Well, there isn't much out there specifically on Alito's environmental record. It's fairly clear where he's coming from, though. This is a classically Bushian (Roveian?) maneuver. Alito is a big fat red flag on the abortion issue, waved in front of both sides' bulls. You can bet the sturm und drang of the coming weeks will focus almost exclusively on abortion and other social-conservative issues. This is the fight the Angry White Men of Bush's base want, and it's a fight for which abortion-rights defenders are perpetually geared up. Meanwhile, as Brad Plumer astutely notes, the real story here is that Alito is a favorite of the business community. As with his constitution-in-exile brethren, he can be expected to take every opportunity to limit the ability of Congress to regulate the private sector. No doubt he has deep philosophical justifications for this pattern of rulings, but of course in practice he'll just be another soldier in the corporatist army. The political party he'll be enabling has no interest in small or limited government. It's possible to imagine Bush nominating a business-friendly judge that isn't hardcore on social-conservative issues -- indeed, it could be argued that both Roberts and Miers fit that bill. But can you imagine Bush nominating someone who's hardcore on social-conservative issues but soft on federalism, the commerce clause, and other biz-related issues? The question answers itself. Why the Republican base allows itself to be played again and again by an administration whose central and only real allegiance is to corporate cronyism is an enduring mystery. But progressives shouldn't take their eye off the ball. (It's worth noting that not everyone thinks federal regulation is necessary to protect the environment. Some folks think it does more harm than good. But if you, along with most mainstream greens -- indeed, most of the American public -- believe the excesses of capitalism require some restraint, it's fair to characterize Alito as anti-environmental.)
Well, Bush has done what he always does when he's in trouble: Made a move designed to be maximally divisive, maximally partisan. The nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court is a declaration of war, an explicit statement that Bush intends to stand with the Angry White Men of the far right to the very end. Much has already been said about Alito's retrograde positions on abortion and commerce-clause related matters. I'm reading around for news on his environmental record. But we can probably guess, right? If you know of environment-related Alito cases, describe them in comments. More later. Update [2005-10-31 10:55:17 by David Roberts]: Here's some good info from EarthJustice. Update [2005-10-31 11:8:3 by David Roberts]: Good collection of links on Alito from Scott Lemieux. Update [2005-10-31 11:28:11 by David Roberts]: As always, tons of great info on Wikipedia and SCOTUSblog.
Pomboo! Never mind turning children into toads — how about turning toad habitat into oil wells? This Halloween, scare the bejesus out of your friends …
So, it looks like Wal-Mart's green turn has some meat on its bones (to mix metaphors). As we noted in DG, CEO H. Lee Scott Jr. announced some fairly specific programs the other day around energy-efficient stores, greenhouse-gas reductions, truck fleet fuel efficiency, packaging reductions, and pressure on overseas suppliers to follow suit. It remains to be seen whether the company will release specific targets and timetables, regularly report its progress, and generally go about this in a transparent way. But it certainly looks, at least at this early stage, like this is a serious company-wide effort. On the other hand, Scott also announced a new employee healthcare plan, only to have a fateful memo leak days later -- a memo that revealed the frighteningly cold calculations behind the company's healthcare policies. Clay Risen has an excellent piece on the memo and related matters at TNR, saying "the thrust of the plan, then, is to slash benefits but make superficial changes to mask the impact of those cuts." Pretty nasty stuff. Now, my question is: How should environmentalists and environmental groups react to all this?
Apparently, as we speak, Oprah is on with Leonardo DiCaprio and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer discussing climate change. Reports from our researcher in the field indicate that Leo is spouting facts and figures and Oprah is embarrassing herself with repeated clips of cute polar bears and cries of "I can feel it!" We can order a transcript for $6, but really I want to see it. Any chance one of you Gristmill readers has a tape or digital file you can send us? This I gotta see.
Here's U.S. News & World Report's list of America's 25 Best Leaders. See any environmentalists in there? Update [2005-10-26 15:36:3 by David Roberts]: Okay, lest I just be sour, let's turn this into a positive exercise. What American environmental leader do you think deserved a place on this list? Leave your candidates in comments.
We're happy to present this guest essay from Joel S. Hirschhorn, author of Sprawl Kills: How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money and former Director of Environment, Energy, and Natural Resources at the National Governors Association. He can be reached through SprawlKills.com. ----- Analyses of the failure of all levels of government to prevent or effectively manage the Katrina calamity in New Orleans have generally missed a crucial point. Alongside bias against poor people and African-Americans is automobile apartheid, born of fifty years of suburban sprawl. First-class citizens drive motor vehicles, second-class Americans walk, cycle, or ride public transit. Certainly many of the latter are poor, but millions more are middle-class Americans. When emergency response largely ignores the plight of second-class citizens, no one should be surprised. Automobile apartheid means anyone who wants mobility through walking, cycling, or public transportation suffers discrimination in a built environment designed for automobiles. In the past 20 years, as automobile addiction has increased, sprawl has run rampant, the number of trips people take by walking has decreased by more than 42 percent, and obesity has skyrocketed. Personal freedom and independence should mean more than the ability to go wherever one wants, whenever one wants. Americans should also have the freedom to travel how they want. When cars are the only option, freedom is diminished.
Well, I managed to wade through Hillary's whole speech to the Cleantech Venture Forum, and let's just say ... she's no Barack. The vast bulk is a fairly tepid summary of current conventional wisdom: energy crisis, get free from foreign oil (grr), promote clean energy and clean cars and energy efficiency, etc. This is all boilerplate stuff, but it's worth celebrating, I suppose, that it is conventional wisdom now. As much as environmentalists lament their own failures, it's pretty remarkable how quickly the green line on energy has taken over and become centrist -- and believe me, despite her reputation in wingnut circles, Hillary wouldn't say it if it wasn't safe and centrist. Unfortunately, the conventional centrist wisdom is not translating into action, as illustrated by Hillary's attempt to list her accomplishments on these issues. This is typical: Quite a few of us in Congress have worked to bridge the gap and put forward proposals for a better energy future. We passed, albeit not as much as we would have wanted, a 10 percent renewable energy standard in the Senate, but the White House rejected it. Huzzah! The one new, "bigger and bolder" (her words) idea is the " Strategic Energy Fund." The SEF would be funded through a tax "alternative energy development fee" on oil companies. This tripped me up:
Reading Hillary Clinton's recent speech (more on that later) reminded me of an old hobbyhorse: As faithful readers will recall, the term "foreign oil" irritates me to no end. Decrying our dependence of foreign oil is just a way of decrying our dependence on oil, period -- with the extra macho credibility that comes with jingoistic, xenophobic overtones. For that reason it's probably politically necessary. But it adds nothing to our substantive understanding of America's energy situation. For a host of geological, economic, social, and environmental reasons, we could never conceivably produce enough "domestic oil" to satisfy our demand -- and anyway, what domestic oil we do produce goes out on the world market like any other oil. The problems that come with dependence on foreign oil and the problems that come with dependence on oil are one in the same. It would make as much sense to decry "liquid oil" or "underground oil." So if you hear the term "foreign oil" from a politician, assume it's accompanied by a wink and a nod. If you hear it from a pundit, assume it's accompanied by confusion. Update [2005-10-25 14:0:34 by David Roberts]: Oh, the whole point of this post was supposed to be: The term "foreign oil" suggests that domestic oil would be okay, and thus supports the scumbags in Congress who are trying to build new refineries on military bases and neuter environmental protections. It doesn't matter that in her speech, Clinton says "a few more refineries and drills won't solve the problem" -- the very term she's using to frame the problem works against that point. Framing, people. Look it up.