to wreak havoc with the manufacturing sector in some parts of the country.”

– “The Senate, for example, is not considering cap and trade. The cap and trade provisions are the ones that frankly would damage the manufacturing sector short term and have a lot of other unpredictable consequences on our economy.”

— “When we’re in the midst of a deep recession, we need to make sure we’re not making a dramatic change that could cost us jobs in the short term, because many states simply can’t afford to lose more jobs.”

– “This is the wrong time for cap and trade, this is the wrong time to impose a renewable electricity standard on the Southeast.”

Watch it:

Davis is wrong. In fact, the Senate is continuing to work on cap-and-trade legislation for passage this fall. Furthermore, Davis seems not to understand that states like Alabama need the clean-energy economy to recover from the Bush-Exxon recession.

A Clean-Energy Economy Will Create 29,000 Jobs In Alabama. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), the EPA found, will “create strong demand for a domestic manufacturing market for these next generation technologies that will enable American workers to serve in a central role in our clean energy transformation” and “play a critical role in the American economic recovery and job growth.” A report from the Center for American Progress and the Political Economy Research Institute “finds that Alabama could see a net increase of about $2.2 billion in investment revenue and 29,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. This is even after assuming a reduction in fossil fuel spending equivalent to the increase in clean-energy investments. [EPA, 4/20/09; PERI, 6/18/09]

Waxman-Markey Directs Billions Of Dollars To Energy-Intensive Manufacturing. The Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454) includes cost containment provisions, allowances for worker assistance and training, investments in clean energy technologies, a new clean energy deployment agency, and billions of dollars in direct assistance to trade-vulnerable and other industries. [Committee on Energy and Commerce, 6/9/09]

A Renewable Electricity Standard Would Reduce Costs In Alabama. The Energy Information Administration projects that a renewable electricity standard of 25 percent by 2025 — much stronger than the one in the Waxman-Markey legislation — would drive electricity costs down by more than 10 percent in Alabama and throughout the Southeast, as utilities move away from increasingly expensive coal to renewable biomass. [EIA, 4/09]

Alabama Is Especially Susceptible To Global Warming Damages. As a coastal state, Alabama is highly vulnerable to the devastation of hurricanes, which will increase in intensity as the oceans warm and sea levels rise. Rainfall is expected to decrease, increasing the rate of devastating droughts like that of 2007. By the end of the century, Alabama will have deadly heat waves over 90 degrees for more than four months every year. [U.S. Global Change Program, 2009]

Davis claims to support clean energy reform, but he opposes any effort to limit the carbon pollution responsible for global warming. Like the House Republicans, Davis is in denial.

Politics

Limbaugh: Obama is ‘behaving like an African colonial despot.’

On his radio show today, conservative talker Rush Limbaugh quoted at length from a new article in the American Thinker entitled, “Obama, the African Colonial” by L.E. Ikenga who identifies herself as a “first generation born West African-American woman.” In the article Ikenga argues that Obama is best understood through his “identification with his father” and his adoption of a “political mindset rooted in post colonial Africa”:

Like many educated intellectuals in post colonial Africa, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr. was enraged at the transformation of his native land by its colonial conqueror. But instead of embracing the traditional values of his own tribal cultural past, he embraced an imported Western ideology, Marxism. I call such frustrated and angry modern Africans who embrace various foreign “isms”, instead of looking homeward for repair of societies that are broken, African Colonials. They are Africans who serve foreign ideas.

Ikenga concludes, “[U]nderstand this: the African colonial who is given too much political power can only become one thing: a despot.” Limbaugh took Ikenga’s argument and ran with it, declaring that Ikenga “nailed who the guy is.” “We’ve elected somebody who’s more African in his roots than he is American…and is behaving like an African colonial despot,” Limbaugh said. Listen here:

Yglesias

Waxman-Markey and the Economy

When you listen to conservative members of congress denouncing the Waxman-Markey bill’s sure-to-be-devastating impact on the economy, it’s worth keeping this post from Conor Clarke in mind:

Here’s an easy way of visualizing the costs of Waxman-Markey. The chart below shows projected U.S. GDP with and without Waxman-Markey (drawn from the data annex of the EPA’s big estimate). Projected U.S. GDP without the bill is in orange; it’s sitting behind projected GDP with the bill, which is in grey. The visible orange stripe is the difference between the two scenarios:

waxman-markey-and-gdp-1

I don’t think it can be seriously denied that this is a small price to pay to avert a global catastrophe. The problem with Waxman-Markey is that it wouldn’t, on its own, actually avert said catastrophe. But this isn’t a flaw in the bill’s design, it speaks to the global nature of the problem—no one country’s activities can prevent catastrophe, you need coordinated action by all the world’s major economies.

As Conor says “The big question is whether this bill will increase or decrease the chance of such coordination.” I’ve heard some clever people who don’t want to be silly denialists about the threat of climate change, and who don’t want to be silly alarmists about the threat of Waxman-Markey, but who don’t have a self-conception as belonging to the same political coalition as Henry Waxman and Nancy Pelosi attempt to argue that the answer is “decrease.” But I’ve never heard any of the people actually charged with the international negotiations say that. As best I can tell, everyone involved with the Copenhagen process, everyone involved with the U.N., and all the climate negotiators from the major European countries are hoping for something like this bill to pass in order to give the international diplomatic process additional momentum.

Justice

CRS Report Concludes Sotomayor Is No Activist

roberts-hearingThroughout his confirmation hearings, Chief Justice Roberts compared himself to a baseball umpire whose job was simply to objectively call balls and strikes–never to impose his own preferences on the game.  “Modesty,” “humility” and “judicial restraint” were Roberts’ buzz words; fair decisions without ideology his promise.

Of course we now know that, with John Roberts as the umpire, the strike zone has moved awful far to the right, but it is not surprising that Roberts pretended to be non-ideological and restrained when he was trying to sell himself as a future Chief Justice.  The American people like their judges to follow the law; and they no doubt would have viewed him harshly if he had confessed to being an ideological crusader.

In just over two weeks, Judge Sotomayor will have her own confirmation hearings. While it remains to be seen how she will present herself in those hearings, a report by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service confirms something that should be obvious to anyone who has examined her record.   She actually is the kind of modest, non-ideological judge that Roberts claimed to be:

Overall, Judge Sotomayor’s opinions defy easy categorization along ideological lines. . . . General characteristics of her approach to the judicial role are more easily identified. Perhaps the most consistent characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s approach as an appellate judge could be described as an adherence to the doctrine of stare decisis, i.e., the upholding of past judicial precedents. This characteristic would be in line with the judicial philosophy of Justice Souter, who often displayed special respect for upholding past precedent. Another characteristic of Judge Sotomayor’s opinions could be described as a meticulous evaluation of the particular facts at issue in a case, which may inform whether past judicial precedents from the circuit are applicable. Her approach to statutory interpretation seems similarly nuanced. She tends to adhere to the plain meaning of the text but, in the face of ambiguous language, appears willing to consider the intent and purpose of a statute. Judge Sotomayor’s opinions also display her apparent dislike for situations in which the court oversteps the role called for by the procedural posture of a case.

Amusingly, Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) recently announced that he would oppose Sotomayor’s nomination because “I am afraid Judge Sotomayor wants to be more of a player than an umpire.”  Maybe he’s confusing her with John Roberts.

Politics

House Democratic Fundraising Committee To Attack Patriotism Of GOP Members Over July 4 Weekend

Last week, Congress passed the “$106 billion military supplemental to fund the U.S. military’s efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan.” In the House, 170 Republicans and 32 Democrats voted against final passage of the supplemental citing various reasons, including opposition to a measure from the Senate version of the bill which would make a new line of credit available to the IMF at a cost of $5 billion. (CAPAF Senior Fellow Nina Hachigian explained the need for the IMF measure.)

Now, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) plans to run ads on the July 4 holiday criticizing several vulnerable Republican members for their votes against the supplemental last week. As Glenn Thrush reports, “A series of 60-second radio ads will run during drive time from July 1 through July 8, according to a script provided to POLITICO — and they have the support-our-troops ring of GOP spots.” Thrush provides the script:

Around here, we recognize Independence Day with parades … and picnics … maybe a few fireworks. But July Fourth is about more than that.

It’s about remembering those who fought for our freedoms. And those still fighting today. Congressman Lee Terry used to understand that.

When George Bush asked, Congressman Terry voted to fully fund our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. And, last year he said, quote, “We must give our military every resource it needs.”

Seems like Congressman Terry is playing politics now … Last month Congressman Terry voted AGAINST funding for those same troops. It’s true: vote No. 348 – you can look it up.

Versions of the ads are reportedly going to be run against seven Republican members: Reps. Ken Calvert (R-CA), Charlie Dent (R-PA), Jim Gerlach (R-PA), Dan Lungren (R-CA), Mike McCaul (R-TX), Lee Terry (R-NE) and Joe Wilson (R-SC). The DCCC insists that it is simply pointing out that “[w]hen George Bush was president, Republicans were quick to criticize anyone who voted against the supplemental bills that fund the troops as against the troops. But now that Republicans are trying to score political points, they have flip flopped on troop funding.”

This, however, is not really the case. On May 14, when the House voted on its version of the supplemental — which did not include the IMF funding and a number of other changes to which many Republicans ultimately objected — 168 Republicans voted in favor of the bill. In fact, every single member whom the DCCC is targeting with its patriotism-themed ads voted for initial passage of the war funding.

Steve Benen writes, “As a substantive, policy matter, lawmakers can have completely legitimate reasons for voting against military spending measures, and opposition to these expenditures does not make one an unpatriotic terrorist sympathizer.”

On multiple occasions, ThinkProgress has criticized Republicans and conservatives for questioning the patriotism of those who were critical of the Bush administration’s policies — it’s not any more acceptable when Democrats question Republicans’ patriotism in a similar fashion.

Yglesias

Popular Music and Social Democracy

michael_jackson_1984

Cato’s Ilya Shapiro says Michael Jackson makes the case for capitalism:

The King of Pop’s creativity allowed him and his family to make hundreds of millions of dollars, yes, but it also created thousands of jobs in the music and marketing industries and brought joy to fans around the world. Whatever his personal eccentricities — perhaps, in part, as a result of them — Jackson represents a capitalist success story.

No central planner could have invented him, and no government bureaucracy could have transformed pop music in the way he did.

It’s unquestionably true that central planning’s record in pop music is extremely poor, though they did okay in film, but this seems to have limited relevance to our current policy debates. Suppose that Jackson had paid somewhat higher taxes over the course of his career, and that the funds had gone to provide nutritious meals to poor children? I think the world of pop music would have been just about as strong under that scenario, but America as a whole would also be a stronger and more just society. After all, among non-Anglophone countries I think you’d have to say that it’s Sweden which has had the most pop music success. High tax rates don’t seem to discourage their music entrepreneurs.

What’s more, if you consider musicians operating outside of the “child star with horribly abusive father” paradigm, I think it’s clear that a more social democratic system is going to be advantageous. Consider that in the United States quitting your day job to focus on your promising band can have dire implications for your ability to obtain health insurance. This is particularly the case if you have the misfortune of a pre-existing medical condition. An up-and-coming Canadian or British guitarist is taking a financial risk by choosing to focus on the band, but an American can be really putting his life on the line.

Politics

McCain says the House is ‘almost under an autocracy now with Speaker Pelosi.’

During an appearance on a local radio station in Phoenix, AZ this morning, a caller asked Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) when Republican leaders were going to emerge in Congress to “wake the American people up” to the “cap-and-tax” bill. “Why can’t we get the House members and the Senate members to just walk out on what the Democrats are doing?” the caller asked. In response, McCain said that the GOP lawmakers — particularly his House colleagues — have to stay and fight, even though they are working under Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-CA) authoritarian rule:

McCAIN: We’re fighting every single day. You don’t want to leave the arena; you want to stay in it and fight. And I guarantee you we are using every parliamentary possibility we have and I have great sympathy for my friends in the House because it’s almost under an autocracy now with Speaker Pelosi.

Watch it:

For the House to be an autocracy, Pelosi would have appointed herself ruler and would possess unlimited power. Even if she expressed any desire for this outcome (something she hasn’t done), then American democracy, the electoral process, and the Constitution’s system of checks and balances would prevent that from happening.

Transcript: Read more

Security

Ramallah And Ofra: Just Down The Road, But A World Apart

Our guest blogger is Brian Katulis, a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

katulistrip As I’ve written on the Center’s website and posted on Foreign Policy.com, I’ve been on a trip to Israel, the West Bank, and Jerusalem for the past week and a half, and yesterday afternoon I had a dizzying experience in the span of a few hours. The second part of my trip is with a delegation organized by Academic Exchange, in partnership with the Milken Institute and the Yitzhak Rabin Center, and we have had an excellent set of meetings.

Thursday afternoon, we went from the controversial Israeli settlement Ofra to meetings just a few miles down the road in Ramallah with Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Saeb Erekat, a chief Palestinian negotiator for years. Then we headed back into Jerusalem, where we got stuck in traffic due to heavy security for a gay pride parade, which, unlike previous years, fortunately was held without any violence.

Our afternoon started out in Ofra with a discussion by Israel Harel, a leading Israeli settler and columnist in the Israeli newspaper Ha’aretz. With about 3,000 residents, Ofra is a settlement northeast of Ramallah in the West Bank — it was one of the first settlements set up by the Gush Emunim movement in the 1970s. It is currently at the center of a legal and political battle inside of Israel over certain parcels of land and housing units — at a time when the United States and other countries have placed a higher priority on the settlement question.

This article outlines the issues at play in the most recent legal case involving Ofra. Israel’s Ministry of Justice confirmed land that the World Zionist Organization, acting as an agent for the Israeli government, leased to a family in Ofra, even though the leased land was actually Palestinian private property. The case is still pending in Israel’s Supreme Court, and it has several complicated wrinkles, like many other similar cases. And this is just one case — some Israeli groups have raised broader questions about the legality of other parts of Ofra, which is distant from the Green Line between the West Bank and Israel and is connected to Jerusalem by a road built for Israeli settlers.

As Harel gave us a tour of the settlement, he had some strong words to say about the Obama administration’s recent push to get a settlement freeze, which he strongly opposed (no big surprise there). Harel said he was worried that Obama was spending so much time learning the names of things like a small settlement outpost that Obama mentioned in a recent public statement. In his view, with the situation in Afghanistan and threats like a nuclear Pakistan, he thought the American president’s focus on small settlement outposts was misplaced. Read more

Yglesias

Manhattan Project

Apparently the GOP substitute amendment for the Waxman-Markey bill is called the New Manhattan Project. As it happens, the policy initiatives outlined in the bill don’t appear to resemble the Manhattan Project in any particularly clear way, which I suppose is for the best since developing an innovative new super-weapon is unlikely to solve any of our energy problems.

That said, doesn’t it seem noteworthy that the original Manhattan Project was just the kind of big government boondoggle that contemporary conservatives would lambaste as doomed to failure? After all, central planning doesn’t work. If you want a usable nuclear weapon, you need to cut taxes on capital gains and marginal rates on high-income individuals. That will spur investment and innovation. Everyone knows that! After all, that’s why NASA had to fake the Moon landing.

Culture

How Much Does Vince Carter Help the Magic

There’s something bewitching about the idea of “surrounding Dwight Howard with three All-Stars” but when you put a guy who’s traditionally been a high-volume shooter onto a new team you need to ask at whose expense are the shots going to come. Consider the True Shooting Efficiency (that’s field goal percentage adjusted to take into account free throws and thee pointers) of various current and former Magic players:

magicefficiency

Simply replacing Courtney Lee’s shots with Carter’s doesn’t help. And if Carter’s offense comes at the expense of touches for Nelson, Howard, or Rashard Lewis the impact is strongly negative. But insofar as Carter’s shooting crowds out shots by Hedo and Pietrus, then you’re moving forward.

One thing to keep an eye on as we watch the Magic next year is that just based on the fact that Howard and Nelson are young, we would expect this team to get better—especially if Nelson stays healthy and productive for the whole year. It’s conceivable that superior team performance will then be undeservedly attributed to Carter.

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up