Okay, this has nothing at all to do with the environment, but it would just be cruel to deny our readers the pleasure: Head over to Think Progress and listen to a clip from the new song "Bush Was Right" by The Right Brothers, soon to be in regular rotation on MTV -- unless dastardly liberal bias prevents it! (Seriously, listen to the sound clip. It will make your day. Possibly your year. Perhaps your life.)
A juicy bit of breaking news from the Washington Post: A White House document shows that executives from big oil companies met with Vice President Cheney's energy task force in 2001 -- something long suspected by environmentalists but denied as recently as last week by industry officials testifying before Congress. ... The executives were not under oath when they testified, so they are not vulnerable to charges of perjury; committee Democrats had protested the decision by Commerce Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) not to swear in the executives. But a person can be fined or imprisoned for up to five years for making "any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or representation" to Congress. Not that there ever was much, but can there be any doubt left about the provenance of Bush administration energy policy?
I keep meaning to look more closely into the Abramoff scandals, particularly since they're now creeping into the Department of the Interior, where they look set to burn once-lobbyist, then-Deputy Secretary of Interior, then-lobbyist-again Steven Griles, who never received quite the full-throated demonization from green groups that he deserved. If all the ins-and-outs confuse you, Carl Pope has provided a cogent summary. It ends thusly: You read it here first -- despite the still unfolding news about Senate Majority leader Bill Frist's blind trust and Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski's denial of a conflict of interest in building a "bridge to nowhere" near land her family owns -- the maze of money exchanges and influence buying at the Interior department may turn out to be the biggest financial scandals of the Bush administration. I'm guessing they lie somewhere within the as yet barely probed innards of the Department. And if my hunch proves correct, I'll bet it won't just be Indian gaming that's involved -- Alaska's oil wealth will be somewhere in the picture. Another Teapot Dome scandal appears to be brewing.
Joel Makower brings word of Sun Microsystems' splashy introduction of a new energy-efficient processor that it will debut in servers by the end of the year, helping reduce the enormous power load it takes to run ginormous server farms like, say, Amazon.com's. This is very cool stuff, and long overdue -- most people aren't aware of just how energy-intensive computer technology is. I hope Sun gets some good PR points. But more interesting to me on a personal level is Sun's "thin-client" strategy.
I was remiss in not linking to the first one of these, so: Don't miss the second Carnival of the Green.
This op-ed by Charles Krauthammer fairly captures the current conventional wisdom on energy policy: demand is rising, supply is tight, and so the answer is to decrease demand (conserve) and increase supply (drill in the Arctic Refuge and off shore). The really amusing part is that the conceit -- nay, the headline -- is "let the market decide energy policy." But then there's this: We have a unique but fleeting opportunity to permanently depress demand by locking in higher gasoline prices. Put a floor at $3. Every penny that the price goes under $3 should be recaptured in a federal gas tax so that Americans pay $3 at the pump no matter how low the world price goes. Um. Wouldn't a stiff gas tax kind of influence the market's decisions about energy policy? And there's this:
The Daily Show's Jon Stewart on the recent Senate hearings featuring oil executives: funny. (Watch the video here.) Among other things, he refers to Exxon CEO Lee Raymond as "Gassington Jowls," which I should have thought of.
This is pretty cool:U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar today joined Sens. Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Barack Obama (D-IL) in introducing the Fuel Security and Consumer Choice Act. This bill would require all U.S. marketed vehicles to be manufactured as Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) within ten years. FFVs can use both regular gasoline and E-85 renewable fuel (motor fuel with 85 percent ethanol content). This capability would ensure access to an important alternative to foreign petroleum in the future as the nation's renewable fuels industry continues to expand rapidly. ... The bill would require 10 percent of vehicles sold in the U.S. be FFVs within 18 months of passage. The requirement would increase by 10 percent for each subsequent model year resulting in all new vehicles being FFVs within ten years.
While Fox moves toward sanity, the rest of the news biz moves toward Fox. Exhibit A: On Sunday, while Fox is educating its viewers on global warming, CBS's 60 Minutes will be producing a breathless piece of hype on "Eco-Terror's Growing Threat." Growing according to who? Why, the FBI, of course, and far be it from a group of journalists to do anything but pass on the FBI's latest talking points. Eco-terrorists have never killed or even hurt anybody, so it's a bit tricky to try to make them look like the nation's biggest threat. Here's one way to do it: Dig up some fruitloop who says they ought to kill people. A spokesman for extreme animal rights groups believes killing humans is justified. "I think people who torture innocent beings should be stopped," says Dr. Jerry Vlasak, a California trauma surgeon. "If they won't stop when you ask them nicely, they don't stop when you demonstrate to them what they're doing is wrong, then they should be stopped using whatever means are necessary." Eco-terrorists: The Nation's Biggest Hypothetical Threat! Ask yourself this: If you put white-supremacy groups up against "eco-terror" groups and compared property damage done, lives lost or hurt, and willingness of spokespeople to say batshit crazy things on TV, who do you think would come out ahead? Why do you think the FBI is focused so intensely on one and not the other? Could it have something to do with whose interests are threatened?
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.