Progressive Viewpoints

Clip: We’re Gonna Be Sorry

Jeremy Grantham, who in his July letter to investors, noted: “Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for ... what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? I have a much simpler but plausible ‘conspiracy theory’: the fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: “Have they no grandchildren?”

via www.nytimes.com

No Fooling Mother Nature

There is only one meaningful response to the horrific oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and that is for America to stop messing around when it comes to designing its energy and environmental future. The only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean-energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.

This oil spill is to the environment what the subprime mortgage mess was to the markets — both a wake-up call and an opportunity to galvanize a constituency for radical change that overcomes the powerful lobbies and vested interests that want to keep us addicted to oil.

Our dependence on crude oil is not just a national-security or climate problem. Some 40 percent of America’s fish catch comes out of the gulf, whose states also depend heavily on coastal tourism. In addition, the Chandeleur Islands off the Louisiana coast are part of the Breton National Wildlife Refuge. It was created by Teddy Roosevelt and is one of our richest cornucopias of biodiversity.

via www.nytimes.com

New Deal for U.S. Climate Policy?

I've generally considered the market mix of carbon cap-and-trade with limits based on science a good mechanism, but subject to bad implementation.  I don't see the Senate doing a good job implementing it as special interests have undermined it by giving away instead of marketing permits, etc.

While a carbon tax is simpler its price is generally set by Congress which has a bad track record in setting the prices right.

So this new proposal might be a way to move forward reasonably.  (Actually similar to something Al Gore proposed years ago of having most of the fees rebated to taxpayers on a per-person basis.)

New Deal for U.S. Climate Policy? « The Baseline Scenario.

Last Friday, Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) unveiled the CLEAR (Carbon Limits and Energy for America’s Renewal) Act, which could break the impasse in the debate over U.S. policy on climate change (McClatchy coverage is here.)

CLEAR has won a favorable reception from a broad swath of the political spectrum, ranging from ExxonMobil to Friends of the Earth. The scroll of supportive statements on Cantwell’s website includes praise from the AARP, the American Enterprise Institute, former U.S. Labor Secretary Robert Reich, Alaska’s Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski, and MoveOn.org.

CLEAR is a “100-75-25-0” policy:

• 100% of the permits to bring fossil carbon into the U.S. economy will be auctioned from day one – there are no permit giveaways.
• 75% of the auction revenue is returned directly to the public as equal per person dividends.
• 25% of the auction revenue is devoted to investments in energy efficiency, clean energy, adaptation to climate change, and assistance for sectors hurt by the transition from the fossil-fueled economy.
• Zero offsets are allowed: polluters cannot avoid curbing use of fossil fuels by paying someone else to ostensibly clean up after them.

The Cantwell-Collins bill also strictly limits the buying and selling of permits to prevent carbon market speculation and profiteering.

The Prius of the sky

The Prius of the sky - James Fallows:

A contest for fuel-efficient small airplanes has a winner: a modified VariEze that gets 45 mpg at over 200 MPH with two people aboard, and nearly 100 mpg at a lower "maximum range" speed.

Clip: The New Sputnik

Op-Ed Columnist - The New Sputnik - NYTimes.com.

The view of China in the U.S. Congress — that China is going to try to leapfrog us by out-polluting us — is out of date. It’s going to try to out-green us. Right now, China is focused on low-cost manufacturing of solar, wind and batteries and building the world’s biggest market for these products. It still badly lags U.S. innovation. But research will follow the market. America’s premier solar equipment maker, Applied Materials, is about to open the world’s largest privately funded solar research facility — in Xian, China.

“If they invest in 21st-century technologies and we invest in 20th-century technologies, they’ll win,” says David Sandalow, the assistant secretary of energy for policy. “If we both invest in 21st-century technologies, challenging each other, we all win.”

Clip: Key Senators and Paul Krugman Call for Tariffs on High Carbon Footprint Products

Key Senators and Paul Krugman Call for Tariffs on High Carbon Footprint Products | OurFuture.org.

Creating a system of global trade that is sustainable and allows all countries including the United States to flourish is necessary for a global economic recovery. To do this, we must enact strong laws that don't allow one country to cheat the other by polluting their way to low prices.

Some argue that such measures, such as putting a tariff on products with a high carbon footprint are protectionists and harmful. However, as Steelworkers President Leo Gerard argues today in a must-read New York Times piece defending the decision of his union to call for enforcement of trade laws on tire and paper imports: “Anybody who believes we have a rule-based system, but we shouldn’t enforce the laws, they’re the ones jeopardizing the global trading system.”

Without a commitment to live up to—and a precedent of enforcing—agreements, any climate change treaty signed at Copenhagen or at future summits won't be worth the paper it is printed on.

Anti-green economics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com

Anti-green economics - Paul Krugman Blog - NYTimes.com:

Opponents of a policy change [to address global warming] generally believe that market economies are wonderful things, able to adapt to just about anything — anything, that is, except a government policy that puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions.  Limits on the world supply of oil, land, water — no problem.  Limits on the amount of CO2 we can emit — total disaster.

Funny how that is.

Obama and the Progressive Movement Open Left:: Obama and the Progressive Movement

Open Left:: Obama and the Progressive Movement      :

But we should be very clear: Obama has decided to cast his lot with those of us who have been fighting for big, transformative change.  If he succeeds, we succeed, and if he fails, we fail - and we fail for at least another generation, because no Democrat will take big risks again for a very long time if Obama loses this gamble. 

2009 is the year.  This is the moment when progressives, and America, show whether we can live up to the heroes of our history.  Progressives in the past have ended slavery and Jim Crow, given women and minorities and the poor the right to vote, created the National Parks System, made dramatic improvements in cleaning up our air and water, and launched transformational programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and Head Start.  Barack Obama has boldly announced his ambition to join those historic heroes and create another Big Change Moment.  This year will decide whether Democrats in Congress and the progressive movement can help him deliver on that noble ambition.  Seize the day.

The mission continues

The mission continues:

[Oregon’s Governor Ted Kulongoski said,] "When it comes to fighting climate change, recently I’ve been hearing a chorus of naysayers singing a three-part harmony of – too costly, too burdensome, and too soon. But this chorus is out of tune – and out of touch – with Oregon’s future.”

Brian Schweitzer interview - War Room - Salon.com

Brian Schweitzer interview  - War Room - Salon.com:

A lot of people are talking about, if Obama wins, should healthcare come first or energy reform come first? I'm sure you have some thoughts on this.

Both. You can't pay for healthcare if we're sending a trillion dollars a year to dictators. Bottom line is, we gotta stop hemorrhaging, and the hemorrhaging is full-flung. Climate change, that is the long-term economic hit to our economy. The short-term economic hit to our economy is the largest transfer of wealth from one economy to another economy. So, create a new energy system in America, and create an energy system that's cleaner and greener and is designed by American engineers and built by American workers. Once we get that right we can afford to invest in healthcare and education.