GOP presidential candidate John McCain is slated to unveil his plans to address global warming in a speech Monday afternoon in Portland, Ore., where he’ll call climate change a “test of foresight, of political courage, and of the unselfish concern that one generation owes to the next.” McCain will lay out a series of goals for gradually reducing carbon emissions to 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. He’s poised to reiterate his call for a cap-and-trade system, but with expansive leeway for polluting companies to buy carbon offsets instead of reducing their own emissions. He’ll also talk …
Though the nation’s pundits have decided that the primary race is over, someone failed to get Clinton the memo — she is determined to stay in to the bitter end. The next primaries are in West Virginia and Kentucky, states where the number of poor whites is high and consequently the Obama campaign expects to get crushed; there’s a good chance that even if Clinton dropped out tomorrow, she’d still beat Obama in those states. West Virginia and Kentucky are the second and third highest coal-producing states. They have, respectively, the highest and second-highest number of people employed by the …
In his remarks in Jersey City, N.J., on Friday, GOP presidential contender John McCain appeared to offer an off-handed endorsement of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. “I hope it will pass,” he told the crowd, “and I hope the entire Congress will join in supporting it and the president of the United States would sign it.” While he’s offered tepid support for the bill before, he’s hesitated to fully endorse it and has suggested that he’d like to see more subsidies for nuclear energy. Swampland’s Eric Pooley got McCain’s traveling press secretary on the phone for follow up; she suggested …
The science is clear about the reality of global warming and the fact that humans are the dominant cause. But, sadly, that isn't clear to most Republicans. Anybody who thinks the public debate is over -- anybody who thinks the Big Lie doesn't work -- should look at the latest poll results from the Pew Research Center:
Originally posted at the Think Progress Wonk Room. One week ago, tropical cyclone Nargis struck Burma, tracing an unprecedented path of devastation across this poor nation of 55 million, called Myanmar by its military dictatorship. On May 6, Jeff Poor wrote for the Business & Media Institute a story entitled, "Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a 'Consequence' of Global Warming," which was subsequently linked on the Drudge Report. Poor claims: Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming. Poor wrote that Gore said in an interview on National Public Radio, "The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China -- and we're seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming." Listen: In fact, the audio clip has been doctored and the conclusion that "Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a 'Consequence' of Global Warming" is false. Here are the facts:
Once your power source has reached, say, 10 percent of the electricity grid, let alone 20 percent, it should be time to cut the cord to government funding. Yet after more than $70 billion dollars in direct subsidies, billions more in insurance subsidies, plus another $13 billion available through the energy policy act of 2005, Sen. McCain and others still feel that climate legislation must not merely create a price for carbon dioxide that would advantage all carbon-free sources of energy, but that we must also throw billions more dollars of pork at the industry. At some point, infatuation has turned to obsession. I am not against building new nuclear power plants; far from it. But when is enough enough, in terms of massive taxpayer support for a mature industry? We had such an incredible clamor for welfare reform in the 1990s, to change "government's social welfare policy with aims at reducing recipient dependence on the government." If we reduced the poor's dependence on government, why not the super-duper rich?
One of the most controversial coal plant proposals in the country just took yet another big hit. Minnesota's two administrative law judges on the hearings for the Big Stone II plant in South Dakota, Steve Mihalchick and Barbara Neilson, recommended today that the state Public Utilities Commission deny a certificate of need for the plant's transmission lines in western Minnesota. If adopted by the PUC, the ruling will kill the highly controversial project. According to the ALJs' recommendation [PDF], the sponsors of the plant "have failed to demonstrate that their demand for electricity cannot be met more cost effectively through energy conservation and load-management measures ..." In September 2007, two of the co-sponsors of Big Stone II, representing about 27 percent of the plant's capacity, pulled out of the project. The withdrawal rocked the project, but the remaining sponsors announced plans to redesign it and continue seeking permits. Today's ALJ recommendation, which has been closely watched by the broad multi-state coalition that had gathered against the plant, is not curtains for Big Stone II -- but we may be in the final act. The demise of the plant promises to unlock the huge wind potential of the Upper Midwest region, which to date has scarcely been tapped.
How are you going to spend your $3 trillion? I just put this in my cart.
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.