Start me up…

Al Gore on the Meet the Press:

There’s enough solar energy that hits this–the surface of the planet in 40 minutes to provide a full year’s worth of energy for the entire world.  We just have to listen to what the engineers and scientists are telling us about the advances in the efficiency and the reductions in cost of how we can use solar and wind and also geothermal.

Nah, let’s keep drilling for oil…

Oil spill stretches nearly 100 miles of Mississippi River.

Figured I’d put something up on global warming seeing as it’s about 115 degrees in NYC.  I decided I didn’t care yesterday and went out for a run in the sun on the Hudson River late afternoon.  After 3 lousy miles I was dizzy and had to call it a day.  I’ve run 20 miles hungover some mornings in pretty brutal heat, but yesterday took the cake.  I think the stagnant polluted air mixed with the heat index really did me in.  It’s tough for me to leave my little air conditioned office all day and the whole time I think I’m just here contributing to the problem.  I’m not saying this heat wave across the country is a product of global warming, but I will say that was the hottest run I’ve ever been on.

Anyway, it seems Tony Blair has decided to side step the Bush Administration, who thinks natural disasters are signs of the end times, and forge ahead with Gov. Schwarzenegger to come up with ways to take on global warming.  I think this is a pretty outstanding statement, although both seem to be running to the issue to gain favorable opinion.  To me, it’s about bringing more attention to the issue, so if their intentions aren’t pure, but it gets the ball rolling, I’m fine with that…

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced an agreement Monday to bypass the Bush administration and work together to explore ways of fighting global warming.

They agreed to collaborate on research into cleaner-burning fuels and technologies, and look into the possibility of setting up a system whereby polluters could buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases. The idea is to use market forces and market incentives to curb pollution.

I don’t believe the market will work this problem out in time, especially when we have an administration still obsessed over digging up as much oil as they can left in the world.   The science is 100% there that CO2 emissions are contributing to warming temperatures on the earth.  Why should Tony Blair have to run to a Hollywood movie star to try and save the earth, our economy and our national security?

I’m glad to see Slick Willy jumping into to get this party started as well.  Let’s put Bill and Al back in the drivers seat and see if we can turn this ship around. 

whereIstand Tags

• Is global warming a problem that humans must take actions to address?

The more I read and learn the more I realize that conservatives work in disguise to force their agenda on the country.  The "Clear Skies Act" that actually makes the sky dirtier…"Leave No Child Left Behind Act" that leaves everyone behind.  C’mon…

Today after reading a progressive report on the conservative agenda I stumbled upon some interesting news that strengthens my argument.  Mister E  provided a nice lead into the story when he asks passionately as always,

Why is Bush insisting on pretending that this issue isn’t real? I can’t figure it out? The man is ultra selfish, why does he care what we think about something that probably wouldn’t be a disaster in his lifetime?

Well, it’s not Bush, he doesn’t think, he’s a figure that has been cast to be tough and strong throughout the challenges of forcing a conservative agenda down the country’s throat.  The denial of global warming is calculating…

Frank Luntz, who I mentioned earlier in my post about "Progressives and their take on Bush’s Country", is infamously known as the GOP’s spin master and most notably for his "Contract for America" frame.  He doesn’t do issues, but rather he finds what words sell the issues better for conservatives.  For instance…

"Partial-birth abortion," "climate change" not "global warming" or "death tax" not "estate tax."  And as I wrote above the ironic "clear skies act."

In the 2000 and 2004 Presidential Elections Luntz coached the Administration on how to confuse the issue and delay action on global warming.  His infamous memo ironically titled, "Cleaner, Safer and Healthier America," outlines how to stress the misconceptions about global warming, so that Democrats weren’t able to use this issue against the President.

This year Luntz made a confession but said he still does not feel responsible for what the Administration is doing with his advice. 

LUNTZ: It’s now 2006. Now I think most people would conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behavior of humans are affecting the climate.

QUESTION: But the administration has continued to follow your advice. They’re still questioning the science.

LUNTZ: That’s up to the administration. I’m not the administration. What they want to do is their business. And it’s nothing to do with what I write. And it’s nothing to do with what I believe.

Why then, as MisterE asks, is the President and his Administration still refusing to act on global warming?  Are we going to continue to believe the Michael Crichton’s of the world and their selective science arguments?  Are we going to continue to be confused by the massive PR campaigns paid for by the oil industry that the science is inconclusive?  The science is united 100%.  Don’t be stupid…this is not a partisan issue.  This is real and it’s amazing to think Frank Luntz and the rest of the global warming spinners out there can live with themselves in a lie.

Sometimes we can live through spin that occurs to fight for a greater good, but can we live through spin that fights to ignore a threat to all of humanity?  Is this acceptable or is this politics gone ideologically out of control?

whereIstand Tags

• MisterE
• Is global warming a problem that humans must take actions to address?
• [Open Thread]
• Will the Left and Right ever find a way to live with each other in a civilized manner?

CNN just a had a funny story titled, "Heckuva E-mail."  I guess Michael Brown, former FEMA Director, is still pissed about being the scapegoat for this Administration’s Katrina fallout.  Brown seems determined to reveal that most of the failure to respond to Katrina lies with his superiors, Bush and Chertoff.  He and his attorney have released an e-mail from an unknown source (surprise) that quotes some of the comments Bush made at a cabinet level meeting during the time Brown was taking most of the heat. 

The e-mail to Brown read:

The September 2005 e-mail reads: "I did hear of one reference to you, at the Cabinet meeting yesterday. I wasn’t there, but I heard someone commented that the press was sure beating up on Mike Brown, to which the president replied, ‘I’d rather they beat up on him than me or Chertoff.’ "

The sender adds, "Congratulations on doing a great job of diverting hostile fire away from the leader."

The White House is claiming this is an old rumor resurfacing.  Who knows how accurate this claim is?  But I would not be surprised if Bush was referring to himself as "the leader."  How sad is that?

Not sure if this story will gain any traction, since Michael Brown’s reputation has been trampeled.  But hurricane season is a coming again, so maybe some attention will come back to New Orleans and our inadequate Administration. 

Michael Brown in a way is like Barry Bonds.  Both for various reasons should be criticized to a certain extent.  But it always amazes me that the criticism never runs up the chain to Bud Selig or George Bush.

whereIstand Tags

• What political impact can we expect from the administration’s planning and response?

I saw Inconvenient Truth tonight…a packed house.  The movie was startling.  I left the place feeling like I got punched in the gut.  It was amazing to see Gore outline the misconceptions that exist today regarding this urgent threat to our world.  I challenge anyone to see this movie and dispute that global warming is not a problem humans must address; or that it is not a problem humans have contributed to. 

We live in a sad world when the President of the United States is still trying to debate whether CO2 emissions contribute to global warming.

The pictures don’t lie and the science is frighteningly accurate…

A study published in Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus that the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. In 2005, a top group of scientists convened by British Prime Minster Tony Blair met and examined the catastrophic impacts of global average temperature increases. The U.S. Climate Change Science Program, an intergovernmental agency, also concluded that humans are driving the warming trend through greenhouse gas emissions, noting "the observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents such as aerosols and tropospheric ozone alone."

Still the science is disputed.  The misconceptions blind the public from action and the urgency of this issue through public relations efforts. 

The overwhelming evidence on the urgency of global warming doesn’t stop some skeptics from denying climate change. The oil industry-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) have led the public relations effort to undercut the impact of Gore’s film. CEI has received $1.6 million from ExxonMobil since 1998 and accepted funding from other oil companies through the American Petroleum Institute.

Earlier this month, CEI released a set of misleading ads claiming "Greenland’s glaciers are growing." Actually, the study cited by the ad found there was an increase in snow accumulation on Greenland’s interior.

The economy or the earth?  Is this why the U.S. is not doing anything to address this issue?  Or is it complete disregard for the facts?

I didn’t get the sense that Gore was using this as prelude to his political comeback.  He seems like a man who has found his mission on earth.  He sounds like he is truly passionate and deeply concerned.  If he hadn’t studied this topic since he was in high school, I may have questioned him for using this movie to win some political capital.  I hope he runs in ‘08, because I believe we need someone to lead on this issue.  If the U.S. doesn’t lead on this issue then nothing will change.  If Gore does run, I believe he will win.

whereIstand Tags

• Is global warming a problem primarily caused by humans?

It appears a lot of people have jumpmed all over Al Gore’s movie, Inconvenient Truth, claiming it’s entirely false.  Centaur even went so far as labeling it "fear mongering."  Some of us get upset over the "fear mongering" this administration used leading us into a baseless war.  Others get upset when Al Gore shows pictures of melting ice caps….interesting world we live in.

In my comments to Centaur’s post, I said…

I don’t need to look at scientific data and I sure as hell don’t need powerline blog to tell me global warming is a farce.  I can look at pictures of the polar ice cap melting.  Pictures don’t lie…Gore has been talking about this stuff for the last 15 years.  He’s got to know something.

There are millions of dollars spent by the oil industry on campaigns to dispute global warming and humans contribution to it. 

 

Today I came across this from Media Matters…

Discussing An Inconvenient Truth, a new documentary on former Vice President Al Gore’s campaign to raise worldwide awareness of global warming, Sterling Burnett, senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, called the film "propaganda" and added: "You don’t go see Joseph Goebbels’ films to see the truth about Nazi Germany. You don’t want to go see Al Gore’s film to see the truth about global warming."

Wait a second….

As the weblog ThinkProgress noted, the National Center for Policy Analysis has received more than $390,000 from ExxonMobil since 1998, and Burnett recently wrote an editorial defending former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond’s retirement compensation (which amounted to $190,000 a day in 2005).

Sorry Mr. Burnett, but you certainly don’t listen to global warming naysayers who are funded by Exxon when debating this important issue.

Can someone tell me what Al Gore gets out of scaring the hell out of the world about global warming?  He has been giving this speech for the last 10 years for free across the world.  Has it been a cry for attention the last 25 years? 

whereIstand Tags

• centaur
• Is global warming a problem that humans must take actions to address?
• [Open Thread]

Gore has been talking about the effects of global warming for well over a decade and Bush still refuses to talk about it.  Or is this just Bush showing his complete distaste for Gore?  Maybe it’s both…

Is President Bush likely to see Al Gore’s documentary about global warming?

“Doubt it,” Bush said coolly Monday.

But Bush should watch it, Gore shot back. In fact, the former Democratic vice president offered to come to the White House any time, any day to show Bush either his documentary or a slide show on global warming that he’s shown more than 1,000 times around the world.

“The entire global scientific community has a consensus on the question that human beings are responsible for global warming and he has today again expressed personal doubt that that is true,” Gore said in an Associated Press interview from France where he attended the Cannes Film Festival.

whereIstand Tags

• Is global warming a problem primarily caused by humans?

Why not?

From Sen. Biden’s Unite Our States PAC…

It is time for President Bush and Vice President Cheney to get tough with their big oil friends. Last year, they gave them $2.6 billion dollars in oil and gas tax breaks in the energy bill. Guess what? It turns out they don’t need them.

I know - because I asked them.

The CEOs of the six largest oil and gas companies came in to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee last month.

So I asked them, under oath: Do you need these tax breaks? And they said: No. Each one agreed. No. They don’t need them.

Even our Oil President is publicly telling Congress to reevaluate tax breaks for BIg Oil…

"Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that Congress has got to understand that these energy companies don’t need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of certain geological and geophysical expenditures," he said .

Our Republican led Congress has shown no sign yet in closed door meetings that a repeal of Big Oil’s ridiculous tax breaks thanks to Cheney’s behind closed doors energy policy. 

The kickbacks have gone too far.  It would be political suicide to not repeal these tax breaks.  People are pissed about these gas prices.  Bush will continue to talk a mean game like he’s on the people’s side, but Republicans are up for reelection…they’ll be forced by Democrats to make changes before November. 

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]

Mr. Oil President, help stop the pain at the pump.  How is Mr. Oil President going to lead Americans out of this crisis

Here’s a start…let’s screw the environment even more.

President Bush on Tuesday ordered a temporary suspension of environmental rules for gasoline, making it easier for refiners to meet demand and possibly dampen prices at the pump. He also halted for the summer the purchase of crude oil for the government’s emergency reserve.

Next look out for a greater push for more offshore drilling in Florida, California and in ANWAR of course.  Let’s put up refineries all over the country and continue to destroy our environment. 

Does this strategy take into account that demand continues to rise and that production will peak soon in the Middle East?Attacks on refineries and pipelines in the Middle East and the volatility of the whole region hold us hostage to high prices.  So why do we keep finding ways to remain addicted and determined to continue consuming oil at obscene levels when the technology and means for alternative energy exists?  It could be a great thing for our national security and economy…what gives?

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]
• Should the U.S. allow oil drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)?

Sen. Obama addressed an Associated Press luncheon in Chicago yesterday. 

While fending off questions about his interest in being on the ticket in ‘08, Obama focused intently on reducing America’s dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels.  He felt it was our duty for national security reasons and for the health of our environment for future generations. 

He accused Pres. Bush of a "stubborn refusal" to attack the causes of climate change, and said tougher fuel standards, stricter curbs on oil imports and more investment in cleaner energy are essential to avert global catastrophe.

"Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program," said Obama in a reference to one of the principal themes of Bush’s State of the Union address.

Obama claimed the technology is available to make cars that travel 500 miles a gallon.  So, the question is, why aren’t we acting more aggressively to reduce our dependence; especially when the growing instability of the Middle East is not going to get better anytime soon.  Throw in suicidal Iran and we have a serious problem. 

Tracy Schmitt of the RNC responded insecurely to Obama’s attacks…

Rather than attack the administration, Sen. Obama would be better served to read the energy bill President Bush signed into law, particularly the portions that focus on energy-efficient vehicles, renewable energy sources and less reliance on foreign sources of fuel."

Obama has read the bill Tracey, c’mon…he’s not just attacking, he’s proposing real plans that actually take intitiative…

He cited several pieces of legislation he has introduced in Congress, including one to help defray the auto industry’s costs of investment in more fuel-efficient cars. It calls for the federal government to pick up a portion of the costs automakers pay for retiree health care, so long as companies use some of the savings to retool their factories.

Obama said the Big Three automakers spent $6.7 billion on retiree health care costs in 2004.

"It’s a win-win proposal for the industry — their retirees will be taken care of, they’ll save money on health care, and they’ll be free to invest in the kind of fuel-efficient cars that are the key to their competitive future," he said of the legislation.

"As gas prices keep rising, the Middle East grows every more unstable and the ice caps continue to melt, we face a now-or-never, once-in-a-generation opportunity to set this country on a different course," he said.

Bush’s plan looks to reduce our foreign oil dependence by 4.5 million barrels by 2025…what a joke. 

whereIstand Tags

• [open thread]