environment Politics: Dave Reichert Gene Karpinski Joe Lieberman League of Conservation Voters
by Warren
2 comments
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 18: Idiots In High Places Rewarding One Another
The League Of Conservation Voters endorses a Republican, Dave Reichert (WA-08).
The LCV Press Release includes these words:
“We are proud to endorse Congressman Reichert for re-election because he supports policies that will not only build a clean energy economy that gets Washington’s workers back on the job, but will also reduce our dependence on foreign oil and curb harmful pollution,” said LCV Action Fund President Gene Karpinski.
You may recall that the League of Conservation Voters also endorsed Joe Lieberman in the 2006 election. Granted, Lieberman has been better on climate than he was on healthcare…but fact remains that he helped legitimate huge chunks of the Cheney administration’s acts of destruction — which surely should count against him on the environmental-good-guy-o-meter.
I go into this every time one of the LCV people call me. They sigh; it is my hope that I’m not the only one telling them this.
After I heard about the Reichert announcement, I was moved to send the following to Gene Karpinski, le grande fromage du LCV.
Gene Karpinski
League of Conservation Voters
1920 L Street, NW Suite 800
Washington, DC 20036Dear Mr. Karpinski — I’ve been wanting to get this letter off my chest for a long time — since 2006, to be exact. I’ve repeated its words fairly often; I do so every time I speak to a fundraiser from the League of Conservation Voters (at least once every three months).
I want to explain to you, just as I explain to them, why I have chosen not to give any money to the LCV. I was bitterly disappointed when your organization chose to endorse Joe Lieberman in the 2006 Connecticut Senate race. I now see you’ve done something similar in your endorsement of Washington congressman Dave Reichert.
That is to say, you’ve shot yourselves in the foot. I imagine that there are more such instances, but I don’t want to look for them; I feel soiled enough already.
There are profound flaws in your procedure for candidate endorsements, which is based on tallying the number of “pro-environment” and “anti-environment” votes by a particular legislator. But how on earth could you miss the fact that by 2006, Joe Lieberman’s panderings to the Bush Administration had allowed them to claim the blessings of bipartisanship upon their wars, their financial chicanery, their ineptitude, their environmental irresponsibility (nay, criminality)? And how on earth could you miss the fact that Dave Reichert, at a May gathering of Republican strategists, bragged that his “pro-environment” votes were just cynical gamesmanship?
To be fair, Mr. Reichert could actually be a secret environmentalist double-agent lying to his own party’s strategists. But I think it’s more likely that (as he admitted to the “Mainstream Republicans” group in 2006, speaking of his “pro-environment” votes), “…when the leadership comes to me and says, ‘Dave we need you to take a vote over here, because we want to protect you and keep this majority,’ I do it.”
By short-sightedly structuring your endorsement policy around the sole criterion of counted votes, you enable cynical politicians to manipulate the system. The mechanism is obvious; waiting until the majority of votes have been counted on a bill often allows an unscrupulous legislator to cast a politically expedient vote (one that, perhaps, makes him likelier to get endorsed by a leading environmental group) which appears to run counter to his party’s platform. Thus Dave Reichert gets your endorsement, despite the fact that his 90/10 Republican voting record has been part and parcel of the “Party of No” strategy (a strategy that has now fostered a whole Republican subculture of anti-science denialists who threaten to derail progress on climate completely). And thus Joe Lieberman got your approval.
And that’s what I tell your fund-raisers, and it’s what I’m telling you.
I’ll give you a pass on Lieberman and start donating again — if you repudiate Dave Reichert, and make a significant change in the LCV’s endorsement process.
I’d love to give you some money. I don’t have much, but you’re welcome to some of it. But I’m damned I’ll give a dime to an organization that — when it comes to the environment — can’t tell the difference between Democrats and Republicans.
Yours Sincerely,
Warren Senders
If anyone wants to contact the League of Conservation Voters to tell them something similar, here’s their contact info.
environment Politics: cap and trade Dana Milbank geo-engineering media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 17: If Only You Could Geo-Engineer Stupidity Out Of The Atmosphere
Dana Milbank at the Washington Post writes an obituary for cap-and-trade, and instead recommends that Democrats try and interest their Republican colleagues in geo-engineering as a coping strategy for the coming climate apocalypse.
The Post has been instrumental in creating and fostering a level of scientific ignorance in our political class that is directly responsible for much of our current predicament (see: Will, George). And, as usual, the comments on Milbank’s article are a demonstration of the prevalence of dumb.
Cap-and-trade, originally a Republican idea, may indeed be dead in the water due to inflexible opposition in the Senate. And, as Milbank suggests, a huge geo-engineering program may be more attractive. The image of huge cannons firing sulfur into the atmosphere will appeal to politicians of both parties who are enthusiastic about big guns. But the central question is simply this: how can we as a nation accomplish any necessary actions on climate when conservatives wholeheartedly embrace a vehemently anti-science position? Of the current crop of Republican candidates, those accepting the scientific factuality of global climate change can be numbered on the fingers of one hand. What gave rise to this intransigence? Alas, our print and broadcast media, ever reluctant to undertake difficult explanations (when facile misrepresentations are easier and cheaper) must bear much of the blame for the nation’s appalling ignorance of the gravest threat humanity has ever faced.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: Art Robinson climate zombie idiots
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 16: Nyte Ov De Livveng Dedd
Recently I have just typed the phrase “climate change news” into my search bar to find topics. There’s a limit to how much you can find in the Times.
So I found a column in the Eugene, Oregon newspaper, the Register-Guard. The columnist concerns noted loony and Congressional candidate Art Robinson, whose spectacular flameout on Rachel Maddow’s program is worth a watch. Bob Doppelt notes Bjorn Lomborg’s reversal on climate change, then asks Robinson if this shift by an authority he’d previously cited would make him change his mind.
Ha.
Fortunately Robinson is very unlikely to prevail in this district. But it seemed like a good theme for a letter addressing the general rise of climate zombies.
Art Robinson is distinctive among the current crop of climate denialists running for public office only in that his academic background arms him with a repertoire of useful scientific phrases, the better to misrepresent and misinterpret the work of actual professional climatologists (who agree overwhelmingly on the human causes of global climate change). Other Republican candidates, for the most part, do their misrepresenting and misinterpreting without the benefit of advanced degrees in unrelated scientific fields. Robinson is an extreme example of an increasingly prominent national phenomenon, the “climate zombie” — a politician with an ideological commitment to ignore scientific evidence and expertise when it’s inconvenient. The number of such “zombies” running for office around the country is a disturbing reminder of how far the G.O.P. has fallen; Republican candidates now are unable to address an inconvenient reality: anthropogenic global warming is settled science, and we ignore it at our peril.
Warren Senders
environment: IPCC Rajendra Pachauri
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 15: One Of The Good Guys…
It is good news that Rajendra Pachauri is going to retain his position as head of the UN Climate Panel. While Pachauri’s tenure has been marked by controversies, none are of his own making, and he should not be compelled to leave a position for which he is eminently suited because of a spurious publicity campaign. The oft-cited errors in the 2007 IPCC report no more invalidate the bulk of that document than a reportorial mistake in the Times negates the rest of the paper’s news. The barrage of ginned-up “scandals” aimed at reducing the credibility of the IPCC and of climatologists in general has crippled our ability to sustain a reality-based discussion on climate issues (as witness the Republican party’s comprehensively anti-science stance, unthinkable a decade ago). Here’s hoping that Dr. Pachauri can help us wake up to the reality of global climate change before it’s too late.
Warren Senders
environment: capitalism climate negotiations Climategate idiots IPCC
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 14: Yet Another Installment of “Why Capitalism Sucks.”
The Wall Street Journal never misses an opportunity to mislead.
A fairly even-handed discussion of the most recent round of climate negotiations was derailed by a paragraph of heavy-handed editorializing, including allegations of “flawed science” in the IPCC reports and yet another reference to the so-called “climategate.” Let’s get this straight, starting with the second item: there have thus far been three separate and independent investigations of the leaked emails, and each investigation has completely exonerated the scientists involved. Completely. If the print and broadcast media had any sense of responsibility, this fact would have received as much publicity as the original non-scandal. With regard to the flaws in the IPCC report —in a document thousands of pages long, mistakes are inevitable. If a miscalculation of glacial melt rates invalidates the entire report, then by analogy, an error of fact anywhere in the Wall Street Journal must invalidate everything in that day’s edition, including the stock market reports.
Warren Senders
environment: Deepwater Horizon Department of the Interior idiots Ken Salazar offshore drilling
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 13: Grrrrrrr.
Dear Secretary Salazar — The Department of the Interior may have set some higher safety and environmental impact standards for offshore drilling, but will this translate into increased enforcement of these standards? If the moratorium on drilling is lifted, we need to significantly increase the budget for inspectors and regulators who will be a powerful presence on each and every drilling rig.
During the previous administration regulations were first gutted, then flouted, then ignored, leading inexorably to the catastrophic Deepwater Horizon disaster. It won’t make a bit of difference if the regulations are toughened unless the enforcement environment is made much, much, much more stringent.
The plain fact is that these big oil companies have been getting away with environmental crimes for decades — oil and coal extraction has severely damaged ecosystems around the world, many of them irrevocably. With our planetary system already in a state of shock from increased greenhouse gas emissions, there can no longer be any excuse for allowing fossil fuel industries free rein in their misuse of extractive technologies.
Any adjustment to safety and environmental regulations that assumes responsible behavior on the part of these organizations is hopelessly naive. I confess to grave disappointment; I had hopes that the present administration was prepared to recognize the grave environmental consequences of unbridled corporate sociopathy. I hope that I am proven wrong, but I am afraid that the Department of the Interior has just gotten played. Again.
Yours Sincerely,
Warren Senders
environment: Department of Energy energy efficiency Steven Chu
by Warren
1 comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 12: Make It Better. Just A Little Bit Better.
Just got this in my inbox. That saved me some time looking for a theme for my letter tonight.
TAKE ACTION! How to Tap Abundant, Clean, and Cheap Energy: Strengthen Energy Efficiency Standards Now!
Energy efficiency is our cheapest, most abundant, and least tapped source of energy. Help make sure manufacturers actually follow the energy efficiency standards set by DOE: Submit your comment before 10/18!
Dear Warren,
“Energy efficiency is not just low-hanging fruit; it is fruit that is lying on the ground,” wrote Secretary of Energy Steven Chu shortly after taking office.
As leader of the Department of Energy, Sec. Chu has made energy efficiency—our cheapest, most abundant, and least tapped source of energy right now—a priority. Under Chu’s command, DOE has undertaken a massive project: to strengthen energy efficiency standards for dozens of household and commercial appliances.
But here’s the catch: Once those standards are set, we need to work hard to make sure manufacturers actually follow them. And we need your help.
DOE has found that raising the low bar of efficiency for these products will save consumers billions of dollars and save an enormous amount of energy, reducing our dependence on dirty and harmful fossil fuels.
Even just one stronger standard for one appliance can make a difference. Taken all together, a house—or nation—full of more efficient appliances means America is saving energy, saving money, and driving innovation in the marketplace.
Because strong standards are meaningless without effective enforcement, DOE is taking steps to put some real teeth into these. In the past, enforcement has been lax, meaning that manufacturers could routinely violate efficiency standards without fear of punishment. DOE is proposing new rules to make sure manufacturers’ efficiency claims are backed up by rigorous testing and to hold the bad actors, those manufacturers who aren’t meeting the bare minimum in efficiency standards, accountable.
DOE is on the right path. But in order for this rule to be effective in securing huge energy and cost savings for America, it needs to be stronger and some loopholes need to be closed.
Please write Sec. Chu now and tell him now is the time to get serious about picking up that fruit on the ground by holding manufacturers to the standards we are setting for them. Link.
— Earthjustice.
Earthjustice is a good group of people. I went to the DOE comment submission site and edited the boilerplate they provided, eventually sending the letter below to Secretary Chu:
Dear Secretary Chu,
While a significant number of Americans recognize the urgency of the climate crisis, the sad truth is that there are still a great many people in our country who remain in denial of what is certainly going to be the gravest threat humanity has yet faced. Consequently, truly robust legislation to tackle the major problems consequent to fossil fuel combustion is unlikely to pass our Senate in the near future.
We have two options. One is to abandon hope; the other is to solve the parts of the problem that can be solved, while working to build public awareness and consensus on the need for larger-scale action. Energy efficiency in appliances is one such area — huge amounts of energy are wasted every day by pieces of equipment that are poorly designed, poorly insulated or poorly maintained. We need to strengthen enforcement of federal energy efficiency standards in residential and commercial applications.
It is obvious that equipment that uses less energy to run represents a cost savings for the consumer; less self-evident is that reducing waste is a positive step in our treatment of our environment. With fossil fuel consumption already overburdening our atmosphere with greenhouse gas emissions, there is no excuse for inefficiency and wastefulness.
If the manufacturing sector is merely giving lip service to efficiency standards, we are doomed to fail. The Department of energy must adopt a robust and aggressive system of enforcement that will ensure compliance with energy efficiency regulations. The American people need a guarantee that the Departmen will hold companies accountable for their failures.
I like the plan you’ve proposed. However, I would like to see it include some of the following:
Ongoing product testing, including regular follow-up assessment and verification, preferably conducted by independent labs. The stronger the testing, the more meaningful the results, and the greater the benefit to the consumer. The labs carrying out the testing must have proven integrity and must be insulated from any possibility of corruption.
The process of assessment must be made as transparent as possible. The public should be able to access test results easily and without expense; an informed citizenry is perhaps the best defense against corporate malfeasance. The Department’s proposal to make the information it receives regarding product compliance available to the public on an easily accessible website is an important and necessary initiative.
Thank you for your attention to my comments. I hope that your proposal is strengthened further and can be implemented without difficulty. It will be a significant step in our struggle to take meaningful action on climate change, and to educate our fellow citizens that tackling this problem can actually lead to improvements in our lives rather than deprivations.
Yours Sincerely,
Warren Senders
What Did You Do on 10/10/10, Daddy?
I was out for the second half of the day, helping weatherize a large building: student housing at Tufts University. There were about 30 people there. I was part of a team doing masonry renovation — repointing mortar and in many cases actually removing bricks and old rotten mortar before putting them back in.
This was a so-called “co-ternity” — essentially a co-ed “frat house.” Such a building exemplifies some aspects of the “tragedy of the commons”; its occupants are always transients and thus have no real motivation to invest time and energy in the upkeep of the building. There were lots and lots of holes; I cannot imagine how much heat got pumped into the neighborhood’s air every winter.
It was good to be part of this action. Action is the antidote to despair.
environment: China UN climate talks
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 11: Meanwhile…
The UK Telegraph’s environmental correspondent, Louise Grey, writes about the likelihood of failure (again) in Cancun this year, in an article accompanied by the single most gratuitously irrelevant photograph imaginable for an article on global climate change. The comments on this article are a mine of stupid.
The inability of the United States and China to reach consensus on reducing greenhouse gases is a single small, depressing chapter in a planetary tragedy. America’s inaction can be ascribed to a few score members of the U.S. Senate who are either in profound denial about the facts of global warming or who wish to avoid offending those of their constituents who are in similar denial. That this is an election year renders it even more difficult; very few American politicians are ready to tackle the famously deep-pocketed fossil fuel interests. China, for its part, has little reason to trust the United States. And thus this year’s attempt to find agreement on the gravest existential threat humanity has ever faced seems likely to founder — just like last year’s. Meanwhile, atmospheric carbon dioxide is at almost four hundred parts per million and rising. The clock is ticking for us all.
Warren Senders
environment: China Pi***ng into the wind
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Month 10, Day 10: Stop Making Sense
The Hindu ran a piece noting that the current round of climate talks seems to be going nowhere, thanks (among other things) to the intransigence of a certain world superpower. The letter below is more of a short, polite rant; it consists of a string of rhetorical accomplishments strung together, but lacking anything in the way of a unifying message (beyond, of course, “Aaaaaaaaagh!” which is my default setting these days).
It looks increasingly likely that any meaningful action on climate change by the United States government will fall victim to the grotesque circus of election-year politics. Conservative groups are already vehemently opposed to any initiatives from the Obama administration; when this ideological rigidity is combined with a reflexive suspicion of scientific evidence and the inability of American media outlets to sensibly discuss global heating, we have assembled all the ingredients in a recipe for climatic disaster. While China may have surpassed the US in its total emissions of greenhouse gases, the true picture emerges when we compare each nation’s per capita emissions as a function of its share of world population. Ultimately, all the world’s nations are going to have to change in dramatic ways, for the apparent cheapness of fossil energy is illusory. By freely burning coal and oil, we have offered humanity’s future as security on a usurious loan.
Warren Senders