A small minority of Senators robbed America of a cleaner, more prosperous future last week. In the middle of the biggest oil disaster in American history, the hottest summer on record, and a war with an oil-rich nation, this group of cynics blocked efforts to pass comprehensive energy and climate legislation. This was the moment brimming with potential for new jobs, a more robust economy and cleaner environment -- this bill would have guided America down a profoundly safer and more productive path.
So therefore, the Senate is left to vote on an anemic energy bill of such remarkably limited scope that it could have been passed during the Bush era.
The elected officials who steered this turnaround have abdicated their responsibility to uphold our nation's best interests, and have shown us, and the world, an America woefully deficient in both leadership and ingenuity.
This was our moment to create two million clean energy jobs here in the United States. This was our moment to outpace China in the clean energy market that will dominate the 21st century. This was our time to slash our oil imports in half. This was our time to confront the perils of climate change, which despite head-in-the sand-denial, is in fact happening.
The American people wanted a home run, not a bunt. A recent CNN poll found that nearly 80 percent of voters believe that reducing oil use and shifting to cleaner energy would make life better for Americans, while a Wall Street Journal poll in June found that an overwhelming majority of people specifically support passing legislation to limit global warming pollution.
Yet a handful of politicians decided they didn't want to represent the will of the people. Given the chance to invest in American jobs and reduce dangerous pollution, they chose instead, to focus on their own interest and self-preservation.
The Republican Senate leadership has fought against every clean energy and climate measure simply because their political opponents were for it. This was the most shameful partisanship I have seen in my lifetime. We all know who really loses when GOP leaders block progress: American citizens. The economic recession and climate change don't care which party you are in -- they will make life harder for everyone until we put the right solutions in place.
But the GOP wasn't the only force acting on its own behalf. A handful of moderate Democrats were so worried about being tarred by the Tea Party or losing reelection campaigns that they failed to show their support for clean energy and climate legislation -- even those who are on record saying that we must fight global warming. When elected officials act as bystanders to a crisis, they reveal their deep cowardice.
We can't forget that Big Oil and Big Coal reached deep into their pockets to inspire politicians to block climate action. Their undue influence in our nation's politics has once again placed the desires of polluters above the interests of all Americans.
Stronger leadership from the White House could have helped burst through political obstructions. President Obama has certainly done more than any other president to advance clean energy, yet he never seemed to roll up his sleeves, bring lawmakers to the table, and work to rally the American public behind it. If he thought his move earlier this year to approve new offshore oil drilling for the first time in decades would pay off last week in the form of GOP support for this bill, I guess he got his answer.
This is one of the many times when average citizens may be ahead of our leaders. All of us who want to generate jobs, reduce hazardous pollution, and strengthen our nation's security need to make our voices heard. We should praise those senators who represented our best interests and hold accountable those who looked out only for their own.
I remember the last time our nation came this close to embracing clean energy -- back in the late 1970s. I hope my children don't have to wait another 35 years to seize the moment once again, because that moment, that opportunity might not be there.
Loading comments…
Share your Comment:
Dr. Judith Curry comments:
KK: I’m still trying to understand what gave rise to this latest round of Curry bashing?
JC: My hypothesis is that the level of vitriol in the climate blogs reflects the last gasp of those who thought they could influence national and international energy policy through the power politics of climate science expertise. The politics of expertise is about how scientific information is used in the policy making process, including how diverging viewpoints are interpreted and how science is weighed relative to values and politics in the policy debate. The problem comes in when the “power” politics of expertise are played. Signals of the “power” play include: hiding uncertainties and never admitting a mistake; developing a consensus with a high level of confidence; demanding that the consensus receive extreme deference relative to other view points; insisting that that science demands a particular policy; discrediting scientists holding other view points by dismissing them as cranks, trivializing their credentials and say that they are not qualified to hold an opinion; and attacking the motives of anyone that challenges the consensus. Sound familiar? In the case of climate change, the authoritarianism of “science tells us we should . . . ” could not withstand the public perception of scientists engaging with pressure groups, lack of transparency that meant people were unable to evaluate the information themselves, and then the climategate affair that raised questions about the integrity of the scientists.
Thus, many have asked Richard2 whether he's a "paid, professional denier of anthropogenic global warming" or other words to that effect. To my knowledge, he's only responded to that question once, as follows...
Richard2 05:19 PM on 7/18/2010 "Max, I am not, nor have ever been, a paid professional AGW denier...."
So, I then asked him the very simple follow-up question: "What does AGW mean to you, Richard2?"
Rather than put the matter to rest by answering such a simple question, his only response came on Jul 19, 2010 at 10:07:38
Richard2: "“Does anyone not know what the "A" in AGW stands for? Does anyone not know what AGW is an abbreviation of?””
What's the problem, Richard2? Why can't you answer such a simple question unequivocably? Could it somehow lead to some sort of conflict with HuffPo's policy on comments by known corporate shills?
Richard2: what does AGW mean to you?
Public concern is going down?
Not according to another poll released on June 8, showing that public concern is growing, not dropping. That national poll, conducted by Yale and George Mason Universities from May 14, 2009 to June 1, 2010, found that 61 percent of Americans believe global warming is real (an increase of four points since January) and 50 percent (an increase of three points) believe it is caused mostly by humans."- ABC News
Must be tough to be a paid petroll with numbers going that direction.
I frame the global warming question this way. If you think that key scientists at NOAA, NASA, and NAS are wrong, but that college dropouts like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck are right on this issue, than you are probably not capable of rational thought on this issue. Secondly, if you think that scientists are only in it for the grant money and that they don't care about the right answer, but that Exxon Mobil, Kock Industries are in no way willing to market their own distorted "viewpoint" in order to save their profitable industries, I again say that you are probably not capable of rational thought on this issue.
The U.S. Senate voted in a way consistent with the Rasmussen Poll, and inconsistent with the Stanford Poll. Which poll did the U.S. Senate consider more credible? The public is tired of bullies and name callers.
“This strategy avoids having to address any legitimate criticism of climate alarmism.” Alarmism? No. Many of us have spent much of our lives studying or working in science and wondering when global warming would manifest itself clearly enough for the average Joe to understand it. Many of us are simply fascinated by what is going on. We have no sense of alarm and we are not trying to alarm anyone. We simply feel that our viewpoint has been suppressed in the media by the likes of Limbaugh, Beck, and Hannity and we are fed up with it.
“ This strategy suggests that the science behind AGW is very weak and unable to stand scrutiny.” Actually, we are starting to grow cajones and are moving into the mop up phase, to put it politely.
“The U.S. Senate voted in a way consistent with the Rasmussen Poll, and inconsistent with the Stanford Poll. Which poll did the U.S. Senate consider more credible?” The senate is supposed to govern by intelligence, not public opinion polls. They are supposed to be selected to think.
“ The public is tired of bullies and name callers.” Then why are Limbaugh, Hannity, and O’Reilly doing so well? Are you saying that their popularity is finally drying up? They are representatives of your side of the argument, whether you like it or not.
The July Rasmussen Poll found that..
"Forty-five percent (45%) say global warming is primarily caused by long-term planetary trends. Thirty-four percent (34%) feel human activity is the main contributor. Eight percent (8%) think some other reason is chiefly to blame. Voters have been shifting away for well over a year from the idea that human activity is the primary cause of global warming."
That poll appears to indicate that by 34% to 53%, American voters don't agree that human activity is the primary cause of global warming. This might have something to do with the way the Senate voted.
Aside from a wish to reduce dependence on coal and oil, the senate also fails to confront the biggest and clearest existential threat that has faced the US - climate change. Forget the cold war, where there was always a good chance that no-one would be stupid enough to press the button. Climate change is inevitable. The size of the climate change, and whether our countries and our western civilisation will survive is something we can still have some effect on.
The failure of politicians in democracies world wide to confront this issue, should put them historically in the same category as a Chamberlain who was remembered for appeasement. The current crop will be remembered this way, but only if there is any such thing as recorded history after the worst of climate change hits us.
The 911 mass murderers were probably highly amused by the thought that Americans more than any others indirectly funded their murderous plot by buying Saudi gasoline.
Vrroom , vrroom, eh Billyboy?
Operative word: Thick.
http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf
http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/04/heritage-foundation-green-jobs-dirty-energy-exxonmobil/
What investing in renewables actually means is more jobs, new industries including for export, and a better environment. It also means less profit for big oil and coal, and hence this kind of propaganda is being manufactured to prevent environmental and economic benefits for the country.
Paul Krugman states:
"Clearly, opposition to doing something about climate change has fallen back to a new position: claims that attempting to limit greenhouse gas emissions would be incredibly costly. Yet the most careful studies, like the big MIT study of Congressional proposals, find only modest costs. Pay no attention, say the critics."
at:
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/anti-green-economics/
And that's just one amongst many that debunk this latest mode of attack from the Oil Industy propagandists.
False. That fake statistic came from a single non-peer-reviewed article paid for by the Heritage Foundation. Nobody but nobody thinks it was right, including that socialist propaganda sheet, The Wall Street Journal.
Congressmen and Presidents have beed abdicating their energy responsibilities since the first oil embargo in 1973.
To thing, I have been recycling, conserving energy and trying to keep my use of natural resources at a minimum for the last forty years.
Someome please kick my butt for being such a shmuck.
...well, not all, though; late Teddy showed his true color when it came to wind farm right up his nose in Hyannisport.
I guess I won't buy directions for living from a guy living on "...Robert Redfords Sundance Utah is a four season resort in the mountains of Utah that offers Utah skiing, mountain biking, theater, fine dining, zoom..."
:) ...
By Rick Klein, Globe Staff | April 27, 2006
WASHINGTON -- As record oil prices turn attention to the need for renewable fuels, momentum is building in Congress to buck Senator Edward M. Kennedy's bid to block the proposed Cape Cod wind energy project, potentially reviving efforts to construct the sprawling windmill farm in Nantucket Sound.
[...]
The maneuver to stop the wind farm ''is clearly a backroom deal, and they're going to get called publicly on it," said John Passacantando, executive director of Greenpeace USA. ''The Democrats are going to kill the first big offshore wind farm in the United States because of their relationship with Ted Kennedy."
The 130-turbine, 24-square-mile cluster of windmills would be about 8 miles from Kennedy's home in Hyannis Port, and he has long opposed it...
(http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2006/04/27/kennedy_fa
Yeah... The Boston Globe... that extreme right-wing newspaper.
:))
Good Journalism, means we, the people, hear the truth. At the point the good guys will start winning again.
Remember Siegelmand and the Stolen 2002 Alabama Governor's Election.
special interests with little assurance of results. Congress does not have a good
record in pre-selecting alternative energy winners and frankly shouldn't have the
power to do so (corn ethanol is still being pushed in spite of its negative impact
environmentally). The corruption is too great. As all industries are encouraged
to improve, there needs to be an independent commission with no financial ties
to energy to enable increased research and funding into the most promising areas. Flooding subsidies into solar when the water requirement exceeds availability in areas best suited for solar isn't a viable answer. Harnessing wind for consistent delivery hasn't been solved yet either. You can not mandate usage
of something that isn't yet available. The strongest case against government
having $$$$ trillions in additional revenue to allocate is that it won't be used as
intended. Congress should not be trusted with another dime. Whatever amount
or source of funds for energy should never pass through its hands. It must go directly into trust out of reach of the federal Madoff accounting system or
Congressional pork abuse. The American people deserve a real chance of
success which Congress isn't likely to deliver.
The point of the cap and trade is the stimulus to change for industry, and the opportunities it opens up.
A lot of people see the greenhouse gas problem, along with other forms of industrial pollution, as a market failure. That is, the market does not take account of costs of pollution that are imposed on others. So Cap and Trade is really fixing the market.