So, who said: With $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. Yes, that would be our president, three years ago. And yet with oil at nearly twice that price, Bush still refuses to cut subsidies and shift that money to clean technologies. And he still claims that the solution to our energy and climate problems is "technology, technology, technology, blah, blah." But, as we've seen, that is all just rhetoric or sleight of hand. Daniel J. Weiss, Director of Energy Strategy at the Center for American Progress, has an article on the urgent need for this switch in priorities: "Unbearable cost of oil: Record prices require Senate action." As Weiss points out, this will be one more chance for McCain to do the right thing:
Dingell says he’ll release a draft of a House climate change bill for comment and feedback in mid-April (sub rqd).
This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Kari Manlove, fellows assistant at the Center for American Progress. ----- Over 100 retailers, manufacturers, and trade and advocacy groups have sent a familiar message to the Senate: Pass the renewable energy tax package! About two weeks ago, over 500 members of the American Council on Renewable Energy also sent a letter to Congress encouraging the renewable of the production and investment tax credits. Ever since these tax provisions were cut from December's energy bill, support for them has been snowballing.
Most of what needs to be said about the substance of the just-concluded Heartland Institute Skepticpalooza Clown Show has been said (see, in particular, Miles and Joe). Just a couple of stray observations. The science of climate change has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of interesting questions in climate science, but the people at this conference have nothing to say about them. To me, the interesting aspects of the conference are sociological and political. On the sociological front, I was groping around for the right analogy when I remembered a club some kids formed in my high …
If only Congress would have signed on to the Manhattan Declaration years ago, we could have spent valuable resources wisely summarizing nonexistent reports, thereby avoiding the subprime crisis.
That Saturday Night Live-esque headline was inspired by a story in The Wall Street Journal yesterday: Top executives from General Motors Corp. and Toyota Motor Corp. Tuesday expressed doubts about the viability of hydrogen fuel cells for mass-market production in the near term and suggested their companies are now betting that electric cars will prove to be a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale. Really? Hydrogen cars of dubious viability? Who ever could have guessed that in a million years? And electric cars are "a better way to reduce fuel consumption and cut tailpipe emissions on a large scale"? I'm shocked, shocked that anyone could come to that conclusion.
Discussions of public policy frequently take place inside frames that are difficult to discern clearly without effort. Which goals are fixed and which are negotiable? Which changes are acceptable and which are not? Take, oh, homelessness. The brute fact is that we could solve homelessness in the U.S. tomorrow if we so chose. We could house and feed every homeless person for the rest of their life. It would be expensive, but not that expensive, relative to what we spend on, say, defense, or Medicare, or Social Security. We are, after all, an extraordinarily wealthy country. I’m not recommending that …
I thought this was clever -- a Cliff Notes version of climate-friendly lifestyle choices. Click the image for the full-sized version.
A Canadian federal court has ruled in favor of environmental groups that sued in opposition to a massive planned oil-sands mine in Alberta. The 120-square-mile strip mine had recently been approved by a joint federal-provincial panel that found the project’s estimated annual greenhouse-gas emissions of 3.7 million tons to be insignificant. Yet no justification was given for the finding. “The panel dismissed as insignificant the greenhouse-gas emissions without any rationale,” the judge wrote, ruling that the panel must justify its conclusion. Environmentalists hoped the ruling would force stricter reviews of similar projects in the future. If it’s ultimately approved, the …
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.