Comments sukumar has made

"If insurance companies are required to accept everyone,.. then the insurance industry will become a powerful ally in fight for better food and against the agribusiness lobby." Oh, yeah? Are you holding your breath. I'm certainly not! What's this guy smoking?

You are barking up the wrong tree. Go elect committed environmentalists to Congress, not necessarily to the courts. We need judges who know the law thoroughly, will apply the law fairly and interpret it sensibly. Period. We do not need nor want partisans on the Supreme Court either way, not those who are in the pockets of the oil or coal industry or the fundamentalist right wing, nor those who have an overt environmentalist agenda. Empathy yes, partisanship no.

Since most mainstream environmental groups have, for all intents and purposes, given up on this issue (most of them are busy sending self-congratulatory messages to their members, carefully avoiding ANY mention of the major flaws in the bill) it falls to grass-roots and activist organizations such as MoveOn to pick up the gauntlet. I know where my support is going.

Thank you for that detailed tutorial. To me the whole emissions credits and cap-and-trade program looks like a giant bailout scheme for derivatives traders freshly laid-off from Wall Street.

The proof is in the pudding: now that we're through the House, let's see if we can (and work together to) strengthen and improve the bill in the Senate. There are off-the-record accounts that some environmental groups actually worked against strengthening ammendments to the House bill on the grounds that those would make the bill harder to pass.

But political will to strengthen or improve a bill will not come about as long as we engage in hyperbole and superlatives such as 'ground-changing' and 'historic'. And we'll be just as fried with 4% cuts as with none.

Speaking in terms of analogies and metaphors (such as ladders) is all very well. The argument is whether this bill is two steps forwards and one step back or one step forwards and two steps back. But as long as folks are indulging in hyperbole and self-congratulation, that conversation can not even begin.

I can live with myself much better than most of you, thank you. No, we can NOT improve a bad bill later. That is NOT how it works with legislation. Legislation does NOT get stronger as it moves through Congress. It get progressively emasculated as the lobbyists of powerful moneyed interests work on our representatives and the jellyfish Democrats compromise in the name of "bipartisanship."

- To avoid the worst climate impacts we must cut our emissions by 25-40% below 1990 levels by 2020 (according to the IPCC). This bill only calls for a 4% reduction by 2020.
- These weak targets are made even worse by 2 billion tons per year of allowable offsets that allow polluters to put off real cuts in emissions for more than a decade.
- Coal-fired power plants are the single largest source of global warming pollution in the US. But instead of phasing-out coal plants, ACES will actually encourage the growth of a new generation of coal-fired plants and tens of billions of taxpayer dollars would be spent on an untested and unproven technology that is decades away from deployment (carbon capture and sequestration).
- Worst of all, ACES will actually remove the President’s existing authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act, an authority that was recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

As Garo Gagliano said elsewhere, "I dont pretend, or claim, to know much at all about either politics, OR economics - but I damned well know a pile of bullshit when I see it."

What happens if the present bill doesn’t pass? - Why, we try again!

Terrorism is certainly more than a bumper sticker

Terrorism is certainly more than a bumper sticker, but the "patriotism" of so many "Support-the-Troops" chicken-hawks is limited to bumper stickers, while the troops get blown up due to lack of body armor or languish in rat-infested Walter Reid. But finally the rest of the country has caught on. A great leader might be nice, but a great follower -- one who can listen to what the people of New Orleans are crying out for, what the scientists have been warning about, one who can feel the concerns of those struggling to provide health care for their families -- would be even better.On An interview with John Edwards about his presidential platform on energy and the environment posted 2 years, 3 months ago 15 Responses

High gas prices: Are Americans really hurting?

Well, this past weekend the kid next door in my very middle-class suburban community spent the entire weekend tearing around the neighborhood in his ATV, belching blue smoke, presumably preparatory to tearing up the forests with it. The guy across the street left his car engine and car air conditioner running for over half an hour while his car was parked in front of the house with his dog in the car (Outside air temperatures being 65F). If this is how much we're hurting, we need to hurt some more!

Nations across the world have had higher petrol prices for decades. Sure, most of those high prices go towards taxes and some are advocating similar taxes here to curb demand. But if my neighborhood is any indication, I don't see this happening any time soon and given how this government spends my tax dollars, do I care if Lee Raymond gets a heart attack guzzling my money or Haliburton? Burn, baby, burn!On Driving less is great, but producing more oil is a less-desirable reaction posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

jdhlax has it right

Congress should be investigated to expose why they insist on giving tax breaks to oil companies that don't want them (or building bridges for communities in Alaska that also don't want them).
I find nothing surprising in what the oil execs said. Sure they want less environmental regulation; so does every other industry. Its in the nature of the beast. But it is for us, not them, to decide how much regulation is warranted. Nevertheless once the regulations are in place, haven't you noticed how the same companies spend millions on slick ads to portray how well they are protecting the environment and what good corporate citizens they are?On Kabuki posted 4 years ago 5 Responses

No company CARES about the environment

...not even those sponsoring slick ads on National Geographic. Companies exist to earn profits for their owners/shareholders by selling their products. The recent makeover by Walmart reflects their awareness as to how their image could be affecting their bottom line, as well as changing realities and public consciousness that require even a company like Walmart to pay lip service to environmental concerns today. As to how far they will go in the direction of genuine green transformation or whether they will be able to get off with mere lip service and window dressing, and whether we will be able to hold their feet to the fire on other issues such as their wage and hiring policies, these depend more on us consumers than on some (ha!) "benign" executive.On Makower thinks the retail giant might just be turning over a new leaf posted 4 years, 1 month ago 10 Responses

Dearth Day indeed

This is a measure of how low environmental concerns score in our national consciousness (as recently pointed out in the "Death of Environmentalism" debate that drew such scathing responses from professional environmentalists). I dont't think the online computer click culture is to blame either; just organize a "pro-life" or "pro-faith" rally and see how many people litter the streets within minutes. There is more concern for the feeding of a brain-dead woman than there is for the health of our food supply, the sanctity of our waters or the integrity of our atmosphere.On Earth Day goings-on don't measure up to dark drama on Capitol Hill posted 4 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses