Paul Krugman wrote a must-read piece yesterday in the New York Times Sunday magazine on building a green economy. He essentially explains the various market solutions to global warming, analyzes future cost scenarios, and discusses the risk of not acting.
Read it. It's one of the better single-piece story laying out the case for government action on climate change I've seen.
And here's a quote that's especially relevant to Montana:
That said, some specific rules may be required. James Hansen, the renowned climate scientist who deserves much of the credit for making global warming an issue in the first place, has argued forcefully that most of the climate-change problem comes down to just one thing, burning coal, and that whatever else we do, we have to shut down coal burning over the next couple decades.
Not too long ago from a reader I got a link to a post suggesting that the "effort to establish climate science as the basis" for cutting down on carbon "lies in ruins":
Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.
Citing flatlined public support for belief in climate change, Nordhaus and Shellenberger advocate moving away from using immediate weather events - especially natural disasters - as a basis for supporting good, progressive low-carbon energy policy that's in our nation's "economic, national security, and environmental interest." (However, they never mention what line of reasoning should be used to support said policy.)
I'm down with avoiding using specific weather events to support climate change. That's something I can get behind. But that's not why I received the link. The reader sent the link to discourage me from mentioning climate change at all when I write about energy, as if somehow we've reached a state where the doubt of enough misinformed Americans trumps scientific reality, as if somehow the state of the climate were a battle of wills, not levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Of course, that's a foolish notion. For one, policy should not be based on irrational public opinion. As Todd Tanner writes in New West, most climate skeptics are "past the point where scientists can convince them or where logical arguments can persuade them," and that they've become ideologues, and whether they're driven by religion or politics or their distrust of the science is ultimately irrelevant." Tanner:
Here's what we need to know. The science is clear and unequivocal. We are dumping huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere, and all that carbon is warming the planet and making our oceans more acidic. Our dependence on fossil fuels has created a worldwide crisis that threatens every single aspect of our lives.
And, yes, wouldn't it be great if we could find some rhetorical silver bullet that utterly convinced the country that we need to wean ourselves off of our fossil fuel addiction - if not for the carbon, say, but for the deadly air pollution? Of course, I don't even agree that talk around climate change has failed just because a handful of people still claim it doesn't exist. A vast majority of Americans believe the US government should put a "great deal" (pdf) of effort into dealing with global warming, and a plurality believe the US sign on to an international treaty to "reduce significantly greenhouse gas emissions." If this is failure of message, I'd love to see the numbers on a successful public campaign. (Numbers, by the way, courtesy of Tanner.)
But the fact is that there are deep-pocketed people out there who have a strong interest in burning fossil fuels, who will work actively to combat any effort to change our energy infrastructure, and who will sow misinformation and doubt among the citizenry and who will politicize health and safety to thwart reform. That is, it doesn't matter what rhetoric you use to support progressive energy policy, you will be attacked. It's better to ignore the concern trolls and forge on ahead with values that most Americans share, like a clean and healthful environment and a better future for our children.
Climate change exists. We need to do something about it.
The Montana Building Industry Association argued against the changes, saying they would cause more harm than benefit. The group said that most houses, especially more expensive homes, were already built to the higher standards.
It is the buyers and builders of lower-priced homes that will have to make the most changes - causing a price hike for those least able to afford it.
Dustin Stewart, with the building association, said that people who build their own home often like to leave the basement unfinished to make it affordable at first. They will no longer be able to do so.
This is an argument that's heard a lot from builders around the country who are faced with increasingly tight building codes. Basically, builders argue that increased efficiency results in higher home costs, putting houses out of reach for those at the bottom of the economic ladder. Even if these folks rent, the argument goes, building costs will be passed on to renters in the form of higher rents.
First, is it a bad thing that more people will rent? And what's not mentioned is that the consumer saves money on the utilities, which more often than not come straight out of the renters' pocket.
Whatever. The days of enormous subdivisions filled with enormous houses offered up in exchange for the enormous loans rapacious lenders were foisting on consumers are over. It's time for builders to come up with a new business strategy.
It's easy to forget with all the heady talk about alternative energy - solar and wind and geothermal - as a panacea to our fossil fuel dependency, none of it works without increased energy efficiency.
So. The health care legislation is essentially done. Whew. Honestly, it was getting old, wasn't it? I mean, I was writing posts about it last summer. I'm glad to have self-appointed license to think of something else. Like climate change.
Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it "cap and tax," and Tea Partyfollowers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington.
Mr. Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name.
"I don't know what 'cap and trade' means," Senator John F. Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, said last fall in introducing his original climate change plan.
Not sure what's going on over there in conservative brains. First, it's Ross Douthat pleading for "complexity" in film and literature instead of a simplistic good v evil dichotomy, and now it's Red State's Vladimir nihilistic sophistry on climate change:
One thing a scientist must know is how ignorant we are about a lot of things; otherwise, we don't need scientists to discover new stuff. But the remark points to a naive hubris that is pretty pervasive among a "consensus" in the scientific world.
Just fifty years ago, the few believers in "continental drift" were derided by the geologic establishment as kooks on the fringe of science (if not worse). But evidence accumulated, and the theory, repackaged in the '60s and '70s as plate tectonics, is now recognized as the grand unifying theory of earth science.
So-called "Progressives" have a tendency to evaluate everything in life as if it were a deterministic, zero sum game. What goes up, must come down. In with the good, out with the bad. What goes around, comes around. Input X necessarily results in Output Y.
But real life systems don't often obey these rules; they tend toward chaos and often lead to counterintuitive conclusions. In business, they often create examples of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
The Laffer Curve is a perfect example. To a "Progressive", if you want the government to have more tax revenue, you raise tax rates. Cutting tax rates only benefits "the rich".
But the real world is governed by the chaotic rules of economics and personal choices. Arthur Laffer made the simple observation that if tax rates are zero, tax revenue is zero. If tax rates are 100%, tax revenue is also zero. Somewhere in between is a maximum, and tax rates above that optimum rate actually result in less tax revenue.
Businessmen don't need to have this concept explained, so they tend to be conservatives. Academics, trade unionists and Hollywood types will never get it, so they become "Progressives".
Pretty funny stuff, eh? Of course, the plate tectonics idea is a good example - only it's the Vladimirs of the world who are the left-behind skeptics decrying climate change as kook-ish. As for calling progressives "deterministic" and implying they're simplistic? Bad maneuver using to the Laffer curve as evidence, that over-simplistic and crudely deterministic bow hastily scrawled onto a napkin in a 1974 political meeting and ever since used to support the most simplistic conservative tax-cut rhetoric, that raising taxes invariably leads to lower government revenue, and cutting taxes leads to greater revenue. (Both are canards divorced from the reality of the actual, complex marketplace.)
All this complex thinkin' leads Vladimir to this post: "The Unbearable Complexity of Climate," whose basic premise is that the climate is very complex and we don't understand it completely; therefore, it's possible climate change may not be happening, and, therefore, doesn't need to be addressed. Follow this line of reasoning to its ultimate, late-night-smoking-pot-at-college conclusion, and nothing is worth doing or believing because, ultimately, no system or object is capable of being understood completely. Not climate change, not the existence of your friends, and certainly not the Laffer Curve's efficacy (or lack thereof) for predicting tax revenues.
Why get out of bed in the morning when your alarm goes off, when there's a chance all life on the planet will be obliterated during your morning commute by a wayward asteroid?
If the climate is as all-unknowable as Eschenbach claims, then there's a chance that climate change is happening...right? And do you, in good faith, knowing that there's a chance - what with the unknowable-ness of climate - that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans, do you in good faith sit by, or worse, actively obstruct any measures that might mitigate the possibility of ecological disaster?
That, of course, is countering the argument with their own brand of sophism. In reality, climate scientists do have more than a passing familiarity of climate science, and there is actual evidence of climate change accompanying varying carbon dioxide rates. And we should probably form policy around the evidence at hand.
But just as Ross Douthat isn't really pleading for more complex movies about war, neither are these folks concerned about shades of gray in scientific discourse. They're all engaging in sophistry to obscure facts that are politically unpalatable to them. A climate change "skeptic" represents a political position, not a scientific one. Such a "skeptic" doesn't question climate change, he rejects it out of hand, and opposes any political solution to reduce carbon emissions. Not because there's a good reason to, but because it happens to stake out a position defined by political allies.
And to what end, is the question? To defend the interests of Big Oil?
The Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate recently released "Climate Patriots: A Military Perspective on Energy, Climate Change and American National Security." This five-minute feature video showcasing the inextricable links between climate change, our energy posture and our nation's security.
"Climate Patriots" addresses how America's dependence on foreign oil puts our armed forces in harm's way and how the effects of climate change could lead to more humanitarian missions and political instability. It features a number of military experts, including former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator John Warner (R-VA). This video reinforces the recent Defense Department's Quadrennial Defense Review that declared "Climate change... may act as an accelerant of instability or conflict, placing a burden to respond on civilian institutions and militaries around the world."
To learn more about the Pew Project on National Security, Energy and Climate go to www.pewclimatesecurity.com/ Pew National Security is distributing the "Climate Patriots" video throughout the nation, if your organization, school or program would like a DVD copy of this video please contact Matt Leow at mleow@mrss.com or 406-370-3183 to obtain your copy.
This post by Ed Morrissey highlighting a peer-reviewed article questioning the role of climate change in strength and frequency of hurricanes is emblematic with what's wrong with the conservative movement.
For starters, there's always been controversy within the scientific community about the effect of warming global temperatures on storms - especially hurricanes. And note that the article cited second-hand from a Murdoch-owned newspaper essentially reaffirms that climate change is real; all that's being questioned is the effect of warming on hurricane severity. There are similar peer-reviewed scientific articles taking the opposite view.
Additionally, Morrissey isn't challenging scientific consensus here (emphasis mine):
In the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005, anthropogenic global warming (AGW) activists insisted that the stronger storm systems resulted from the build-up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, making hurricanes increasingly more severe. These claims made their way into the UN's IPCC report and have been a staple of AGW arguments for immediate and drastic action to limit energy production as part of the "settled science" attempt to shut down debate.
Note that it was the media who ran off with the hurricane-strength-influenced-by-climate-change meme after Hurricane Katrina. And so a conservative blogger uses a distorted opinion from a biased newspaper to argue against uninformed opinions formed by the mass media...and concluding that global warming isn't happening.
It's not a stance that represents any discernible ideology. Instead, it's simply contrarian, pernicious arguing intended to confuse for political gain.
Sound familiar? It's the same kind of rhetoric we hear against the stimulus package, denying that the infusion of money failed to create jobs. Or rhetoric against health care, where calls for a rethinking of reform don't actually mean Republicans would like to rethink reform, they're meant to confuse, obstruct.
Thoughtful, rational conservatives exist. Only they're drowned out by the crazies, the Glen Becks and Tea Baggers who cry "socialism" and frame opposing policies, not as ineffective or inefficient or expensive, but as a danger to the very body politic. Any policy put forward by a Democrat is a threat to the fabric of the nation.
In the past, the GOP has always seemed to let the crazies keen and gnash their teeth, while all along they put the adults in charge of policy. You saw that during the Reagan administration, when the president paid lip service to the tax-cut and big-government rhetoric that got him elected, all the while raising taxes and racking up enormous budget deficits.
But the problem is that the reasonable people are losing control. The worst of Bush Jr's administration happened as a result of sticking too close to the rhetoric. Deregulation, runaway spending, and tax cuts for the wealthy led to financial crisis and huge budget deficits. Delusional war game theories led to the "Bush Doctrine" -- preemptive invasion and perpetual war. And now it seems the rational people have gone away, driven off by the Roger Koopmans of the right.
It's too bad, especially during the time of crisis we're in now. Rampant unemployment...budget deficits, spurred largely by rising health care costs...potential global environmental catastrophe...and for each, the conservative response has been denial.
Richard Haigh doesn't look like your typical African pastoralist. Unlike many Africans who grew up tending cattle, sheep, goats, and other livestock, Richard started his farm in 2007 at the age of 40. He quit his 9-5 job at a nongovernmental organization and bought 23 acres of land outside Durban, South Africa.
He wanted to totally change his life.
Today, he runs Enaleni Farm (enaleni means "abundance" in Zulu), raising endangered Zulu sheep, Nguni cattle (a breed indigenous to South Africa that is very resistant to pests), and a variety of fruits and vegetables.
Richard is cultivating GMO-free soya, as well as traditional maize varieties. "All the maize tells a story," he says. Like the sheep and cattle, many maize varieties are resistant to drought, climate change, and diseases, making them a smart choice for farmers all over Africa.
This sort of mixed-crop livestock system is becoming increasingly rare in South Africa, according to Richard, because of commercial farms that rely on monoculture crops rather than on diverse agricultural systems.
Richard likes to say that his farm isn't organic, but rather an example of how agro-ecological methods can work. He practices push-pull agriculture, which uses alternating intercropping of plants that repel pests (pushing them away from the harvest) and ones that attract pests (pulling them away from the harvest) to increase yields. He also uses animal manure and compost for fertilizer.
But perhaps the most important thing Richard is doing at Enaleni doesn't have to do with the various agricultural methods and practices he's using. It's about the "stories" he's telling on the farm. By showing local people the tremendous benefits that indigenous cattle and sheep breeds, and sustainably grown crops, can have for the environment and livelihoods, he's putting both an ecological and economic value on something that's been neglected. "Local people don't value what they have," says Richard, because extension agents have tended to promote exotic livestock and expensive inputs.
In addition, Richard asks himself "what can we do that is specific to where we live?" In other words, how can we promote local sources of agricultural diversity that are good for the land and for people?
Richard is also helping document the diversity on his farm. He's been sending blood samples to the South African National Research Foundation to help them build a DNA "hoof print" of what makes up a Zulu sheep. This sort of research is important not only for conserving the sheep, but for helping to increase local knowledge about the breeds that people have been raising for generations.
As a result of his conservation work, Richard and Enaleni Farm have been recognized by Slow Food International, which wants to work with the farm and local communities to find ways to ensure that the Zulu sheep don't disappear.
Richard hopes to share his knowledge about agriculture with local farmers, teaching them how to spot and prevent disease in indigenous sheep, as well as explaining agro-ecological methods of raising food.
Check out the most recent issue of the journal Science which takes a look at ways to improve food security as the world's population is expected to top 9 billion by 2050. To best nourish both people and the planet, the journal suggests a rounded approach to a worldwide agricultural revolution by encouraging diets and policies that emphasize local and sustainable food production, along with the implementation of agricultural techniques that utilize biotechnology and ecologically friendly farming solutions.
For half the world's population, every meal depends on an open fire that is fueled by wood, coal, dung, and other smoke-producing combustibles. These indoor cookfires consume large amounts of fuel and emit carbon dioxide and other dangerous toxins into the air, blackening the insides of homes and leading to respiratory diseases, especially among women and children.
Biogas, however, takes advantage of what is typically considered waste, providing a cleaner and safer source of energy. Biogas units use methane from manure to produce electricity, heat, and fertilizer while emitting significantly less smoke and carbon monoxide than other sources of fuel. Access to an efficient, clean-burning stove not only saves lives-smoke inhalation-related illnesses result in 1.5 million deaths per year-it also reduces the amount of time that women spend gathering firewood, which the U.N. Development Programme (UNDP) estimates is 10 hours per week for the average household in some rural areas.
The IFAD-funded Gash Barka Livestock and Agricultural Development Project (GBLADP) helped one farmer in Eritrea, Tekie Mekerka, make the most of the manure his 30 cows produce by helping to install a biogas unit on his farm (similar to the unit that Danielle saw in Rwanda with Heifer International). Now, says Mekerka, "we no longer have to go out to collect wood for cooking, the kitchen is now smoke-free, and the children can study at night because we have electricity."Additionally, Mekerka is using the organic residue left by the biogas process as fertilizer for his family's new vegetable garden.
In Rwanda, the government is making biogas stove units more accessible by subsidizing installation costs, and it hopes to have 15,000 households nationwide using biogas by 2012. While visiting with Heifer Rwanda, Danielle met Madame Helen Bahikwe, who, after receiving government help to purchase her biogas unit, is now more easily cooking for her 10-person family and improving hygiene on the farm with hot water for cleaning.
In China, IFAD found that biogas saved farmers so much time collecting firewood that farm production increased. In Tanzania, the Foundation for Sustainable Rural Development (SURUDE), with funding from UNDP, found that each biogas unit used in their study reduced deforestation by 37 hectares per year. And in Nigeria, on a much larger scale, methane and carbon dioxide produced by a water purifying plant is now being used to provide more affordable gas to 5,400 families a month, thanks to one of the largest biogas installations in Africa.
If you know of other ways people are making the most of their waste and would like to share it with us, we encourage you to leave a comment or fill out our agriculture innovation survey here.
On the nine hour bus ride from Johannesburg, South Africa to Maputo, Mozambique yesterday, I had a chance to read the latest TIME Magazine and was surprised-and pleased-to see an article on an issue that Worldwatch has been covering for a long time-the benefits of grass-fed livestock systems for the climate.
The article highlights how not all meat is created equal. All of the ingredients used to raise livestock conventionally-including artificial fertilizers and monocultures of maize and soybeans-are highly dependent on fossil fuels. In addition, modern meat production requires massive land use changes that release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, including the destruction of grasslands and rainforests in South America and the degradation of ranging lands in Africa (See the Worldwatch report: Mitigating Climate Change Through Food and Land Use).
Rotational grazing systems, on the other hand, can actually sequester carbon in soils. And because the animals are eating grass, not grain, artificial fertilizer isn't required to produce feed. These systems also don't have to rely on the long-distance transportation of fertilizer, grain, or other inputs. And while the manure produced at confined animal feed operations, or CAFOs, is often considered toxic waste because it is produced in such massive quantities, the manure produced on smaller-scale farms is considered a valuable resource, helping to fertilize crops.
While raising-and eating- grass-fed beef might not completely reverse climate change, it's a valuable tool for producers and consumers alike in helping lower the amount of GHGs emitted because of our food choices.
The story of Kasinthula Cane Growers Limited (KCGL), Malawi’s second biggest sugar farmer cooperative with 282 farmers, is just one of many examples of innovative business models made available to farmers, entrepreneurs, and NGOs by Winrock International. Emphasizing the use of environmentally sustainable production methods, Winrock collects examples of innovative Community Food Enterprises from around the world.
The partnership between KCGL and the Shire Valley Cane Growers Trust is just one example of Winrock’s featured innovations. The two organizations, with support from the government, partnered in 1997 to become a sugarcane farmer cooperative. Despite perpetual drought, and flooding when there is rain, sugar is Malawi’s third largest export. The Trust owns ninety-five percent of the corporation and Illove, one of the largest sugar cane producers in the world, owns the remaining five percent. The Trust leases 755 hectares of sugarcane land that KCGL maintains, guaranteeing farmers—about one-third of whom are women—nearly 3 hectares of land for 25 years. The farmers produce non-organic, fair-trade certified sugar, and the profits are divided equally among the members of the cooperative. All of the sugar produced by the farmers is sold internationally by Illove, connecting the farmers and the cooperative to the global market.
KCGL, in cooperation with Fairtrade Labelling Organizations International, have also developed a plan to direct fair trade premiums towards community investments, company infrastructure and building materials for the farmers. They have built a well for the community, brought electricity to small villages, and are opening their medical clinic to the community for HIV/AIDS education and treatment.
As part of a collective, the farmers are given a voice in an industry where they otherwise might not be competitive. In addition to increased incomes through fair-trade certification and access to the world market, the farmers who are members of KCGL receive the support and stability they need to lift their families out of poverty.
The physical relationship between CO2 molecules and the atmosphere and the trapping of heat is as well-established as gravity, for God's sakes. It's not some mystery. One hundred and fifty years ago this year, John Tyndall discovered CO2 traps heat, and that was the same year the first oil well was drilled in Pennsylvania. The oil industry has outpaced the building of a public consensus of the implications of climate science.
But the basic facts are incontrovertible. What do they think happens when we put 90 million tons up there every day? Is there some magic wand they can wave on it and presto!-physics is overturned and carbon dioxide doesn't trap heat anymore? And when we see all these things happening on the Earth itself, what in the hell do they think is causing it? The scientists have long held that the evidence in their considered word is "unequivocal," which has been endorsed by every national academy of science in every major country in the entire world.
If the people that believed the moon landing was staged on a movie lot had access to unlimited money from large carbon polluters or some other special interest who wanted to confuse people into thinking that the moon landing didn't take place, I'm sure we'd have a robust debate about it right now.
So what did happen? CRU took the raw data from various primary sources, aggregated it and then made adjustments. It is some of the aggregation that they threw out when they moved a few decades ago. This means that the original data still exists at the primary sources and can be reaggregated. In fact, CRU is busy doing that just now.
Where did I get this information? From one of the largest thorns in the AGW community's side, Roger Pielke Jr., who seems completely satisfied with their explanation.
Mikkal Fishman reminds us that scientific data is often jealously guarded by scientists when new discoveries are made, or hypotheses. "Climategate" may actually benefit climate change science by forcing climatologists to "develop a standardized way of disseminating their data and models to the public," which will be a good thing.
The NYTimes' Andrew Revkin notes that the controversy has, at least, caused CRU to make their data available. Still, as an Illinois climatologist notes, the exposed emails served as "a complete distraction from the body of evidence pointing to a human hand on the planet's thermostat." After all, even the harshest, "rational" critics make no bones about the substance of climatology's findings, just the style of scientists....
...which brings us back to yesterday's post, which noted that it's the kind of behavior you'd expect from folks who have been on the receiving end of a massive, years-long, corporate-funded disinformation campaign.
There's been some noise from the right about "climategate" - apparently some emails were hacked from an English university's climate scientists that showed...well, according to climate change deniers, a world-wide plot to "trick" everybody into believing that the Earth is heating up...but actually were angry emails blasting shoddy science and the periodicals that published it. Righties already convinced of the world-wide climate plot cherry-picked some phrases from the emails, and distorted their meaning to incite like-minded conspiracy theorists.
The sad news in all of this is that there is a real conspiracy surrounding climate science, but it's not scientists and environmentalists working for - what? One-world government? Bison running free on the Northern Plains? (It's never explained, really.) Instead, there's real conspiracy of big industry to muddy the water on science and to sow enough doubt in the minds of Americans and others so that passing real and effective climate change legislation - which would be harmful the profit margins of fossil fuel companies - will be difficult or impossible.
Never mind, you know, the catastrophic effects to our children and grandchildren.
As Jeff Masters points out, the campaign of misinformation is nothing new, but following the well-heeled trail that industry used to thwart or delay legislation on cigarettes, asbestos, and chlorofluorocarbons.
Masters:
You'll hear claims by some contrarians that the emails discovered invalidate the whole theory of human-caused global warming. Well, all I can say is, consider the source. We can trust the contrarians to say whatever is in the best interests of the fossil fuel industry. What I see when I read the various stolen emails and explanations posted at Realclimate.org is scientists acting as scientists--pursuing the truth. I can see no clear evidence that calls into question the scientific validity of the research done by the scientists victimized by the stolen emails. There is no sign of a conspiracy to alter data to fit a pre-conceived ideological view. Rather, I see dedicated scientists attempting to make the truth known in face of what is probably the world's most pervasive and best-funded disinformation campaign against science in history. Even if every bit of mud slung at these scientists were true, the body of scientific work supporting the theory of human-caused climate change--which spans hundreds of thousands of scientific papers written by tens of thousands of scientists in dozens of different scientific disciplines--is too vast to be budged by the flaws in the works of the three or four scientists being subject to the fiercest attacks.
Got an email from the Sierra Club organizer in Billings I thought I should share with everyone. Climate change legislation is coming up that's crucial for investing in green energy jobs -- and I suspect that both Baucus and Tester are a little nervous about backing it. So here's something you can do...
If you need contact info for the organizers, email me... Jay
Senators Baucus and Tester need to hear that Montanan's support strong legislation which will save us all money AND create jobs by putting people to work retrofitting homes for energy efficiency. They need to hear from Montanan's that we want clean energy jobs, and for our Senators stand up to the corporate polluters who seek to weaken the bill. They need to hear that we want carbon emissions cut back 20% -- OR MORE -- by 2020.
This Saturday Nov. 7, we will be dropping literature across Billings urging people to contact their Senators and show them that there is broad support for clean energy and green jobs. We need your help to distribute this call to action to as many people as possible.
When:
This Saturday Nov. 7
11AM-3PM
Where:
Meet at the Sierra Club Office at 11AM
2401 Montana Ave
Billings, MT 59101
On the second floor in Suite 4
The Senate Environment and Public Works committee today passed the Senate's version of the cap-and-trade climate-change legislation bill - Sens. Kerry and Boxer's "Clean Energy Jobs Act." The bill passed by a 10-1 margin...with Republicans boycotting the vote.
Ah, so who's the sole Democrat that voted against the legislation?
Max Baucus.
Not that it's much of a surprise. Baucus raised "concerns" with the bill last month, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 was too lofty a goal. Baucus' statement -- "we cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from a conceivable consensus on climate change" - hints that he'll stall the bill in the Tax and Finance committee, likely convening a "green" "Gang of Six" to gut the bill, or kill it altogether.
Frankly, Baucus should listen to Lindsey Graham, Republican:
The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.
Or retired admiral Dennis McGinn, who reminded Montana's delegation that climate change is a national security issue.
Sadly, Dennis McDonald demonstrates how you can join Baucus in opposing climate change legislation while simultaneously keeping your enviro "cred," from his Facebook page:
Cap and trade has proven to be complex, inefficient, and an obstacle to investment in alternative energy. I think a straightforward carbon emissions tax would be a lot simpler and a more effective way of getting people to invest in alternative energy.
And the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill, with all of its faults, sets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's huge.
In case you missed it, a lot of interesting things happened this week, a lot of them deserving their own posts. But, sadly, there's only so much time in the day...
Just when you thought the issues around the Flathead Lake Boat Crash couldn't get any more asinine, they do.
James Conner has the details of that night's incident - apparently Barkus thought he was heading in the opposite direction than he actually was, and was pulling a u-turn at 45 mph in the dark in treacherous waters when he struck the lake bank. Dan Testa, too, has a good roundup of that night's events - two scotches and an unknown amount of red and white wine for Barkus. Just the thing for a chilly night out on the lake.
Now Barkus' lawyer is challenging the .16 BAC results - which, I know, is his right to do and probably a smart legal maneuver. But Barkus is also planning on finishing out his Senate term, as if nothing's happened here, as if he hadn't just boozed up and almost killed himself and four others on Flathead Lake.
The crash was a good sign he's got a problem, eh? I mean, for most of us, this would be a kind of, I dunno, a wake-up call, wouldn't it?
That's the way I'd see it if it were me. I'd be apologizing my *ss off to the friends and family of those I injured through my loathsome behavior, I'd cooperate with the authorities and plea bargain my way into a just punishment, resign my public office because of the deficiency of my character, and I'd check myself into a rehab clinic, ASAP. I mean, wouldn't most people feel some remorse, and want to repent and work to rehabilitate themselves?
Instead, Barkus is still out there, still a drunk, and, probably as soon as he's walking again, back behind the wheel. And he'll be passing laws over you. So much for personal responsibility.
* * *
As always, there's plenty of news from Hardin.
The Billings Gazette got its hands on the "memorandum of understanding" between Hardin and the APF - which it had to get by court order, apparently because it's pretty embarrassing to Hardin officials - that revealed the city did have an agreement with Hilton's company to have the APF supply Hardin with a police force for $250K. The contract toned the language down, but the memo certainly explains the Hardin Police Force decals on APF SUVs.
Naturally, with all the furor over these SUVs, Hardin is looking to start its own police force.
But the American Police Force takeover of the Hardin jail only looks dead. While Hardin put the deal with APF on hold after revelations of Michael Hilton's checkered past, a mysterious APF investor stepped forward (anonymously, of course) and noted the firm would still pursue the Hardin jail contract, only without "Captain" Michael Hilton on board.
Today, he runs 
For half the world's population, every meal depends on an open fire that is fueled by wood, coal, dung, and other smoke-producing combustibles. These indoor cookfires consume large amounts of fuel and emit carbon dioxide and other dangerous toxins into the air, blackening the insides of homes and leading to respiratory diseases, especially among women and children.