A greener 4th of July.
A greener 4th of July.
Scientists are increasingly worried that the beautiful fireworks millions of Americans will be watching this Independence Day contain toxic chemicals that may pose a threat to the environment. A particular focus is perchlorate, which helps “create the combustion reaction needed for the explosion.” According to a 2009 article in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, “the amount of perchlorate in nearby bodies of water could increase by anywhere from 24 to 1,068 times the amount present before the fireworks, and that it takes 20 to 80 days for the chemical levels to subside.” When ingested, perchlorate can hinder the thyroid’s production of growth hormones. In response, some chemists are looking for other solutions, including cleaner-burning fireworks that use nitrate-based oxidants.
- Comments
- 95
Media Outlet Refuses To Run Republican TV Ad Filled With Misrepresentations Of Clean Energy Bill
Media Outlet Refuses To Run Republican TV Ad Filled With Misrepresentations Of Clean Energy Bill
This afternoon, Roanoke television station WDBJ-TV, announced they will be refusing to air a National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) ad attacking freshman Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA), citing factual inaccuracies. The NRCC had been planning to run television ads against Democratic members of Congress, like Perriello, who voted for the Waxman-Markey clean energy economy legislation that passed last week. After receiving information about the factual inaccuracies in the ad, the station pulled it from rotation.
For any objective observer, the the ad is pulled out of thin air. The ads erroneously state that the bill will “destroy jobs” and “cost middle-class families $1,800 a year.” According to a study by the Center for American Progress, clean energy economy legislation will create 1.7 million American jobs while simultaneously addressing climate change by capping carbon dioxide emissions. The $1,800 figure used by NRCC is also made of whole cloth. The Congressional Budget Office has scored the bill and found that by 2020, the annual cost would be about $175 per household — about a postage stamp a day. An EPA estimate of the bill found similar results, projecting the cost to be about $80 to $111 per a year.
Still refusing to accept reality, the Republican leadership is instructing its members to lie about the clean energy economy bill:
– Last week, Republican whip Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) posted a message erroneously claiming that clean energy legislation will amount to “a national energy tax of up to $3,100 on all Americans.”
– Republican leader Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) posted on his website that the clean energy bill will cost “$3,100 a year,” then modified that number to “$3,000 per household per year.”
– Republican conference chair Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN), not to be outdone, claimed the clean energy bill would be “over $4,000 a year.”
All the numbers cited by Republicans are at least seventeen times the highest possible projection by the CBO and EPA.
Clearly, Republicans opposed to the clean energy bill seem willing to justify their opposition using outright falsehoods. But fortunately, at least some stations are not willing to propagate it.
John Podesta: Clean Energy Bill Is ‘Imperfect In Its Means,’ But ‘Revolutionary In Its Intent’
John Podesta: Clean Energy Bill Is ‘Imperfect In Its Means,’ But ‘Revolutionary In Its Intent’
John Podesta, the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress, is calling on progressives to support the passage of “revolutionary” global warming legislation, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454). The bill has received some criticisms from progressive bloggers and activists. A vote in the House of Representatives is expected this Friday, June 26th.
Once again, Mick Jagger is right: “You can’t always get what you want/ But if you try, sometimes you just might find/ You get what you need.” The House of Representatives is poised for its first ever floor debate on legislation to reduce global warming pollution. This landmark bill is revolutionary in its intent and, while imperfect in its means, deserves the support of progressives.
For about the cost of a postage stamp per day, the bill would lay the foundation for a thriving clean energy economy, by establishing greenhouse gas pollution limits, setting the first national renewable electricity and efficiency standards for utilities, and improving efficiency standards for buildings and appliances.
The original draft included a more aggressive 2020 greenhouse gas reduction target and a higher renewable electricity standard, which if restored would create more clean energy jobs than the current compromise.
Unfortunately, Senate passage of similar legislation will be more difficult, and the Senate Energy Committee is off to an inauspicious beginning by passing an energy bill that would do little to boost investments in renewable electricity. The Senate bill is weak, toothless, and unacceptable.
The Congressional will to act lags far behind the scientific evidence that there is little time left to avert the worst impacts of global warming. But passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act this week by the House will give us a chance to start the critical transition to a low-carbon economy.
Gingrich-Run Coal Company Front Group Airing Anti-Climate Legislation TV Ads
Gingrich-Run Coal Company Front Group Airing Anti-Climate Legislation TV Ads
Newt Gingrich’s 527 organization, American Solutions for Winning the Future (ASWF), took to the airwaves yesterday in opposition to the Waxman-Markey clean energy reform bill. The 30-second attack ad falls highlights the Gingrich-inspired Republican strategy of calling the bill a “national energy tax”:
Now Congress is about to make things dramatically worse by passing a new national energy tax. We’ll lose more jobs, pay more for gas and electricity, pushing our economy to its breaking point. Stop the national energy tax, call your member of Congress before it’s too late.
Contradicting ASWF’s “energy tax” attack, a Congressional Budget Office analysis of Waxman-Markey found that the legislation only costs the equivalent of a postage stamp a day, while sharply cutting greenhouse gas emissions. Watch the ASWF ad:
An investigative piece by the Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson exposed Gingrich’s American Solutions as a front group for Peabody Energy, the world’s largest coal company. ASWF raked in over a quarter-million dollars in contributions in 2008 from the coal juggernaut, while receiving much of its remaining funding from a host of right-wing billionaires including casino kingpin Sheldon Adelson.
As climate change reform comes closer to a reality, expect to see more fear-mongering from these fossil-fueled front groups. Yesterday the GOP sent candles to lawmakers to “thank” Obama for “taxing our lights out.” Republicans called for the construction of 100 new nuclear power plants that same day. The fossil-fuel-dependent future promoted by Gingrich’s front group is catastrophic, as it “ignores the nightmarish damages that would be caused to our air, water and climate.”
GOP distributes candles to ‘thank’ Obama for ‘taxing our lights out.’
GOP distributes candles to ‘thank’ Obama for ‘taxing our lights out.’
The Republican National Committee has sent candles to lawmakers on Capitol Hill and released a web video claiming climate legislation will “tax our lights out.” Notes attached to the candles protest the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), claiming that the bill’s cap on global warming pollution will make it impossible for Americans to use electricity:
If Democrats pass ‘Cap and Tax,’ this is all the energy American families and businesses will be able to afford. Don’t tax our lights out!
Watch the video:
In reality, the Congressional Budget Office found last Friday “that the net annual economy-wide cost of the cap-and-trade program in 2020 would be $22 billion — or about $175 per household” — less than the cost of a postage stamp a day. The CBO analysis, done at the request of Rep. Dave Camp (R-MI), found that the 23 million Americans “in the lowest income quintile — would see an average net benefit of about $40 in 2020.”
The point is that we need to be clear about who are the realists and who are the fantasists here. The realists are actually the climate activists, who understand that if you give people in a market economy the right incentives they will make big changes in their energy use and environmental impact. The fantasists are the burn-baby-burn crowd who hate the idea of using government for good, and therefore insist that doing the right thing is economically impossible.
GOP ‘Rural American Solutions Group’ Peddles Coal Company Document As Its Own
GOP ‘Rural American Solutions Group’ Peddles Coal Company Document As Its Own
Leaders of a new GOP group, the “Rural American Solutions Group,” are distributing a document attacking climate change legislation as an economic burden to most of the country. As it turns out, the information in the press release was provided to the Republican congressmen by Peabody Energy, a juggernaut of the coal industry. Staffers for GOP Reps. Frank Lucas (R-OK), Sam Graves (R-MO), and Doc Hastings (R-WA) are emailing around a map that purports to detail “how the Democrats’ National Energy Tax unfairly targets rural Americans.”
A closer look at the source of the image reveals the document’s origins:
Two employees of Peabody Energy are listed in the metadata of the map document: Chairman and CEO Greg Boyce and Communications Manager Chris Taylor. The congressmen opposing climate change legislation — Reps. Lucas, Graves, and Hastings — are simply copying-and-pasting information that has been directly fed to them by Peabody Energy.
Peabody Energy’s outsized political influence is well-documented:
– From 2004 to 2008, the Peabody Energy PAC contributed $579,538 to federal candidates including Rep. Sam Graves and Rep. Frank Lucas. In 2008, Peabody contributed $150,290; $180,500 in 2006; $130,250 in 2004; $118,498 in 2002. [Opensecrets]
– Peabody Is An $8.4 Million Lobbying Juggernaut. Peabody Energy directly spent over $8.4 million lobbying Congress in 2008, up 3,200 percent from 2004, as legislation to limit coal pollution became an election-year issue. In addition, the Peabody-supported front groups ACCCE and the National Mining Association spent a further $9.95 million and $4.56 million respectively on lobbying efforts. [OpenSecrets]
Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda
Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda
In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) — who campaigned hard against President Obama during the 2008 election and supported his Republican challenger John McCain — said that he’s impressed with how Obama is handling the job.
“Put me down now as pleasantly encouraged by the first five months,” Lieberman said. “He has been strong, particularly on foreign policy. I think President Obama is off to a very, very good start in a very difficult time in our nation’s history.” Lieberman lauded Obama’s recent Cairo speech to the Muslim world, saying it was a “significant step overall. … My guess is he opened some minds in the Muslim world.”
Despite the laudatory comments of Obama’s foreign policy vision, Lieberman offered criticism of the president’s efforts to urge Israel to stop its settlement activities. “I thought the focus on the President’s direct call in that speech in Cairo for the Israelis to freeze all settlement activity — including the ‘natural growth‘ of settlements that everybody agrees are no longer settlements — …that was risky in the sense that it may lead listeners to believe that the main reason there is not an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is the Israeli settlement policy,” he said:
HUNT: Do you disagree then with the President and Secretary Clinton that there ought to be a freeze — no growth in those settlements now?
LIEBERMAN: I do. I disagree.
Watch it:
On Obama’s domestic agenda, Lieberman announced his opposition to a public health insurance option. “I don’t favor a public option, and I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market,” he argued. (He’s wrong.) Lieberman warned that political pressure in favor of the public option may thwart efforts at achieving health care reform. “Let’s get something done instead of having a debate,” he said.
Separately, Lieberman said he “could support” the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation in the House. “It’s a great act of legislative leadership,” he added, saying the critical issue is convincing “people from states that get a lot of their electricity from coal-burning power plants that we can make this change without skyrocketing the cost of living and the cost of doing business.”
Joe Barton: Democratic clean energy bill is ‘C.R.A.P.’
Joe Barton: Democratic clean energy bill is ‘C.R.A.P.’
Yesterday, House Republicans unveiled their alternative to the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454), energy reform legislation that sets standards for renewable energy and global warming pollution. After Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) introduced the Republican “nuclear option,” they returned to attacking the Democratic plan as a “national energy tax.” Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), a prominent global warming denier and top recipient of dirty energy contributions, used potty humor in his attack:
They like to call it ACES but I call it C.R.A.P. — continue ruining America’s prosperity.
In fact, it is the lack of clean energy and global warming policies that has given this country record gas prices and devastating climate disasters. A clean energy economy can restore America’s prosperity. A new study from the Pew Charitable Trusts finds that “the number of jobs in America’s emerging clean energy economy grew nearly two and a half times faster than overall jobs between 1998 and 2007.”
House GOP energy plan declares that impact of global warming ‘shall not be considered for any purpose.’
House GOP energy plan declares that impact of global warming ‘shall not be considered for any purpose.’
House Republicans today introduced their alternative energy plan. Developed by the Republican American Energy Solutions Group, the American Energy Act is billed as an “all of the above” energy program. But as The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson notes, the legislation looks more like an attempt to legislate the threat of global warming “out of existence.” Indeed, the bill specifically states that at no point in implementing their energy plan can the effects of global warming on the environment “be considered for any purpose”:
Johnson remarks, “The Republican response to our dependence on fossil fuels and their pollution is to give billions of dollars in new tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.”
Franchise defends its ‘Global warming is baloney’ signs: Burger King is acting like ‘cockroaches.’
Franchise defends its ‘Global warming is baloney’ signs: Burger King is acting like ‘cockroaches.’
The Memphis Flyer recently caught multiple local Burger King restaurants sporting big “Global Warming is Baloney” signs. The Burger King corporation quickly distanced itself from the controversy: “The two restaurants where these signs appeared are independently owned and operated and were not authorized to display this statement. The signs have since been removed.” However, Leo Hickman of the Guardian reports that many of the signs are still up, and the corporation in charge of the franchises — a Memphis-based company called the Mirabile Investment Corporation — is defending its position:
Media attempts to contact MIC to establish why it was taking an apparently defiant stance were rebuffed, but the Guardian managed to grill MIC’s marketing president, John McNelis.
“I would think [Burger King] would run from any form of controversy kinda like cockroaches when the lights get turned on,” said Mr McNelis. “I’m not aware of any direction that they gave the franchisee and I don’t think they have the authority to do it.”
McNelis added: “The [restaurant] management team can put the message up there if they want to. It is private property and here in the US we do have some rights. … Burger King can bluster all they want about what they can tell the franchisee to do, but we have free-speech rights in this country so I don’t think there’s any concerns.”
Susan Robison, vice president of corporate communications for BKC, responded that “BKC has guidelines for signage used by franchisees [which] were not followed. We have asked the franchisee to remove the signage and have been told that the franchisee will comply.”
West Virginia declares bituminous coal the official state rock.
West Virginia declares bituminous coal the official state rock.
Gov. Joe Manchin (D-WV) has made coal the official state rock of his state. According to the West Virgina Coal Association, the teen-aged daughter of a coal company employee “got the measure placed before the state legislature this year with the help of Sen. Truman Chafin (D-Mingo) and Del. Harry Keith White (D-Mingo).” On Wednesday, Manchin signed the resolution into law:
Bituminous coal is now West Virginia’s official state rock. Gov. Joe Manchin has signed a House of Delegates resolution making the designation based primarily on coal’s contribution to the state’s economy and history.
Despite $118 million in coal-mining annual income, West Virginia has the nation’s lowest median household income, worst educational services, worst social assistance, the highest population with disabilities, and nearly a quarter of West Virginia children in poverty. (HT: Grist)
Burger King distances itself from franchise’s ‘Global Warming is Baloney’ signs.
Burger King distances itself from franchise’s ‘Global Warming is Baloney’ signs.
The Memphis Flyer recently caught multiple local Burger King franchises sporting a big “Global Warming is Baloney” sign. When reporter Chris Davis called one of restaurants to ask about the sign, employees initially denied that the sign was there. When they finally admitted that it was, they claimed that “Global Warming is Baloney” is the official opinion of the Burger King corporation:
BK: The sign was put up yesterday.
Me: And it’s not a mistake?
BK: No.
Me: It reflects the opinion of BK international?
BK: Yes. Would you like to talk to the home office? I can give you a number.
Me: I’ve got the number, I’ve already contacted them. Thanks.
On Friday, however, Susan Robison, Vice President of Corporate Communications for the Burger King Corporation, told the Flyer that the signs do not “reflect a Burger King Corp. (BKC) opinion or view. The two restaurants where these signs appeared are independently owned and operated and were not authorized to display this statement. The signs have since been removed.” (HT: AMERICAblog)
Fissures Grow In Right-Wing Business Lobby As Caterpillar Speaks Out In Favor Of Clean Energy Legislation
Fissures Grow In Right-Wing Business Lobby As Caterpillar Speaks Out In Favor Of Clean Energy Legislation
Yesterday, President Obama sat down with members of his Economic Recovery Advisory Board to discuss the pending Waxman-Markey energy reform legislation. One of the advisers is James Owens, who is the CEO of Caterpillar and also a member of the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the right-wing trade group that has taken a hard-line approach against any energy reform that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. When the President asked Owens if he saw a “competitive disadvantage” as a “big manufacturer” in dealing with energy reform, Owens said placing a cap on carbon would actually spur innovation:
OWENS: I agree with Jeff. I think we have the technology, we have the smarts here, and the product technologies, the economic incents of what’s needed. And that’s why I think of us in industry support a clarity around a carbon price, because that’s going to drive a lot of innovation and a lot of efficiency and will get with the program of reducing carbon emissions.
Owens continued laying out his support of clean energy legislation, noting most of Caterpillar’s renewable energy related products are currently sold “outside the United States…partly because of the way we regulate emissions site-specific, as opposed to looking at combined emissions and energy efficiency.” He also emphasized that giving the markets a price for carbon would “help our country be more competitive using the technologies that are out there.”
Owen’s increasingly outspoken tone comes at a time of tectonic shifts in the business community on clean energy. Currently, some of the most powerful traditional business trade groups — the Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers — are devoting their efforts to “kill” clean energy reform legislation. But member corporations of these groups are at odds with this approach. The Natural Resources Defense Council conducted a study of the Chamber’s board members’ position on climate change legislation and found:
And out of the group of businesses that have publicly stated their positions, 19 favored federal action and only four opposed it. And three of those four are coal-mining companies.
Earlier this month, the utility company Duke Energy announced it would abandon its membership to the NAM over the trade group’s radical opposition to climate change legislation. When ThinkProgress asked NAM’s chief energy lobbyist about Duke Energy’s departure, NAM cowered and tried to hide its position. Similarly, member corporations such as Nike and Johnson and Johnson have applied pressure to the Chamber to drop its opposition to clean energy legislation.
With Caterpillar and other corporations calling for action on clean energy, the question becomes: will the NAM and other trade groups continue to lobby and fund ads opposing this legislation, or will member corporations find more relevant trade groups that will advance their interests in Washington?
Barton: We Shouldn’t Regulate CO2 Because ‘It’s In Your Coca-Cola’ And ‘You Can’t Regulate God’
Barton: We Shouldn’t Regulate CO2 Because ‘It’s In Your Coca-Cola’ And ‘You Can’t Regulate God’
Yesterday, the House Energy and Commerce Committee began its markup of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. The work is expected to continue through the week, as Republicans plan to stall movement on the bill by offering more than 400 amendments.
Discussing the bill on C-Span’s Washington Journal this morning, Rep. “Smokey Joe” Barton (R-TX) defended his head-in-the-sand approach to climate change by fundamentally misunderstanding the science, misstating the reality of carbon dioxide emissions, and mocking fuel-efficient cars. Some highlights:
– “I would also point out that CO2, carbon dioxide, is not a pollutant in any normal definition of the term. … I am creating it as I talk to you. It’s in your Coca-Cola, you’re Dr. Pepper, your Perrier water. It is necessary for human life. It is odorless, colorless, tasteless, does not cause cancer, does not cause asthma.”
– “And something that the Democrat sponsors do not point out, a lot of the CO2 that is created in the United States is naturally created. You can’t regulate God. Not even the Democratic majority in the US Congress can regulate God.”
– “If you think greenhouse gases are bad, life couldn’t exist without greenhouse gases. … So, there is a, there is a climate theory — and it’s a theory, it’s not a fact, it’s never been proven — that increasing concentrations of CO2 in the upper atmosphere somehow interact to trap more heat than the atmosphere would otherwise.”
— “You know, that life style is going to become more and more difficult if you get these vehicles smaller and smaller and less and less efficient in terms of being able to travel distances without having to recharge or refuel.”
Watch a compilation:
The idea that since CO2 is “natural” it cannot, by definition, be harmful is a popular one among the conservative climate-denying set — though totally irrelevant. Barton ignores the harmful effects of climate change itself, which will allow diseases to spread more easily, for example. Indeed, the Environmental Protection Agency found that climate change “is expected to worsen regional ozone pollution, with associated risks in respiratory infection, aggravation of asthma, and premature death.”
His complaint about smaller vehicles is also bizarre. He claims these cars will be “less and less efficient” because they will require more refueling stops. But the standards announced by President Obama today will create an average fuel economy rate of 35.5 miles per gallon — meaning cars can go farther between fueling, on less gasoline.
At one point during the C-Span segment, a caller told Barton he sounded like a spokesman for Big Oil. It’s no coincidence: Barton operates a “philanthropic” foundation that actually serves as a front group to funnel energy company funds.
Obama Nominates Superfund Polluter Lawyer To Run DOJ Environment Division
Obama Nominates Superfund Polluter Lawyer To Run DOJ Environment Division
GM cleanup of the Bedford Superfund site.
President Barack Obama has nominated a lawyer for the nation’s largest toxic polluters to run the enforcement of the nation’s environmental laws. On Tuesday, Obama “announced his intent to nominate” Ignacia S. Moreno to be Assistant Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division in the Department of Justice. Moreno, general counsel for that department during the Clinton administration, is now the corporate environmental counsel for General Electric, “America’s #1 Superfund Polluter“:
Number five in the Fortune 500 with revenues of $89.3 billion and earnings of $8.2 billion in 1997, General Electric has been a leader in the effort to roll back the Superfund law and stave off any requirements for full cleanup and restoration of sites they helped create.
This February, General Electric lost an eight-year battle to “prove that parts of the Superfund law are unconstitutional.” One of the 600-person DOJ environmental division’s “primary responsibilities is to enforce federal civil and criminal environmental laws such as” the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Superfund.
Before General Electric, Moreno worked as a corporate attorney at Spriggs and Hollingsworth. Moreno’s name is found in the Westlaw database as an attorney defending General Motors in another Superfund case, the GM Powertrain facility in Bedford, Indiana:
Historical uses and management of PCB containing hydraulic oils and PCB impacted materials has contaminated on-site areas as well as the sediment and floodplain soil within Bailey’s Branch and the Pleasant Run Creek watershed.
Although General Motors entered into an agreement in 2001 with the EPA to clean up the site, a number of local residents whose land has been contaminated by polychorinated biphenyls (PCBs) have sued for damages in Allgood v. GM (now Barlow v. GM), in a contentious and caustic dispute over cleanup, monitoring, and lost property values.
During the Clinton administration, Moreno was involved in another controversial case, unsuccessfully defending the Secretary of Commerce’s decision to weaken the dolphin-safe tuna standard. In Brower v. Daley, Earth Island Institute, The Humane Society of the United States, and other individuals and organizations brought suit against the United States government for actions that were “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and contrary to law,” winning their case in 2000.
Rep. Shadegg Dismisses Rush Limbaugh As Just ‘A Television Personality’
Rep. Shadegg Dismisses Rush Limbaugh As Just ‘A Television Personality’
This morning, Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ) received enthusiastic praise during an appearance on MSNBC’s Morning Joe. (Host Joe Scarborough called him “the wind beneath my wings.”) Scarborough and Shadegg began by agreeing that party leaders like Dick Cheney and Rush Limbaugh were wrong to say that Colin Powell is no longer welcome in the Republican party. When Scarborough asked whether the party was “big enough” for both Cheney and Powell, Shadegg replied, “Absolutely, no question about it.”
Minutes later, however, Shadegg embraced Limbaugh’s position on global warming — even while trying to distance himself from Limbaugh, whom he called just a “television personality”:
O’DONNELL: Do you agree with Rush on global warming?
SHADEGG: I don’t even know what Rush Limbaugh —
O’DONNELL: He believes it’s a fraud and is not happening.
SHADEGG: I believe the far left is making it a fraud by claiming that it has been proven to have been caused solely by man-made greenhouse gases, when that evidence isn’t in. And by rushing to solutions that aren’t yet justified. Now you can decide whether that’s Rush Limbaugh’s position, I don’t actually think it is–
O’DONNELL: Pretty much that’s Rush Limbaugh’s position. Congratulations. You got it right.
SHADEGG: But Rush Limbaugh is a television personality. I don’t think he’s chairman of the Republican Party, last I looked.
Watch it:
Despite his attempt to distance himself from Limbaugh, Shadegg’s head-in-the-sand position on climate change is in effect identical to that of the “television personality.” Just recently, Shadegg claimed that “there is some debate on whether global warming is in fact being caused by man-made greenhouse gases.” In fact, the debate has been long over: Man’s action is contributing to the boiling of the planet, and if the U.S. does not act soon, it will be too late to avert disastrous effects.
Of course, Shadegg’s global warming denial received no criticism from the Morning Joe crew. O’Donnell praised his climate change stance: “The way he plays against the global warming issue and Henry Waxman and all that sounds very reasonable.” Mika Brzezinski agreed: “Absolutely!” However, O’Donnell quickly added that Shadegg “does want to kill [energy legislation] completely.”
How long before Shadegg — like so many before him — is forced to apologize to the easily-affronted RADIO host for dismissing his influence?
Transcript: More »
Glenn Beck Exhales And States: ‘Look How Much Pollution I Just Put Out!’
Glenn Beck Exhales And States: ‘Look How Much Pollution I Just Put Out!’
On his Fox News show today, comedian Glenn Beck interviewed Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY) to mock the danger of global warming. In what he billed as an “Inconvenient Segment,” Beck argued that a “smoking gun” memo proves that the proposed Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) finding on the threat of global warming pollution is based on politics instead of science.
“It turns out, the truth that’s inconvenient is that it’s not like any of this stuff is based on, you know, science. It’s all politics,” Beck said of the danger of carbon pollution. He concluded:
By the way, just so you know, this show has won so many science awards, sometimes we get talking about high-falutin science things like this, and people are like, “What are you talkin’ about?” So let me break it down. Carbon dioxide is basically this. (Exhales.) Look at how much pollution I just put out.
Watch it:
Unless you eat fossil fuels, spewing hot air from one’s mouth is not a major source for pollution…except for Glenn Beck.
Barrasso told Beck that the Obama administration is using the threat of EPA regulation of carbon dioxide “as a club to force cap-and-trade taxes,” but that he is using this memo to say, “Hey look, the science isn’t behind you.”
As Office of Management and Budget (OMB) director Peter Orszag explained, however, the White House agreed that the “proposed finding is carefully rooted in both law and science,” and the “OMB simply collated and collected disparate comments from various agencies during the inter-agency review process of the proposed finding.” The author of the skeptical comments forwarded by the OMB was Joseph M. Johnson, a Bush administration holdover in the Small Business Administration’s Office of Advocacy. In 2005, Johnson joined the SBA from the Mercatus Center, an anti-regulatory think tank founded by right-wing pollution giant Koch Industries.
Get your coal ringtones!
Get your coal ringtones!
The coal industry has taken incredible pains to make coal seem “clean,” “affordable,” and even “adorable.” In December, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity notoriously launched a campaign featuring animated lumps of coal singing Christmas carols. Now, the West Virginia Coal Association has posted six “Coal is West Virginia Ringtones.” Among the tunes are the “New Orleans Mix,” “Male Voice Choir (Up Tempo Mix),” and “Gospel Mix.” A sampling of the lyrics:
Coal is West Virginia,
Coal is me and you.
Coal is West Virginia,
We’ve got a job to do.
Coal is energy,
Coal is energy,
We need energy!
New Oil Lobbyist Group Targets Democratic Congressmen With Anti-Clean Energy Ads
New Oil Lobbyist Group Targets Democratic Congressmen With Anti-Clean Energy Ads
The largest U.S. energy companies increased lobbyist spending by 30% in 2008 to influence energy and climate change legislation. Some of those funds are now going towards the creation of the American Energy Alliance, a new off-shoot of Institute for Energy Research.
The American Energy Alliance is headed by an oil industry lobbyist named Thomas J. Pyle. Before joining AEA, Pyle was a policy adviser to former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX). Pyle’s former employer was among the top recipients of oil industry campaign contributions from 1998 to 2004, raking in $498,375 according to the Center for Public Integrity. Pyle then went to work for the oil-giant, Koch Industries.
The American Energy Alliance is airing radio ads in the home districts of moderate Democrats in order to press legislators to vote against the Waxman-Markey clean energy bill. Here’s a list of the Democrats being targeted by the ads:
– John Barrow (D-GA)
– G.K. Butterfield (D-NC)
– Mike Doyle (D-PA)
– Charlie Gonzalez (D-TX)
– Baron Hill (D-IN)
– Jim Matheson (D-UT)
– Charlie Melancon (D-LA)
– Tim Murphy (R-PA)
– Mike Ross (D-AR)
– Betty Sutton (D-OH)
The ad repeats the debunked $3,100 lie that energy companies and their conservative allies have been pushing for weeks. Listen to the AEA anti-clean energy ad:
Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson OC Register: ‘There’s no evidence CO2 is harmful.’
Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson OC Register: ‘There’s no evidence CO2 is harmful.’
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) recently downplayed the threat of global warming by arguing that the harmful pollutant carbon dioxide is simply a “natural byproduct of nature.” Following the same logic, Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson writes:
There’s no evidence man-made CO2, even if it increases temperatures, is harmful. Indeed, some argue that warmer climes would benefit mankind by increasing crop productivity and reducing deaths from severe cold. None of that matters when government is intent on forcing change.
Climate Progress’s Joe Romm notes that the Washington Post op-ed pages also feature the rantings of global warming deniers George Will and Charles Krauthammer, in addition to Samuelson. The Wonk Room’s Brad Johnson writes, “One wonders when their paymasters, Washington Post opinion page editor Fred Hiatt and Writers Group editor Alan Shearer, are going to get embarrassed.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll