Climate Politics

The green take on Super-Duper Tuesday

Coming out of Super Tuesday’s primaries and caucuses in 22 states, the Republicans are looking ever more likely to nominate their most eco-conscious candidate, John McCain, who was the big GOP winner of the day. But green issues don’t seem to have played much if any role in the Republican voting, and McCain didn’t reference […]

Grist strives to be your #650,871st source of breaking primary news

OK, well … here we go! Consider this the Super Tuesday catch-all thread — share your news, opinions, brickbats, and whatnot in comments. Obama kicks things off with a huge win in Georgia. UPDATE: Obama has taken Delaware and Illinois. Clinton has taken Arkansas, Tennessee, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey. McCain’s won Delaware, Connecticut, […]

The green tax credits are good ideas, but not good stimulus ideas

So, maybe you've heard: the economy looks like it might be headed for the tank. You may have also noticed that there's an election this year. That means it must be time for a stimulus package on Capitol Hill. No one up there wants to head into reelection with rising unemployment, a rash of foreclosures, and falling incomes on their hands, without at least looking like they're doing something about it. So there's a rush on the Hill to get a "stimulus package" out the door to help boost the economy ASAP.

Cynicism aside, I think this is a good thing. People are suffering, and if the government can do something about it, why shouldn't they? It sometimes seems like heresy these days, but I tend to think it's what we pay them to do.

The problem is that some of the stimulus proposals floating around, including ones by our green friends (see Josh Dorner's post for example), are not very good stimulus policies. It's not that any of these ideas are bad. Most of them are downright good. Excellent, even. The problem is that almost none of them can be remotely classified as stimulus.

Here's the problem, or at least one of them: Since World War II, the average recession has lasted just 11 months. Add the fact that it takes a fair bit of time (anywhere from 3 to 6 months) before we even recognize that we're in a recession. Add still more time to decide what to do about it, and more time on top of that for whatever we decide to do to actually have an effect, and you see the problem. Even for the quickest policy approach, we could be solidly 7 months into an 11 month recession before we can have any impact.

There is a very short window for policy to stimulate the economy. If we don't act fast enough, the policy won't take effect soon enough to help anyone. If we're late enough, the policy ends up hitting the economy when it's on the upswing, and instead of smoothing out the business cycle, we end up contributing to it.

Masdar

I know you can never bank on these things until they’re completed, but if this goes as planned it sure will be righteously cool: Groundbreaking is scheduled for Saturday for Masdar City, a nearly self-contained mini-municipality designed for up to 50,000 people rising from the desert next to Abu Dhabi’s international airport and intended as […]

Romney flip-flops, does not support California CO2 waiver

Remember how Mitt Romney joined with the other GOP presidential candidates in appearing to support California in its quest to gain a waiver from the U.S. EPA to allow it to regulate vehicle CO2 emissions? How Romney said, and we quote, “I side with states being able to make their own decisions, even if I […]

The latest on green tax breaks in the stimulus bill

I hope everyone saw Josh’s Saturday update on the green tax breaks that may or may not end up in the stimulus package. The L.A. Times has another update today. There are quite a few Dem heavyweights behind Baucus’ alternative stimulus bill, the one with green tax breaks, but its fate is unclear. The vote […]

Dubious 2009 energy budget released

On the heels of giving away the (decorative) centerpiece of his climate technology effort, NeverGen FutureGen, Bush released a heartless and mindless FY09 energy budget yesterday.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), chair of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, sent around an email on the President's Budget Request for FY2009 (I will post budget details later). Bingaman is "pleased to see overall growth in the DOE budget, particularly in the area of basic research," but critical of a number of dubious administration choices:

Obama or Clinton: who’s greener?

Photos: Roger Goun and Will Merydith The following post was first published on Passing Through, The Nation‘s guest blog, where I will be posting all month. If you’re a political junkie like me, all you can think about is the primary and the general election beyond. Can you remember a primary season so dynamic and […]

How to pick the president

This post is by ClimateProgress guest blogger Bill Becker, executive director of the Presidential Climate Action Project.

-----

A plaque on the wall at Wal-Mart headquarters carries a quote attributed to Sam Walton. It says:

Incrementalism is innovation's worst enemy.
We don't want continuous improvement,
we want radical change.

That plaque should be mounted on the door of every caucus room and voting place in America on Tuesday, because it gives the key to electing the next president of the United States.

If the most popular word of the 2008 presidential campaign is "change," then let's take a moment to think about what "change" means. For the sake of discussion, let's categorize change into two types: transactional and transformational.

Transactional change might be a new tax credit, a new regulation, a new policy that alters the way we transact business. When the candidates get into specific proposals about energy and climate policy, for example, they generally are describing transactional change. In that department, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both have issued detailed energy and climate platforms. They far outclass John McCain and Mitt Romney, who have not.

Transformational change is something altogether different. As Wikipedia explains:

Bush admin 2009 budget boosts nuclear and clean coal

The Bush administration released its 2009 budget today, with a price tag of $3.1 trillion. (Perspective: There are 3.1 trillion seconds in 99,200 years.) Relatively speaking, energy and environment issues were not high priority. But within environmental-type allocation, nuclear energy and “clean coal” saw a huge funding boost. The budget would also raise funding for […]