The triumph, for yet another year, of those who want to split the difference and, basically, do nothing (i.e. those whose key climate strategy is to invest in good ole technology or at least to say they want to invest in technology) -- this means you President Bush, Newt Gingrich, Bjørn Lomborg, OPEC (!), Shellenberger and Nordhaus (depending on what day you happen to catch them), and possibly Andy Revkin (and maybe even E. O. Wilson -- say it ain't so!)
By the way, the (lame) outcome of the energy bill ought to make VERY clear that funding clean energy technology at the level it deserves ($10+ billion a year) is NOT politically easier than regulating carbon (contrary to what Shellenberger and Nordhaus keep saying).
Conservatives hate both strategies -- and we will certainly need the money from the auctioning of carbon permits to pay for the technology, since it is now clearer than ever that such money won't come from 1) raising taxes [as if] or 2) shifting money away from huge government oil subsidies even when oil is at $90+ a barrel!
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
What to make of the new climate poll
Comments
View as Flat
stevenearlsalmony Posted 11:11 am
28 Dec 2007
Steve Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
Permalink
stevenearlsalmony Posted 9:15 pm
28 Dec 2007
Now, I ask you, where can we find leaders for these times, ones willing to speak out clearly, loudly and openly about the challenges posed to humanity by rapacious human over-consumption of the limited resources of Earth?
Sincerely,
Steve
Steve Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 1:32 am
29 Dec 2007
This last year we expected democrats to reverse the bushwacking, but they don't have the votes. Between the pubs and democrats taking corporate cash, no vero over ride.
Now this next year will be the last gasp for the jokers at bushco to pretend they are green by promoting "brown 25" energy policies.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
danielbell Posted 4:19 am
31 Dec 2007
Can we all try to remember that nuclear power plants are so huge that the concrete in them alone requires 18 years of plant operation just to offset the C02 released in plant construction?
The "climate centrist" debate this fall was an interesting and lively one. I'm glad I tried to get into the fray and feel that I learned quite a bit. This is all quite a bit of posturing (grist's peacock :-) but the problem is that we're going to need this to get climate action to pass the 60 vote mark and become a national priority.
Even though my own political views are so far left they've spun around the globe, I'm beginning to favor more centrist politicians. Simply because they are the only ones that can get legislation passed in the morass of washington politics. Joeseph, I think your journalism is quite relevant, the political question is the hardest and most important step in a new energy future.
For all of that, however, science doesn't bend just because politics does. Bill McKibben said it best: Politics is chasing reality, and the gap between them isn't closing nearly fast enough... The problem lies in how one defines reality. Physics and chemistry demand swift and deep cuts in carbon emissions; political realism says to move slowly. In that fight, there's really only one choice. The tax code can be amended, but the laws of nature can't.
Permalink
Earth Shaman Posted 5:34 pm
31 Dec 2007
Earth Shaman
Permalink