Climate Politics

Bench Warmers

Supreme Court to decide whether EPA should regulate greenhouse gases The Supreme Court today announced that it will rule on whether the U.S. EPA should regulate greenhouse-gas emissions from automobiles. Against the advice of the Bush administration, SCOTUS will hear a suit brought by 12 states, a number of cities, and various environmental groups against […]

If You Can’t Beat ‘Em, Coin ‘Em

Sierra Club will focus more funds on state and local political races The Sierra Club plans to substantially boost the amount of money it spends on state and local races this year — a tacit acknowledgement that the current federal government is a lost cause. Whereas in past years the club put about 5 percent […]

Environment is center stage in California governor’s race

Enviros are scrambling for ringside seats to the California gubernatorial race, poised to become a green mêlée of WrestleManian proportions. In one corner of the ring is Arnold “The Governator” Schwarzenegger (R); in the opposite corner, his newly designated Democratic opponent, Phil “State Treasurator” Angelides. Each will try to use his formidable environmental record to […]

You Look Like You Just Saw a Coast

Offshore drilling bill moves forward in House Legislation that would end a 25-year ban on most offshore drilling was approved by the House Resources Committee yesterday. The bill would authorize oil and gas development farther than 50 miles offshore, unless a state acted to prohibit exploration within 100 miles of its shore; the current ban […]

A Long and Windy Road

Compromise in Congress keeps Cape Wind project above water The beleaguered Cape Wind project in Nantucket Sound is keeping its head above water, thanks to good old-fashioned compromise. A provision to allow the Massachusetts governor to veto the planned wind project was holding up a Coast Guard reauthorization bill in Congress; a new version of […]

Do you know where your candidates stand on climate change?

With growing numbers of scientists declaring that the global climate crisis is approaching a point of no return, there is a huge and bewildering disconnect between our physical world and our political environment. Our government’s response to the prospect of runaway climate impacts is one of paralysis. The negligence of the Bush administration is understandable. […]

Don’t Hook Now

Senate passes bill to strengthen fisheries oversight The Senate passed a bill this week that would ramp up fisheries oversight, require annual catch limits, develop a uniform environmental review for fisheries management plans, and boost the role of scientific advisory committees. The legislation, passed unanimously, renews and improves the 30-year-old Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management […]

Muddy Waters

Supremes divided on wetlands protection under Clean Water Act The Supreme Court ruled yesterday neither to sharply restrict the Clean Water Act nor to leave its current broad interpretation untouched. Instead it did … something else. Spurred by two Michigan property-rights cases, the high court’s contentious decision states that wetlands must at least be adjacent […]

A geo-green third party?

Thomas Friedman -- la moustache de la sagesse -- has a column up (NYT $elect; reprinted in full here) suggesting that his "geo-green" shtick would be a good basis for a third party presidential candidacy. God love The Mustache for bringing energy issues to a broad audience, but this column is dopey.

Let's start with this:

What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?

Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.

Putting aside the rather paltry size of the tax and the difficulty of determining "unusual driving needs," this seems sensible enough, though a broad carbon tax would be preferable. But:

The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.

What a bizarre list. Social Security is fine. If it's deficit-killing expenditures you're after, why not start with healthcare? And I'm all for mass transit, but is it more important than getting alternate sources of energy online? If reducing the deficit is so important, why does Friedman -- and virtually every other pundit -- insist that a gas tax be revenue neutral?

This, however, may be the most extravagant claim:

Bryant Terry, food-justice activist, answers questions

Bryant Terry. What work do you do? I’ve committed myself to feeding people; illuminating the connections between poverty, malnutrition, and institutional racism; and working to create a more just and sustainable food system for everyone. b-healthy gets teenagers cooking. In 2001, I founded b-healthy (Build Healthy Eating and Lifestyles to Help Youth), a New York […]