Their resistance is not just preventing us from slowing down the melting of our planet, but is also endangering our national security. A few proof points:

1. In April, a Pentagon funded report published back in April of 2007 found that global warming is a “serious threat to America’s national security”.
2. In June of this year, Dr. Thomas Fingar, Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis and Chairman of the National Intelligence Council, testified to congress that global warming had the “potential to seriously affect US national security interests.”
3. John McCain, in a new ad states, “I believe global warming is real – it’s not just a greenhouse gas issue, it’s a national security issue.”

So if you love America, pull your heads out of sand and join us! If not, you are betraying the country, and the world. Harsh? Yes. But also true.

the United States to wean the nation from its entire electricity grid to carbon-free energy within 10 years, warning that drastic steps were needed to avoid a global economic and ecological cataclysm       

Gore said, “I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next year.” As I see it, I see this as an admission that climate change is at heart a political problem, because it’s the only way we solve these problems at scale. And our leaders are conflicted. And weak. And because of that nothing is happening, all the while Rome is burning. So my question to everyone is this: What have you really done about global warming? Did you write or visit your congressperson? Have you organized others to do so? Did you join a environmental lobby like the NRDC Action Fund? Because if you haven’t and you’re just driving a Prius and using a few less shopping bags, you’re probably not doing enough. Let’s get going, everyone! 

According to this article:

He then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock. One official who witnessed the extraordinary scene said afterwards: “Everyone was very surprised that he was making a joke about America’s record on pollution.”

What a disaster. I’m amazed that George H.W. Bush and Barbara Bush have not died in shame and remorse yet.

Sure, I suppose this is true, but I don’t particularly have any confidence in Big Oil companies that they will lower prices as supply increases…do you?  They have a long history of greediness.

I thought these quotes were good:

From Senator Barbara Boxer:

President Bush is giving another gift to the oil companies that will do not one thing to lower gas prices for the American people.  This proposal is something you’d expect from an oil company CEO, not the President of the United States.

Senator Dianne Feinstein said the President was “deluding the American public” into believing that new offshore drilling is a quick fix to $4 per gallon gasoline.

Nothing could be further from the truth. We cannot drill our way out of this problem.

I totally agree.

The microeconomic changes needed to increase carbon productivity at the levels required will not occur without the active leadership and collaboration of governments and businesses globally. We need new policies, regulatory frameworks, and institutions focused on four areas: creating market-based incentives to innovate and raise carbon productivity; addressing market failures that prevent abatement opportunities from being captured profitably; resolving issues of allocation and fairness, in particular between the developed and developing worlds and between industry sectors; and accelerating progress to avoid missing critical emissions targets. 

Thanks to Climate Progress for pointing this out.

The bill aimed to cut total U.S. global warming emissions by 66 percent by 2050. Opponents said it would cost jobs and raise fuel prices in an already pinched American economy.

What is there to really say? It was a close call (sort of) – 48 senators favored the bill, 36 opposed. 6 no-shows (including Obama and McCain) wrote in saying that if they were in town to vote, they would have favored the bill. (60 votes were needed for the bill to have passed.)

The climate bill was not as aggressive as the Kyoto Protocol, and we can’t even pass this? This is depressing, but I suppose there is comfort to be had that our future president (whomever he is) is more pro-environment than our current president… Let’s hope that we can get something passed soon once the torch has been passed to Obama or McCain.

Hillary Clinton would have been great too, and John McCain is as good as Republicans get on environmental issues, but I’m really looking forward to an Obama presidency – I’m excited about he kind of presidency he represents, and ultimately his potential to bring real meaningful change to the country. He has proven that he has chops and, as they say in financial circles, great upside.

Congratulations Barack, and you really should consider a carbon tax!

First, he talks about the stupidity of a gas tax repeal for the summer, (which McCain and Clinton support, but which Obama does not) which basically solves nothing, while increasing the amount of money we send to the Middle East, reducing our ability to pay for things like road repairs, bridges that don’t collapse while people are driving over them, and prevents us from investing in better sources of energy.

Speaking of what we invest in, second, he talks about how our government has completely failed us, and how we continue to under-invest in clean technologies. Germany has a 20-year solar incentive program; Japan 12 years. Ours will expire at the end of the year.

Finally, he points out the somewhat obvious fact that investing in clean technologies is a smart way to create new jobs. Duh. Even I knew that. And yet we don’t do it, and don’t invest, all the while bemoaning the lack of manufacturing jobs here.

Here’s the money quote:

Peter Schwartz of Global Business Network describes as the true American energy policy today: “Maximize demand, minimize supply and buy the rest from the people who hate us the most.

Sad but true. If you want to change this, don’t forget to get involved.

** Update: Rob just told me that the ban is applicable only to convenience, drug, and grocery stores, *not* all retail stores. Also, Rob mentioned there will be a proposed ban on foam as well. (thanks Rob!)

Next time you’re in Seattle and you get the paper or plastic question, your answer might be neither. Seattle’s Mayor Richard Nickels and City Council President Richard Conlin recently proposed a 20 cent fee on all disposable bags. That’s right, ALL disposable bags, including both paper and plastic. Their stated goal is to encourage more people to carry reusable shopping bags. The ban would be effective across all retailers, not just supermarkets and grocery stores.

The 20 cent per bag fee would be divided between the retailer and the city. The city would receive 15 cents, and the retailer 5 cents. The exception is for retailers who earn less than $1 million in annual revenues – they would get to keep the entire 20 cent charge. It’s not clear how much revenue the city is estimated to make or what they would do with the funds, but Mayor Nickels and Conlin hope to encourage conservation and reduce the use of harmful disposable bags.

Seattle residents use an estimated 360 million disposable bags per year, most of which are plastic. Clearly, we can see the positive impact this will have. I’m not sure I agree with such a drastic measure, but this might be the type of sweeping legislation necessary to push people into action. 20 cents per bad definitely starts to reach a point where people will notice the difference.