Dress Green with Barack …

We’ve seen how the McCain campaign sought to fundraise with some greenwashing. (Do you have your bamboo greenwashing shirt?) Just like McCain, some lip service rather than real service to critical issues.

Well, on the heels of the Sierra Club endorsement and Obama’s recent energy conversations, there is now a green Obama t-shirt. Just a $30.01 donation or more in green and you can wear show your green support for Obama.

Clinton’s FOE

Until quite recently, those who focused primarily on energy and global warming issues could see reasons to be supporting Hillary Clinton and/or Barack Obama. In this arena, both have plans and records with strengths … and weaknesses. Both could learn from each other and strengthen their own programs. Thus, with real legitimacy, an “environmentalist”, those concerned about Peak Oil or Global Warming or related issues, could easily defend their position supporting either (or neither) of the candidates. And, again, their platforms/records are certainly light years ahead of this Administration’s and of McSame McCain’s, but have weaknesses and are ‘reasonably good’ but not the best that they could be. Thus, many of us were ‘sitting on the sidelines’ when it came to the Presidential campaign.

Well, this has changed.

The precipitating event: Hillary Clinton’s determined foray into the Energy Dumb ranks with her vociferous and highly counter-productive calls for a gas tax moratorium.

Well, this morning, Friends of the Earth jumped off the fence and endorsed Barack Obama for President.

Energy Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest …

My six-year old son is addicted to the Berenstein Bears. One of his first successfully read books: Ready, Get Set, Go which teaches adjectives and suggests that no one is best at everything. How many times read between us? 10? 25? Maybe 50? As any parent can tell you, a favored book like that becomes imprinted in your brain.

“Good, Better, Best …” is the tag line in Ready, Get Set, Go. Well, in the past few days, we’ve seen an example of this in reverse, something more from the film world. When it comes to politics and energy, we’ve had a display of Dumb, Dumber, Dumbest.

Clinton, McCain, Bush.

Energy Dumb. Energy Dumber, Energy Dumbest.

Green our way toward “A More Perfect Union”?

Yesterday, Barack Obama gave a speech likely to become part of the pantheon of great American political speeches and moral speeches. A More Perfect Union is impressive, overwhelming even, on many levels. If you haven’t seen it, watch it. If you haven’t read it, read it.  Having listened to it twice and read it many more, each revisit sparks different ways of thinking about and reacting to it.  Yet, a gap remains and the sense of a gap even strengthens with each visit to it.

Greenwashing reckless legislation — unintentionally or otherwise

Barbara Boxer has been a real leader on Global Warming issues in the US Senate. A leader who suffered for far too long under the ‘tutelage’ of Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon).  Sadly, for whichever set of reasons, Senator Boxer has being working hard to corral votesin support of the fatally flawed Lieberman-Warner Coal Subsidy Act and reacting strongly against those who have the audacity to question the bill and her approach to it.   The bill, however, is getting growing notice and the questioning of Senator Boxer’s approach to it is spreading.  

In the face of such criticism, Barbara Boxer held a press conference today  with a range of environmental organizations to support action on Global Warming.

The Globe’s Future and November’s Choice

Dr. Slammy over at Scholars And Rogues is one of those thoughtful bloggers that any/all can gain from reading and considering.  Yesterday, he sent An open letter to Progressive America.  This piece, very worth reading, lays out Dr. Slammy’s regret for his non-vote in 2000.

I’d like to begin with a confession: I didn’t vote in 2000. It’s the only presidential election since I turned 18 that I’ve sat out, and I’m more than embarrassed about it. It remains one of the biggest mistakes of my political life, and that’s saying something. The fact that my participation wouldn’t have made any difference (I lived in Massachusetts at the time) affords no solace, nor should it. I was stupid. I fucked up. Period.

 Slammy then looks back on how the world and US government might have different with Al Gore in the Oval Office and makes an appeal for all Clinton and all Obama supporters to understand the clear difference between a choice between the Democratic candidate (whichever it might be) come November and John McCain.  Dr Slammy considers a raft of issues and seeks to highlight the stark choice before us / the US:

What about McCain, though? He voted in favor of waterboarding – after repeatedly calling it torture?! He not only supported the invasion of Iraq, he supports staying there for a thousand more years. He also promises that there will be more wars. He supports repealing Roe v. Wade. He voted no on a $100M initiative to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. He’s rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. He’s rated 83% by the Christian Coalition, indicating a strongly (euphemism alert) “pro-family” voting record.

A powerful statement, a powerful appeal for seeking unity post-primaries, to understand the starkness of the choice before us and the US. And, a raft of serious issues.  A raft of serious issues with a very serious gap. 

• Where is the environment in Dr Slammy’s discussion?  Absent! 
• Where is Global Warming?
• Where is energy?  Absent. 

WashPost Blurs R-D Presidential Race’s Climate Change Differences

For anyone who pays close attention, it is clear that John McCain is far behind both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when it comes to Global Warming.  McCain’s campaign might be a “Green Straight Talk Express” but, when given the opportunity to act, Senator McCain’s reality is more like a Dirty Energy Twisted Delay Action Machine. 

But, for the Washington Post, the significant differences between a McCain and Obama or Clinton Administration aren’t worthy of note. From today’s lead editorial on the choice voters will face this November, The Coming Change:

 In contrast to President Bush, the next president will not start as a skeptic about the danger posed by global warming, and he or she will favor, not resist, legislation to impose mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, even without an international agreement binding other nations.

Yes, John McCain has talked the talk when it comes to Global Warming, having had a conversion to reality-based thinking earlier this century.  And, John McCain did co-sponsor Climate Change legislation only slightly worse than the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act.  But, having a toe in the real world doesn’t mean that there is not significant difference between McCain and the coming Democratic Party nominee (whether Obama or Clinton).  This one-sentence re Global Warming washes over these differences and, sadly, is likely the view of those who don’t pay real attention to this critical issue.

Voicing Reason on the Lieberman-Warner CISA

The battlelines are being drawn when it comes to what makes sensible legislation to respond to Global Warming.  Sadly, the lines are being drawn among the environmental community, with Global Warming Deniers, Skeptics, and Delayers watching the developing battle with amusement.

In December, the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) committee passed out for full Senate consideration the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act (CISA).  As discussed elsewhere, the CISA is fundamentally flawed.   Among its problems:

• Giveaway of $500+ billion in pollution permits, raising the cost and lowering the efficiency of the US economy’s finding a path toward a climate friendly society; and
• Inadequate targets for reducing CO2 to lower the risk of catastrophic climate change …

These are just a taste of the CISA problems.  Even with these known, serious, high-risk problems, too many people have found their way to praise LW, seemingly desperate to be able to claim victory on the Climate Change legislative front, even if this seeming battlefield victory could doom us to defeat in the war on Global Warming.

The CISA’s risks and inadequacies need daylight shown on them to either ensure fixing its faults or keeping it from going to George W Bush’s desk for signature. 

Earlier today, Friends of the Earth began a campaign to shine this light.

Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill

After years of ignoring global warming, the U.S. Senate is finally considering legislation to cap greenhouse gas pollution. Unfortunately, the Lieberman-Warner bill being advanced by Senate Democrats lavishes up to $1 trillion on industries responsible for global warming, and in return asks for reduction targets well below what scientists say are necessary. If this is the best Senate Democrats can do, the world is in trouble.

“Is Global Warming Overblown?

When it comes to the Presidential campaign and global warming, there seems to have been a virtual blackout in the broadcast media. Search for the questions on this issue on that stalwart Meet The Press. If you find anything meaningful, let me know. And, well, that is about the level of coverage that is throughout the campaign.

Tonight, Katie Couric and CBS News are going to blast through this barrier, the day after Gore receiving the Nobel Peace Prize and amid the Bali negotiations. CBS is doing a segment on The Candidates On Climate Change. The core question:

Is The Global Warming Threat Overblown?

Barack’s “Energy Intensity”

Barack Obama is getting some legitimate praise about his new energy plans, such as the enthusiastic reception David Roberts has given it at Grist.  There are some great things in it, most notably that is is a CAP AND AUCTION plan when it comes to carbon emissions, not a Cap and Trade.  The resources would stay with the commons, with the society, to be used to help move toward a more sustainable energy future. That is, well, great. 

And, there are other strengths to Obama’s approach (fact sheet).

However, however, however …. there are things that aren’t so tremendous. For example, is a 35% reduction in oil use by 2030 meaningful (enough?) in the face of Peak Oil?  And, well others … But, this is a quick post about one particularly grating item … “energy intensity”.