Climate Politics

Will the media give McCain a free ride on climate?

My latest post on The Nation is up, asking: Will the media give McCain a free ride on climate? I know there’s a sense out there that because McCain is relatively sane on climate, this race might pose the opportunity to have a serious discussion of the issue. But my fear is the opposite: that […]

According to Bush adviser, Bush actually serious about mandatory climate controls

This ($ub req'd) just in from Captain Environmental Compassion, Bush adviser James Connaughton: Bush is serious about climate change. Seriously!

Surprised? Read on, for excerpts from this newsflash ...

Clean-energy-boosting economic stimulus bill falls one vote short in Senate

The Senate version of the economic stimulus bill, which included clean-energy incentives, was shot down in the chamber this evening. The loss was predicted, though the closeness of the vote perhaps wasn’t — had one more senator voted “aye,” the package would have passed. Green group Friends of the Earth blames the loss on Sen. […]

Green stimulus bill falls short by one vote — McCain’s vote — in Senate

So, remember the stimulus bill? The one with all the green tax breaks and incentives? It lost today in the Senate today, by one vote. Every Dem voted for it, as did moderate Republicans Specter, Collins, Snowe, Smith, and Coleman, plus Grassley, Dole, and Domenici. Gregg and Sununu voted the wrong way (as they did […]

Details on Bush’s anti-efficiency budget

Bush's phony rhetoric from the State of the Union:

The United States is committed to strengthening our energy security and confronting global climate change, and the best way to meet these goals is for America to continue leading the way toward the development of cleaner and more energy-efficient technology.

His actual energy-efficiency budget, summarized by the Environmental and Energy Study Institute executive director, Carol Werner (my previous post on the budget is here):

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 […]