We don't have to choose between protecting our kids' health and making a living. We need our leaders to set a new course for America's economy. And it has to start with the will to tackle joblessness and climate change.
It's time for Republicans in Congress to put their money where their mouth is. Middle class families should not be forced to scrape by with less while oil companies get away with more. Any cuts we make should reflect our priorities and needs as a country.
The last-minute deal to delay the fiscal cliff included good news for our nation's wind energy sector. The bipartisan compromise extended tax credits that encourage the production of clean domestic energy.
Across the country, candidates who stood by the environmental community and a clean energy agenda -- including President Obama -- were overwhelmingly elected, while candidates tied to oil and coal companies lost.
Romney may tout his business credentials, but he's turning his back on this lucrative sector and putting thousands of jobs at risk. Why? It seems that the Republican nominee may be in bed with the fossil fuel industry.
In talking recently with climate expert Michael Mann, I realized that our conversation was nothing short of a roundabout tour in an effort to identify just how the well-funded climate denial machine has become a Catch-22 phenomenon.
Ask yourself: Are the oil, coal and gas going to suddenly move to the North Sea? My guess is that with subsidies or not, Exxon will still want at the fossil fuels here. Want another reason to end these subsidies?
Renewables currently generate only about 5 percent of U.S. electricity, but by 2030 they have the potential to produce more than 40 percent, half coming from wind. And yet, unless Congress acts soon, the wind industry will have to trim its sails.
In less than a month, world leaders will gather in Rio de Janeiro for the United Nation's 2012 Earth Summit. At stake: a new global green deal that could pull our planet back from the brink of irreversible climate change.
For this election, let's acknowledge that environmental concerns are not moving the electoral needle -- natural gas will probably not be adequately regulated until the industry destroys an acquifer. And maybe not even then.
There's a problem: the very word "subsidies" makes American eyes glaze over. If due attention is to be paid, we have to figure out a language in which to talk about them that will make it clear just how loony our policy is.