Climate Politics

Nader on Stewart

I missed this when it happened, but here’s Ralph Nader on the Daily Show:

Timing of EPA decision on vehicle greenhouse-gas regulation still a mystery

When will the U.S. EPA decide whether to regulate vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions? EPA head Stephen Johnson testified in the Senate Tuesday that he just couldn’t say, even though it’s been nearly a year since the agency was directed by the Supreme Court to make that decision. When asked whether any EPA staffers were currently working […]

Victim of Seattle arsons reaffirms commitment to green building

As Grist readers know — and are furiously debating — there were some arsons in Seattle on Monday which have been attributed to shadowy (perhaps mythical) activist group Earth Liberation Front. The following is a letter to Grist from the owner of one of the houses that was destroyed, Grey Lundberg of CMI Homes, Inc: […]

Renewable energy subterfuge

The following is a guest essay by Daniel J. Weiss and Nick Kong. It was originally published on the Center for American Progress website.

-----

"Watch what we do, not we say," Attorney General John N. Mitchell accurately warned at the dawn of the Nixon administration. This could also be a fitting epitaph for President Bush's energy policies. Despite frequent claims of support for renewable energy over the years, the record shows consistent opposition to efforts to spur investments in clean wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy sources.

The subterfuge began when President Bush announced his administration's National Energy Policy on May 17, 2001. The White House's plan was based on recommendations provided to Vice President Cheney from coal, oil, nuclear and other dirty energy companies. The speech included a soothing nod to renewable electricity -- five weeks after the administration proposed slashing millions from renewable energy programs.

The routine has varied little since Bush first took office. President Bush pays lip service to clean energy technologies, while opposing many voluntary incentives and other efforts to promote these very same technologies. Often, these events occur only days apart.

Another attempt at sleight of hand will occur on Wednesday, March 5, when President Bush addresses the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference. This speech comes just seven days after the administration opposed House passage of the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act, H.R. 5351. This bill would extend tax credits to encourage producers and homeowners to employ wind, solar, geothermal, and other renewable energy technologies. Without an extension, an estimated 116,000 construction workers and other employees will lose their jobs.

President Bush will no doubt use his speech to extol the virtues of clean energy technology incentives even while he prepares to wield his veto pen to stop legislation that would do just that. This will only be one event in a long string of Bush rhetoric that doesn't match reality:

Primaries thread

This is the thread to discuss all things election related this evening. To kick things off: Obama wins Vermont, handily, as expected. From what I hear the other three are tight. UPDATE: According to CNN, McCain has won Texas, Ohio, Vermont, and Rhode Island, thereby securing the Republican nomination. Guess Huckabee should have majored in […]

California waiver update

Earlier this year I wrote about a new (EPA-sponsored) study showing that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is directly correlated with increased ozone, particulates, and carcinogens in the air. Since California suffers disproportionately from those traditional air pollutants, it follows that California does have "extraordinary and compelling conditions" in the face of climate change, and […]

EPA unions withdraw from cooperation agreement

Union local presidents representing the vast majority of U.S. EPA employees have withdrawn from a cooperation agreement with their Bush-appointed supervisors, claiming “abuses of our good nature and trust.” In a letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson, the unionized workers wrote that he retaliates against whistleblowers and ignores principles of scientific integrity “whenever political direction […]

McCain’s environmental record

Don’t miss Brad Plumer’s excellent review of John McCain’s environmental record in The New Republic. He covers a lot of the same ground I covered in my piece on the same subject, only with more of the entertaining details and anecdotes that make him a magazine feature writer and me a mere blogger. On the […]

Why the disaster trust fund is bad news

The following is a guest essay by Britt Lundgren and Jason Funk. Britt Lundgren is an agricultural policy fellow at Environmental Defense Fund. Jason Funk is a Lokey Fellow in the Land, Water and Wildlife program at Environmental Defense Fund.

-----

The recent fires in California and the severe drought in the Southeast are just two of the litany of disasters that have hit agriculture in recent memory. When natural disasters happen, members of Congress (at least those who want to get reelected) want to respond quickly, with cash for those that are affected.

Currently they must go through the clunky and often-slow process of getting disaster dollars for their district by passing an emergency supplemental appropriations bill (PDF). For this reason, the Senate approved a farm bill that includes a new $5.1 billion piggy bank, called the Agricultural Disaster Assistance Trust Fund, for the seemingly innocuous purpose of having money set aside in advance to help farmers out when they're struck with calamity.

Unfortunately, there are many reasons to think that this new trust fund is itself going to be a disaster for taxpayers, most farmers, and the environment.

Border wall brings peace in the Middle East

Fighting the border wall, that is.