Some of you may know that I have previously mused about how great it would be for Al Gore to be President – that it would be a strong signal that we were serious about the environment, and that we had a strong leader who could actually do something about it.  Well, of course there’s no chance of that, but what about Vice President? In the following video, James Carville muses about why Al Gore would be a great VP, and I can’t disagree. Obama could give him a Energy Czar position, and with Gore in there, I have no doubt that we’d see serious action. And Gore is for the carbon tax!    Â
Archive for the 'politics' Category
Well, I just saw on a Reuters newswire that the US climate bill died.
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.
As environmental bloggers, we are not supposed to let our personal feelings get in the way, (I think I signed some sort of code of ethics didn’t I) but what can I say? I am very excited about Barack Obama.
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!
Thomas Friedman’s got a great editorial in today’s NY Times that is definitely worth reading – although don’t read it if you are in a zen-like mood and don’t feel like losing your buzz, because it’s infuriating.
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.