They both teed off Nancy Pelosi's statement that one of the reasons she was blocking a vote on coastal drilling was, "I'm trying to save the planet; I'm trying to save the planet."
Krugman understood that, notwithstanding the fact that offshore drilling would never have a significant impact on oil prices, she was talking about global warming: "Beyond that, Ms. Pelosi's response shows that she understands the deeper issues behind the current energy debate."
As Krugman points out, that point is utterly lost on Senator McCain, who has now become "a standard drill-and-burn Republican." Krugman's worry:
... if a completely bogus claim that environmental protection is raising energy prices can get this much political traction, what are the chances of getting serious action against global warming? After all, a cap-and-trade system would in effect be a tax on carbon (though Mr. McCain apparently doesn't know that), and really would raise energy prices.
Exactly.
Needless to say, this point is entirely lost on Charles Krauthammer. Entirely.
His column on the subject never mentions global warming. He makes a completely bogus argument that drilling here makes more sense environmentally than drilling in Nigeria since America's environmental laws are tougher than those around the planet:
The net environmental effect of Pelosi's no-drilling willfulness is negative. Outsourcing U.S. oil production does nothing to lessen worldwide environmental despoliation. It simply exports it to more corrupt, less efficient, more unstable parts of the world -- thereby increasing net planetary damage.
Does Charles Krauthammer really think that if we drill a little more here that the world won't drill for oil in Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea and the Arctic with petroleum above $100 a barrel? This argument is so transparently nonsensical, I'm surprised even a blinkered columnist as Krauthammer would stoop to make it.
He then tries to blame the Democrats for pushing biofuels, when it was the 2005 Energy Bill, passed by a Republican Congress and signed by a Republican president, that doubled the corn ethanol mandate.
The Washington Post should be embarrassed to run Krauthammer's column. But in the name of balance, mainstream newspapers have stuffed their op-ed pages with conservative know-nothings who continue to spread disinformation and undermine the opportunity for an informed debate might actually solve the nation's and planet's problem.
So the answer to Krugman's question "Can this planet be saved?" is "not if conservatives rule."
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
For McCain, it’s really all about the fake snow
Obama administration may (finally) offer greenhouse-gas targets
John McCain’s troubles are the world’s troubles
Comments
View as Flat
MAD MAC Posted 7:00 pm
01 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
planetthoughts Posted 8:32 pm
01 Aug 2008
For the USA, it means changing the president and vice-president, most of the congress, and about 1/2 of the Supreme Court. They fail either on brains, or integrity, or both.
David Alexander
PlanetThoughts.org
Love your Planet.
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:41 pm
01 Aug 2008
You report,
"Vaclav Havel never did choose to stand up and pull the 'stop' cord on the train!"
But, Wayne, the colossal train is adding cars and accelerating its speed as it proceeds down the track. There is no engineer on the train. Everyone has gone below to stoke the furnace so that the train goes faster and faster. Where it will stop, or how, nobody knows. Conventional wisdom indicates the track is clear ahead and without an endpoint. Widely shared and consensually validated thinking assures everyone on board this train that we can add more and more cars to the train and continuously stoke its furnace with fossil fuels so that the train can keep going at an increasing speed as long as we have fuel to keep the train going. There are no limits to the speed the train can achieve, no limits to the number of cars the engine can pull, and no end to the railroad track. Everything is going as planned and will continue without interruption indefinitely.
Wayne, if this train is a metaphor for the ever manmade global political economy, could you help us understand how magical thinking, arrogance, pyramid-type schemes and greed are governing the seemingly endless growth of the global economy and how the unbridled increase of the leviathan-like global economy cannot be sustained much longer by a relatively small, evidently finite, noticeably frangible planet with the size and make-up of Earth?
And what of the 'stop' cord on the train, Wayne? I can see it, but cannot yet see how pulling it will do any good because there is no engineer in control. Do you think Vaclav Havel could see that the engine room must have been empty for a long time?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/index.php
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 3:03 am
02 Aug 2008
oh, right. never mind. just relax. the government will run itself, then, based on the people who do make the effort to be heard - Big Energy, Big Agra, Big Pharma, Big Insurance and Big Whatever Else. They will bribe, blackmail, push, cajole, swap, and backroom deal while we sit drooling and sometimes complaining.
we get the government we deserve. both parties are wholly owned and operated by Big Lobbyists. if we aren't willing to force change on that issue, we can never make any progress.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
gzuckier Posted 3:50 am
02 Aug 2008
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 4:32 am
02 Aug 2008
Victory in Pattani
Permalink
Wolverine Posted 4:39 am
02 Aug 2008
Permalink
GreenNPR Posted 4:42 am
02 Aug 2008
"Obama said Friday that he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs."
Hmm, yet both candidates seem to be ignoring conservation and reducing consumption as the BEST and cheapest ways to combat climate change and get on track on energy.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/02/campaign.wrap/
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 4:45 am
02 Aug 2008
On the other hand, there is no guarantee that all Democrats quite get it, even those like Nancy Pelosi who profess to be "trying to save the planet."
By the way, Joseph Romm added some important background in the recently aired NOVA program on PBS, "Car of the Future," starring Tom and Ray, those ever-joshing Italian-American brothers who have a radio show in which they offer autumobile advice:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/car/.
Not surprisingly, Amory Lovins turned out to be the expert whom they most promoted.
Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.
Permalink
Paleocon Posted 3:10 pm
03 Aug 2008
Redistribute wealth.
That is at the core of what those who see themselves as the "brains and integrity" of society have as their answer.
But since they are so brainy, the call it "economic justice". Whatever the clever term, the plan always requires taking money from some people, skimming an administrative cut, and buying votes of others with the leftovers.
"Big Oil" payed $3 in taxes for every $1 they kept as profit. Obama now wants $500 per person from Big Evil Oil to buy votes. How brainy and honorable.
I was smarter than my parents when I was 19. Some people never get over it.
"...a 90 percent chance that the US has contributed .2 degrees F of temperature increase in the last 50 years..." The IPCC Consensus in perspective
Permalink
MAD MAC Posted 5:14 am
05 Aug 2008
Can't wait til it's finished. A chick magnet.
Victory in Pattani
Permalink