As you probably know by now, John McCain won the Republican primary in Florida. Congratulations, Senator McCain!
John McCain is the only Republican presidential candidate who is convincing about being serious about global warming - for instance, he co-sponsored the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act of 2007, which:
Provide[s] for a program to accelerate the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States by establishing a market-driven system of greenhouse gas tradeable allowances, to support the deployment of new climate change-related technologies, and to ensure benefits to consumers from the trading in such allowances, and for other purposes.
Having him as the Republican nominee would be good news. However, a quick glance at Grist.org's fantabulous comparison of Presidential candidates, indicates that McCain's approach to mitigating global warming is neither as comprehensive, aggressive nor as detailed as that of either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Some points of comparison:
McCain proposes a 30% reduction in greenhouse gasses by 2050, while both Clinton and Obama propose 80%.
While supporting an increase, McCain offers no specifics on how much he would increase the fuel economy standard. Obama proposes an increase for cars to 40 mpg and light trucks to 32 mpg by 2020. Clinton's is even more aggressive: She supports raising standards to 40 mpg by 2020 and 55 mpg by 2030.
Take a look for yourself, and review Grist's factsheet on McCain here.
As I noted a few posts ago, California has submitted a proposal to the EPA to cut tailpipe emissions to fight global warming.
The EPA, as of my last writing, denied this request and since then, lots of skirmishes with the EPA Chief, Stephen Johnson, have ensued. Johnson's rationale has been pretty weak: "I believe that it is preferable, as a matter of policy, to have uniform national standards to address fuel economy issues across the entire fleet of domestic and foreign manufactured vehicles sold in the United States. I just think this is common sense."
Well, who knows when these "uniform national standards" will pass? Time is of the essence, and many politicians are entering the fray, including Democratic hopefuls Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama.
Keep fighting the good fight everyone!
Senator Barbara Boxer weighs in below:
In an excerpt from his book Hell and High Water, Joe Romm, whose blog Climate Crisis is rapidly becoming my favorite, has a really good insight about the current regulatory stalemate between the U.S. and countries like China and India on capping or reducing global warming emissions. The insight is this: We are in a mutual suicide pact!
After all, China and India won't reduce their emissions until we do, and we won't reduce ours until they do!
This mutually assured destruction is courtesy of assholes like Frank Luntz, (whose entire livelihood is based manipulating words to exploit and exacerbate the problems created by miseducation and ignorance) who advised our traitorous and stupid president, George Bush in 2002 thus:
The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science...Voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate, and defer to scientists and other experts in the field.
And thus:
The “international fairness†issue is the emotional home run. Given the chance, Americans will demand that all nations be part of any international global warming treaty. Nations such as China, Mexico and India would have to sign such an agreement for the majority of Americans to support it.
As you all probably know, we need our government(s) to act and make drastic changes in order to head off global warming. But that kind of change won't be easy. After all, according to data from OpenSecrets.org, the oil and gas, automotive, energy and airline industries spent $160MM lobbying in Washington in 2007 alone! Do you suppose any of those industries would be interested in firm restrictions on carbon emissions, a carbon tax, or alternative energies?
So we need to pool our resources, and I believe that joining an enviornmental group is an important step. But which one? Here are a few things I've found:
Political clout: Obviously this is important. Clout can be measured in members or dollars spent, but there's another key distinction which is important - what the group is permitted to do. Some non-profits, such as the National Resources Defense Counsel, are registered as 501(c)(3)'s which means that they cannot conduct political campaign activities to influence elections to public office. I believe that we really need to fund non-profits which ARE allowed to influence political campaigns. If so, then you'll want to donate to 501(c)(4)'s or 527s, both of which are permitted to politic. Donations to either of these types are not tax deductable, but the influence is important. And that is why the aforementioned NDRC has a 501(c)(4) group called the NDRC Action Fund, and one reason why the Sierra Club, with its 56 or so lobbyists in DC, is a 501(c)(4) as well.
Governance and Accountability: Obviously, you need to make sure that whoever you donate to is not going to squander that money, and that they're going to use it for what they say they'll use it for. The Better Business Bureau has (1) created a set of standards you should ensure your chosen charity meets and (2) evaluated a bunch of charities to see how they fare. This is a great resource. For instance, the NDRC uses 80% of its money for program expenses, while the Sierra Club uses only 65%. Oh, and the League of Conservation Voters wouldn't say. (what's up with that?)
Given these criteria, it certainly looks like we have some great options but, I'm strongly considering a donation to the NDRC Action Fund. What about you?
Alright fellow earthlings, we really need to step it up. I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but bad news is everywhere these days and getting harder to avoid. This report, via Nature News (thanks to Climate Progress) shows that Antarctica is melting, and it's melting faster than before.
According to scientists at UC Davis, Antarctica lost nearly 200 billion ton of ice. The loss from just that one year was the equivalent of a sea level rise of more than half a millimeter. Oh, and by the way, that's 75% faster than 1996.
It's an interesting article, by the way, because there's some good info here about how they measure these things - satellite measurements of coastal ice locations, as well as elevations.
Anyway, things are not looking good and we need leadership at all levels. I watched the Democratic debate, and I have to say - props to all the candidates for talking about what they would do. Hillary in particular looked really sharp - calling for a Apollo program on energy. We need that and more.
In an 
Alright fellow earthlings, we really need to step it up. I don't want to be a Debbie Downer, but bad news is everywhere these days and getting harder to avoid. This report, via Nature News (thanks to