Question Earthority!

“On Monday, John McCain delivered a major talk on global warming. At a Danish wind-energy firm. In Portland, Oregon. Surely the irony of a South-Western Senator, who spends so much of his time on the Eastern Seaboard, giving a talk about carbon emissions in the North-West — at company owned by Danes (whose execs no doubt must periodically make trans-continental, trans-Atlantic trips) in the middle of a national tour/campaign — escapes no one. How much would America’s green-house gas emissions go down if Presidential candidates stopped frolicking about the country? Better yet, how much would ‘our’ green-house emissions go down if Presidential candidates stopped talking so much?” (05/15/08)

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003340.html

“In one TV commercial, Kool and the Gang warble their celebration of good times because coal, yes, coal, makes the party possible in America. In another, white and black, young and old, male and female, and even someone in a doctor’s green scrubs, stare into the camera and soulfully declare: ‘I believe’ American know-how will make coal clean and stop it from contributing to climate change. Not sold? Maybe you missed the newspaper ads and billboards warning that turning away from coal could mean blackouts, unemployment and higher electric bills. These messages and other variations on the coal-is-great theme are flooding the nation courtesy of the coal industry, coal-fueled utilities, railroads and related industries. The pro-coal marketing campaign — known by its tag line ‘Clean Coal’ — has kicked into high gear as prospects for new plants have turned bleak. Wall Street is tightening financing, leading to what one analyst told the Christian Science Monitor is a ‘de facto moratorium on coal power.’” (05/15/08)

http://tinyurl.com/3qqfbn

“A sensible discussion of the polar bear requires acknowledging a simple fact: that the polar bear is merely a proxy for something else. The environmental pressure groups like the Center for Biological Diversity that have petitioned for the listing acknowledge that their reason for doing so is concern over global warming. The more warming, they argue, the less sea ice; the less sea ice, the fewer polar bears. So their hope was that the Endangered Species Act will give the federal government power to curtail sources of global warming — such as your car or air conditioning system.” (05/15/08)

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13214

“The climate-change issue has divided conservatives, with presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain leading the charge for a cap-and-trade energy-rationing scheme and Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe spearheading the opposition — which includes my group, Americans for Prosperity, and most movement conservatives. Building a consensus on the issue looks complicated, but it’s as simple as one word: taxes. We should build from the premise that climate policy must not be used as a cover for raising federal revenue.” (05/13/08)

http://tinyurl.com/4yvb4l

“‘Why can’t we have them when they can?’ That, for the ‘nuclear have-nots,’ has long been the essence of what some call the nuclear double standard, what others call nuclear narcissism, what others still call America’s nuclear hypocrisy. The bitterness about that double standard has steadily intensified for almost exactly four decades now (the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, or NPT, was signed on July 1, 1968, and came into force in 1970). Why? Because in the basic bargain of the NPT, the non-nuclear weapon states promised forever to forego nuclear weapons, in exchange for a pair of promises from the nuclear weapon states. First, the nuclear weapon states conceded — quite explicitly, in Article IV — that the non-nuclear weapon states possess an ‘inalienable right’ to develop ‘nuclear energy for peaceful purposes’ and even promised ‘to facilitate’ their efforts to do so. Second, the nuclear weapon states promised — quite explicitly, in Article VI, and reiterated quite explicitly at the NPT Review Conferences in 1995 and 2000 — to negotiate the complete elimination of their own nuclear arsenals, and eventually to deliver to the human race a nuclear-weapon-free world.” (05/15/08)

http://www.alternet.org/story/85375/

“A cap-and-trade system sends a market signal that organizes the whole economy around our environmental goals. Those who want clean coal technology, more wind and solar, nuclear power, biomass and biofuels will have their opportunity through a new market that rewards clean energy use and distribution. The market evolves by requiring sensible reductions in greenhouse gases, but also allowing full flexibility in how industry meets that requirement.” (05/12/08)

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/5/13/05312/0319

“When a politician whoops up a really bad public policy, it’s reasonable to ask if said politician is cynical or just stupid. But this one’s a real puzzlement. We’ve seen enough of John McCain to know that he’s not stupid — willful sometimes, erratic for sure, too eager to insult conservatives, and taken to the odd flight of pique or narcissism. But he’s not stupid by a long shot. And for all his faults, he’s not notably cynical. At least for a politician. So how account for the execrable cap and trade policy McCain sprung on us from Portland, Oregon, Monday and which he says will save us from the dreaded carbon dioxide? (If you’re asking: ‘Carbon dioxide — isn’t that what makes the flowers grow and what baby’s breath is made of?’ Answer: yes.)” (05/14/08)

http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13211

“Sometimes governments act so ridiculous that they clarify the true role of the state. Government chiefs claim they want to reduce environmental damage and promote energy conservation, but in practice, they punish people for doing this. A clear example came to light in a news article in the Los Angeles Times on May 6, 2008. A mechanic was using fuel made of fryer grease for his fleet of motor vehicles. Government’s response was to slap him with fines, paper work, and taxes.” (05/13/08)

http://www.freeliberal.com/archives/003337.html

“What can $100 million buy you in Congress? If you’re agribusiness, such money spent this past year on lobbying and campaign donations will harvest billions in farm subsidies and keep you in clover for another five years. Congress plans to renew the US agriculture law this week with no apologies for that fact that most of the subsidies will go to the wealthiest 10 percent of recipients and that a majority of this largess will enrich commercial farmers with an average income of $200,000. And the ultimate cost to each US household for this congressional cornucopia? About $320 a year in taxes and higher food prices — beyond the already inflated prices at supermarkets.” (05/14/08)

http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0514/p08s01-comv.html

“Even with large increases in riders these systems are losing money every day. The paper notes: ‘Typically, mass transit systems rely on fares to cover about a third of their costs, so they depend on sales taxes and other government funding.’ In other words one third of the actual cost of riding mass transit is paid by the commuter and the other two-thirds is paid by people who don’t commute. And even with increases in ridership some services are seeing shortfalls increase.” (05/12/08)

http://tinyurl.com/5xxofs