A couple nights ago I spoke briefly and rather aimlessly at the first Seattle EcoTuesday. I mentioned that the leading Democratic candidates all have detailed, creditable climate and energy plans, and the leading Republican candidates don't. Afterward, a guy pulled me aside to scold me for "making it a political issue."
It's something I hear a lot, and I remain utterly baffled by it. The assumption seems to be that politics is bad and that the ideal state would be unity. That's just ... creepy. This is an enormously significant policy challenge facing a democracy, where different citizens and groups have different assessments of the problem and different proposals for solving it, arising from different interests. In other words, it is political. Politics is the means by which people resolve their disputes. The only practical way of achieving unity is by suppressing dissent.
So yeah, it's a political issue. The two parties have different takes on it. That's a basic background fact, necessary to understanding the world we live in, not something we ought to be embarrassed or quiet about.
Franken win means another likely Senate vote for climate action
Los Angeles rejects solar plan, still likes solar power
Comments
View as Flat
precipice Posted 11:37 am
29 Nov 2007
I wonder how the political sides are lining up these days around Atlanta.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 11:50 am
29 Nov 2007
You may be aware that Australia recently had an election and that the government of John Howard (a good mate and supporter of George Bush) has been crushed by the left leaning Labor Party, led by Kevin Rudd (a former diplomat and fluent speaker of Mandarin) with the support of the Australian Greens.
Howard himself lost his seat to a very switched on former journalist from the Australian Broadcasting Commission - Maxine McKew.
It is widely recognized that the backward stance of Howard with respect to climate change played a significant role in the change of government.
The new Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, is the first woman ever to hold that role.
As of yesterday we now have two dedicated, intelligent, enlightened ministers who are committed to helping the country get to grips with the environment, water and climate change, and who are eager to seek and accept the best advice available from the scientific community, economists and business leaders. Mr Rudd declared yesterday that his minister for The Environment, Heritage and the Arts is Mr Peter Garrett - the former head of the Australian Conservation Foundation (equivalent to the Sierra club in the US and the RSPB in Britain). And in addition there will be a dedicated Minister for Climate Change and Water - Ms Penny Wong, a Malaysian-Chinese immigrant. Ms Wong will lead the way in international negotiations on climate change, Mr Garrett will lead the way in developing and implementing policy within Australia.
The Labor party already held power in every state and territory in the country. The state and territory governments have been battling the national government for years to get meaningful greenhouse policies in place. Now the brakes are off. To find the highest ranking right-wing politician in Australia you now have to look to the Mayor of Brisbane!
It's always easy to be cynical ('no matter what, you always get a politician'). But this new crop includes some of the most committed, intelligent, environmentally savvy, socially progressive people in the country.
It's like some kind of miracle!
The new Australian governments's commitments include :
Signing and moving beyond the Kyoto agreement.
Achieving a national renewable energy target of 20% by 2050.
Reducing greenhouse emission by 60% by 2050.
Commitments to short and medium term targets once the draft of the Garnaut Report is released in June next year. (The Garnaut report being Australia's version of the Stern Report.)
Oz$500,000 - to develop, commercialize and deploy renewable energy .
Oz$500 million - to the develop and deploy 'clean' coal technologies
Oz$240 million - for assisting and encouraging business to reduce emissions.
Oz$150 million - to keep our world leading scientists and researchers in Australia, rather than losing them overseas.
$8000 rebates to households for solar power instillations.
$1000 rebates for solar hot water systems.
$500 rebates for gray water piping and rainwater tanks.
$500 rebates to assist landlords to install insulation.
up to $10,000 per household in low interest green loans for solar systems and water and energy savings measures.
Invest $20 million in a Clean Energy Innovation Center.
Invest in a Green Car Innovation Fund to develop and build green cars in Australia.
Half of this is allocated to be spent in th the first 3 year term of government.
I suspect that in setting greenhouse reduction targets based on a comprehensive and honest analysis of both the most up-to-date science and a realistic understanding of our economy, and then acting in such a decisive manner to meet them, we will be able to significantly influence the likes of Canada, the US and China (as indeed the actions of US states such as California have influenced us). It is likely to be very helpful in negotiations to have a Prime Minister who speaks Mandarin and a Climate Change Minister who is ethnic Chinese. Mr Rudd, Mr Garrett and Ms Wong will all be attending the Bali Climate summit.
The unwillingness of conservative governments, such as those that remain in Canada and the US, to face and respond to the avalanche of science that details the grave dangers inherent in the business-as-usual path, inevitably dooms them to the same fate as the former Australian government. You can only be overtly, pigheadedly stupid for so long before the electorate starts to notice.
Cheers from sunny Australia
Craig Allen
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 11:53 am
29 Nov 2007
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 12:11 pm
29 Nov 2007
Um, ... you'll work it out I'm sure :)
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 1:37 pm
29 Nov 2007
grist.org
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 2:07 pm
29 Nov 2007
And this article in the 'Australian' newspaper suggests that Australia's shift is already providing a welcome impetus to the Bali talks. (It also mentions that the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, spoke to Al Gore yesterday and that they are looking forward to getting together in Bali.)
Perhaps, having seen the Australian turn-around, the US Democrats will grow some balls and get on with it.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:18 pm
29 Nov 2007
thanks for this encouraging report. Global cynic that I am, I cannot help pointing out it sounds too good to be true -- but of course I hope I am proved wrong. It would be terrific if, in addition to keeping your most creative thinkers there at home, Australia were able to become a kind of Florence of conservation research and GW-mitigation research. At very least, it should not surprise anyone if you come to lead the way in water management, including as you mention the conservation of gray water.
As a student of foreign languages, and a teacher of two (Greek and Latin), I am impressed that Kevin Rudd was motivated to learn Mandarin, and can speak it proficiently. In this country, by contrast, where most kinds of formal intellectual excellence in our politicians are rarely rewarded, least of all perhaps a deep curiosity into anything foreign, John Kerry had to hide the fact that he speaks French in 2004; this time around, it looks like few will want to show off how much Spanish they may know, quite unlike George W. Bush himself now and again in the past.
So it will indeed be interesting to see how Mr. Rudd's plainly sincere and disciplined interest in Chinese language and culture plays out in his relationships with the Chinese, not just those in Beijing but elsewhere in Southeast Asia. Let us hope that he will be able to negotiate past an apparent clash of cultures, and to represent such "Anglo-Saxon" values as respect for human rights and the conservation of wildlife and wilderness in a manner that is less challenging and offensive than the approaches in the past of other Western spokespersons.
DR,
don't worry, it is certainly not you who are making a political statement, by simply observing which party's candidates have policy statements on energy and which do not. If anyone, it is the GOP candidates who are making it political.
But according to the way these things work, apparently, whichever of them is nominated will have to start saying something serious-sounding for the general election. So environmental journalists with time on their hands may want to start asking the GOP candidates' camps what their guys are thinking about for further on down the road, once whoever it is has got past addressing Republicans solely, who apparently are not much interested in the subject.
By the same token, I am dreading what the Democratic nominee is going to end up saying about immigration reform, which is so far not a very high priority among most Democratic voters (don't let me get started on the Iowans!), but is hugely important to Republicans. In that camp, behind the banners respectably enough proclaiming "Enforce the laws!," and rather less respectably "Secure the borders!," march some of the ugliest faces in America, those marked by nativism and xenophobia, ignorance, selfishness and greed. It would break my heart, were the Democratic nominee to try to appeal to those worser angels of our nature.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 4:06 pm
29 Nov 2007
The senate results are as below
Liberal/National Coalition (the conservatives who just lost) - 37
Labor (the new left wing government) - 32
The Greens - 5
Family first (a Christian party) - 1
Nick Xenophon (a left leaning, pro environment independent) - 1
So to get policies through the senate that the conservatives don't like, the government will need to have the support of the Greens + Nick Xenophon. That'll keep em on their toes.
So Caniscandida, stow your cynicism for now. Things are definitely looking up in the Antipodes.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 4:08 pm
29 Nov 2007
And Craig, you didn't even mention that Peter Garrett is the former frontman for Midnight Oil (one of my favorite bands of all time) which did the classic "Beds Are Burning" talking about Aborigine Rights!!!
WooHoo!!
Caniscandida is correct to note that there are no leading candidates from the Democrats who have the courage to face down the nativist reactionary anti-immigrant right. Can I stand to vote for any of them?? I already feel the need for a permanent vomit bucket when I read Campaign 08 news. All terrible, all ethanol supporters, no one really has a plan to end the invasion and killing in Iraq.
If they can't face down the anti-immigrant thugs, how will they be able to stand up to the big oil companies??
Of course, it is a political issue!!! It's just that there is no progressive party in America (of any size). We have far right and center right, and a media determined to marginalize any new ideas.
And Global Warming barely makes the list of issues people care about. Shame, shame, but what to do? If I vote Green, I will be condemned by the center right as a far right enabler. If I vote center right, I will be puking for months.
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:46 pm
29 Nov 2007
Anyway, "Things are definitely looking up in the Antipodes" is indeed a lovely irony.
As for the Senate election results, I must say I do not like the sound of Family First at all. Mel-Gibsonians? Were they the kind to be heartily embarrassed that Australia's blue-eyed baby Heath Ledger took the part that he took in "Brokeback Mountain"?
Patrick,
it is always a happy occasion to cross your path on the same thread! My practice of reading everything you write remains unchanged; but lately, your comments are in threads to which I do not know enough to add anything. Nevertheless, you should know I always quietly support you in all you write, especially when you urge mutual international understanding and friendship, with all the work and good will that that requires; and of course when you remind us of the conditions of the world's poor.
I entirely agree with your description of the Democrats as the center-right party. It is well-known that the UK Conservatives are well to the left of the Democrats on most things. And it is pathetic that the Democrats will not encourage any candidate at all, at any level, who would want to do some basic good progressive things, such as to abolish the death penalty, or to make total war on the NRA and break its back once and for all, or to fight for same-sex marriage. Even something so simple as wanting to get rid of "don't ask don't tell" is a bridge too far!
On a completely different subject, your expression "permanent vomit bucket" reminds me of a remarkable image in "Shrek 3," which comes early on during Shrek's parenthood-related nightmare. Perhaps that is not the image you yourself had in mind, though ... : )
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:23 pm
29 Nov 2007
you wrote: ". . . the leading Democratic candidates all have detailed, creditable climate and energy plans . . . "
Right, I noticed that too. And my impression is that at this stage, however great their differences one from another may be on paper, that is a matter of not much importance.
Nevertheless, for the benefit of us who plan to vote in Democratic primary elections, please tell us:
First, generally, do you think the most important criterion by which to assess a candidate is that candidate's energy plan?
Secondly, does "creditable" in the sentence which I quoted mean that the plans proposed thus far by several candidates are all fine and unobjectionable, any one being as good on balance as any other? Or,
Thirdly, quite the opposite, do you think they can certainly be ranked, with one being better than another, and one out of all of them being arguably the best? And if so,
Fourthly, are you prepared to tell us which you believe to be the best? Or,
Fifthly, do you need more time to study and ponder? In which case, would you have decided by, say, New Year's Day? And so,
Lastly, whether sooner or later, do you expect you will tell us who gets the crown?
But that would be a sort of endorsement, wouldn't it. And making an endorsement might violate your journalistic ethics -- to say nothing of the law. Yipes!
Oh dear, something else to fret about now: How difficult it must be for you, to watch us scurrying about, making up our own minds among these options, without being able to tell us clearly which way is the right path!
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 6:28 pm
29 Nov 2007
Us Aussies have long referred to our earthly paradise as the Land of Oz.
The term was popularized here in the late 60s and 1970s by an underground magazine called Oz. (The magazine emerged from the underground in a very public and very controversial obsenity trial.)
So there you go; thats why I used Oz$ as a shortcut for the Australian dollar. (I assumed that 'Oz' was widely used elsewhere when talking about us - obviously not!)
Permalink
Craig Allen Posted 6:30 pm
29 Nov 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:55 pm
29 Nov 2007
I join the chorus of thanks for your post, which adds much depth to the headlines. But I am puzzled. On my browser at least, and on on this blog, older comments reside above newer ones. So for me at least your reference to "above" in your third comment was correct, and your correction of it, not. Surely this is not some odd southern-hemisphere thing, like seeing the midday sun in the north?
Caniscandida,
wholly admirable polyglot as you are, perhaps you should learn a little Strine.
DR,
tell it.
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
wesrolley Posted 10:00 pm
29 Nov 2007
Maybe that is why everyone seems to love to bash the Republicans. Maybe that is why everyone with an environmental conscience looks to the Democratic candidates list and stops there. Both positions are, of course, dead wrong.
While there are Republicans like Sen James Inhofe and Rep. Dana Rohrabacher who will never "get it" there are also Republicans like Martha Marks and Jim DiPeso who probably got it before the Grist was even proposed. Unfortunately, Marks and DiPeso are a minority in a minority party.
There are others who address the real issues of Climate Change and who have done so for a long time. As CoChair of the EcoAction Committe, Green Party of the United States, I signed on to the Global Climate Campaign with the following statement taken from our 2006 State of the Earth Report.
The EcoAction Committee of the Green Part of the United States will promote the following goals from their 2006 Earth Day Statement
We, as individuals must make profound changes in our own lifestyles, demonstrating to elected officials our own commitment to and expectation of change in local, regional, national and global environmental policy;
We must phase out all subsidies and tax breaks to fossil and nuclear energy industries;
We must move to full cost pricing starting with carbon taxes;
We must provide incentives, legislation, and institutional reforms to bring renewable energy technologies on line and readily available to the consumer;
We must encourage the export and expansion of these technologies into overseas markets to competitively displace fossil and nuclear power, and large-scale hydroelectric projects;
We must research and implement interim, as well as long term offsets, such as reforestation, accompanied by measurable cutbacks in emissions;
We must reject biomass incineration and inefficient biofuels production as unnecessary, insufficient, polluting, damaging to ecosystems and a waste of energy;
We reject the concept of "clean coal";
We must put an absolute limit on CO2 emissions Nationally and work to facilitate a Worldwide CAP. This limit should be based on the amount we need to cut fossil fuel usage in order to aid in reversing the rise in average global temperatures.
We must base our cutbacks in fossil fuel usage on this limit; this means stabilization as quickly as possible and an 80% cutback to be reached within ten years.
Wes Rolley
CoChair - EcoAction Committee
Green Party US
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:37 pm
29 Nov 2007
I think the so-called centrist movement backed by AARP is an attempt to rescue the image of corporatism. The corpo-rats realize they backed the wrong chimp (horse) and are trying to avert attention from their huge mistake... trying not to go down with the stinking ship of state.
They like the status quo, no regulation, no enforcement of monopoly or safety rules, corrupt contractors replacing government. Simply paint reform minded democrats as extremists and they can continue business as usual.
While claiming to occupy the reasonable middle, that middle moved over to the corporight by propaganda.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
PPease Posted 1:07 am
30 Nov 2007
Some Democrats have made statements that lead me to believe that candidate recognizes this condition and will do what is needed instead of what the rich and powerful want. That is a person I will vote for. I hear nothing from any Republican candidate that leads me to believe they will do anything but maintain the status-quo.
The media will not even acknowledge that there is any politics other than Republican and Democrat.
P. Pease
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:14 am
30 Nov 2007
Thanks CanisCandida, always glad to run across you, too. I should be editing... sigh... (working on a class series for water managers, I am learning a lot, as well as developing some new concerns (smile)).
I had always intended to vote for Dennis in the primaries, then I read he has said he would like to consider Ron Paul as his running mate!! WTF???? This made me ill.
It is said (I don't know it if it is true, perhaps you can inform us) that Romans had buckets at their banquets to vomit in when they were full, so they could then eat more. I am surprised this had never caught on in America.
I have long advocated that each polling booth should have a bucket next to it, so that after we vote for an odious "lesser of two evils", we can stop and purge ourselves before returning home.
I firmly believe this would help improve voter turnout!!!
(but not candidate selection, alas).
I read all of the candidates positions on immigration and have felt nauseous every time I think of voting (for doesn't quite seem to be the right word) them.
And frankly, their environmental platforms...oops, where is my bucket???
I know that to be a "leftist" is to be an evil demon from hell in modern America. I wish I was!! Then all your bases belong to us!!!
patrick in Beijing
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 2:37 am
30 Nov 2007
FWIW, I voted for the Green Party candidates for governor and senator in 2006, and may very well vote Green next year. Of course, since I vote in New York, my vote does not really count -- where is that vomit bucket?!
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:39 am
30 Nov 2007
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:57 pm
30 Nov 2007
I vaguely remember hearing the same thing as you, but more as an aside from a teacher, not as part of a real lesson. In fact, I guess I need to research this alleged curious institution of the vomitorium. The word, meaning apparently a space, or room, or specific piece of plumbing, designated as a regular location for doing one's vomiting, does not exist in classical Latin. Who then could have invented it? And when? And why?
So my guess is, at this point, there was no such thing, really, as a vomitorium, but the concept of it may very well have been conceived by ancient writers who wanted to satirize the lifestyles of their excessively opulent and decadent privileged classes.
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:26 pm
30 Nov 2007
As far as all out sickness canis, can any ancient decadence really beat US? Think about it. Kidnapping, torture, and murder official government policy. A shaved chimp appointed leader of the most powerful nation on the planet?
Step aside Nero, our chimp fiddles while the whole planet is set to burn up. Not just one puny city.
A sane culture would elect Kucinich, oh well.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
Adam Stein Posted 11:49 pm
30 Nov 2007
There was such a thing as a vomitorium in ancient Rome, but it had nothing to do with vomiting. The word referred to the massive passageways in stadiums (stadia?) such as the Colisseum, which were capable of discharging thousands of gore-drunk spectators in a matter of minutes.
This has been another episode of Useless Trivia About Long Dead Cultures.
- Adam
www.terrapass.com/blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:20 am
01 Dec 2007
By contrast, when John Edwards was asked by Charlie Rose on Thursday evening what will happen to him if he comes in third in Iowa, he answered correctly (and, I believe, sincerely) that whoever comes in third -- and he added the names of Hillary and Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama -- will personally be fine, and unaffected; the party that will be affected by what the Iowa caucuses do is the American people.
Adam,
just to be clear, the word "vomitorium" is NOT used as a noun in classical Latin. The very learned and sophisticated Late Antique author Macrobius (active around 400 CE) did indeed use the plural form, "vomitoria," as you say, to refer to the vaulted passages connecting the entrances of theatres and amphitheatres to the seating areas. But that seems to be a purely metaphorical usage; there is no evidence that that was a technical architectural term.
My fellow classicist Alice Radin -- but she is much much more serious and committed to the profession than I, to say nothing of her being much much more learned, intelligent and industrious -- wrote this for the website of our professional organization, the American Philological Association:
http://www.apaclassics.org/AnnualMeeting/03mtg/abstracts/ ...
Besides her interesting suspicion that the semi-formal institutionalization of "vomitorium" should be traced to the gross and immature cleverness of English schoolboys grown up, notice the frequent classicists' lament that information about classical civilization -- sometimes true, but too often misleading or false -- is usually conveyed by self-serving non-professionals. That is why you rarely hear from our quarters great whoops and shrieks of delight at the release of such movies as "Alexander," "Troy" and "300."
And she adds to that the general academicians' lament, about the unreliability of what passes for "information" on the Web.
As for Rome as a "Long Dead Culture," about which any piece of information should be considered "useless trivia," you will not be surprised to know that I cannot entirely agree with you. In this country at least, whose Founding Fathers had the checks-and-balances experience of the Roman Republic before their eyes constantly as they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and where George Washington, putting aside all power at the end of his presidency, was compared to the virtuous yeoman-farmer Cincinnatus who famously returned to his plow after leading the Roman army to victory, the conduct of the ancient Romans is a good bit more significant than that of, say, the ancient Egyptians, or the Classic Maya.
Anyway, now that we are learning more and more juicy details about how Mayor Rudy Giuliani abused the privilege of police protection while he was carrying on with Judith Nathan, we must conclude that ancient Italian corruption and decadence are alive and well even on the shores of the New Jerusalem.
Judith Nathan, by the way, La Principessa with the diamond tiara, I had assumed from her name to be Jewish. But "Nathan" is the name of her former husband; she herself is -- wait for it -- Italian! From somewhere in eastern Pennsylvania. How proud her family must be!
Chickens are our cousins! So are fish! So are other sentient animals! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink