Climate Politics
All Stories
-
Stratfor breaks it down
Interesting stuff over on Stratfor about the “Geopolitics of $130 oil.” The short story is: The U.S. is hit, but not too hard, given its transition from manufacturing to services. China gets the worst of it by far — it lives by manufacturing but it’s forced to hold prices down to avoid unrest, so it’s […]
-
Time to kick the oil habit
This is the latest in a series on why it is important to push hard for climate legislation this year.
Over the past few months, I've made the case for passing climate legislation in 2008: We don't want to squander the current momentum, we simply can't afford to wait, and while we do, we only prolong a dangerous catch-22.
Now we're finally on the doorstep of Senate action on a comprehensive climate change bill. Floor debate over the Climate Security Act (S. 3036) will begin Monday, June 2.
If opponents of meaningful action have their way, the debate will be nothing more than a short, partisan fight over gas prices. You can already hear the predictable scare tactics: "Why would we want to raise gas prices now, when working Americans are already suffering at the pump?"
That's a phony argument -- but it brings me to another reason for passing a climate bill in 2008: It's time to kick our oil habit, and the best way to do that is with a cap-and-trade policy that reduces our dependence on fossil fuels.
Gas prices are at a record high because of growing demand from China and other developing nations. That's not going to change. The only solution is to end our addiction to oil.
-
-
Club for Growth starts campaign to derail Lieberman-Warner
The Club for Growth — a conservative group “dedicated to helping elect pro-growth, pro-freedom candidates through political contributions and issue advocacy campaigns” — is already waging war on the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act, slated to hit the Senate floor June 2. But instead of going after the bill itself, they’re targeting individual senators who seem […]
-
Obama’s commencement speech calls for service to the country, planet on climate front
David beat me to a post on Barack Obama’s commencement speech at Wesleyan on Sunday. The part about climate change and clean energy was good, but what I found most encouraging was at the beginning, when climate change was cited, along with hunger, war, and economic strife, as an area where our personal lives and […]
-
Lobbying for the enemy of the human race
Million here, million there, pretty soon you’re talking about real money: Peabody Investments Corp., a subsidiary of coal producer Peabody Energy Corp., spent nearly $1.3 million in the first quarter to lobby on issues related to the coal industry, according to a disclosure report. The company lobbied Congress on legislation involving renewable energy and energy […]
-
John McCain talks nuclear security, promises to promote ‘civilian’ nukes
John McCain gave a speech on nuclear security this morning at the University of Denver, and given his abiding love of nuclear power as the solution to climate change, that came up too. Where there’s “civilian” nuclear energy, there’s the possibility for nuclear weapons — and if he’s promoting the former, that leads to plenty […]
-
If cost-containment mechanisms in new climate bill are exploited, emissions could remain unchanged
The short, snarky answer is "No; Boxer-Lieberman-Warner is never going to become law." The longer, analytical answer, which is the primary subject of this post, is "probably not, thanks to the bill's many cost containment measures, but it would take us off the business-as-usual emissions path."
Before explaining why, let me make clear that the vote on B-L-W is purely symbolic, since it is DOA as a bill can be. Most of the media, most of the public, and most of the world are unlikely to get much detail on the bill. They will just see whether a greenhouse gas cap-and-trade bill can get a majority, if not 60 votes, in the U.S. Senate. So I would recommend any senator vote for it -- after giving a floor statement explaining that it was in fact too weak. I can't see casting a protest vote against a symbolic bill while asserting it is too weak. The protest would get lost in the noise. Finally, it would be the height of hypocrisy for a conservative senator to cite progressive critiques of the bill, including mine, as a reasons to vote against it. Anyone who votes against this bill should at least have the guts to say whether they themselves think the bill is too weak or too strong.
Why the Boxer bill wouldn't cut U.S. CO2 emissions by 2020
This story begins late Friday night, when Deep 'emissions cut' Throat sends me the World Resources Institute's 14-page summary of the Boxer substitute to the Lieberman-Warner bill [PDF], with a note, "Does this mean no emission reductions until 2028? See bottom of page 6." Intrigued, I turned to the bottom of page 6 and read this bullet:
-
Climate bill fight likely to divide Republicans
Politico reports on the divide between John McCain and other Republicans on climate change: By contrast, the debate on a bipartisan climate change bill sponsored by Sens. Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and John Warner (R-Va.) offers McCain a chance to stake out a position different from the president’s and see if his party will follow. […]
-
Well-informed Republicans are not concerned about climate change
A new analysis of survey data finds: The more Democrats think they know about global warming, the more concerned they are. But Republicans who consider themselves well informed on the topic seem no more worried than those who profess ignorance, a study suggests. What’s going on? Here’s my one-sentence diagnosis: Democrats are more likely to […]
