Get Energy Smart! NOW!

The breaking news in the lobbying world last Friday: lobbying firm Bonner & Associates had forged letters from minority organizations to send to Representative Tom Perriello (D-VA) in opposition to the American Clean Energy & Security Act. Now, of course, it is all an intern’s fault (or is it a temp worker … or a contract employee … oh, it really doesn’t matter since this goes against Bonner’s long-standing practice of, well, engaging in deceptive and questionable lobbying practices.)

This is a story that won’t go away, for any number of reasons.

First off, there is the Massachusetts’ connection. Representative Ed Markey has announced that he will pursue a Congressional investigation (see after the fold). Senator John Kerry has already written forcefully (and thoughtfully) about this. There is a basic ‘touch the nerve’ here for many members of Congress — if they outright can’t trust letters that they receive from constituents and constituent organizations, how are they to communicate. (Note that one anti-energy smart practices organization, the truthiness-laden named Americans For Prosperity, have put out instructions on how to disrupt members town hall meetings and to create the appearance of a larger presence than they can actually muster. And, AFP has instructed people to lie and pretend that they are in Members districts when they call Representative’s offices, to the point of recommending having a zip code and phone number prepared to use to prove that they are constituents.) And, for the moment, this is just Representative Tom Perriello — but what are the odds that these false-flag letters were sent to only one member? (Already, there is reporting that Senator Conrad likely received similiar false letters.) Members of Congress were commenting on the high number of anti-ACES phone calls and letters that they have received. How many of these were simply dishonest (fraud?) like AFP has recommended? How many were false letters like those Tom Perriello discovered?

Second, there are some very basic legal questions as to putting a letter, falsely, on an organization’s stationary (violating copyright? Trademark protection? fraud?), mailing this (postal fraud), and, well, who knows what else (conspiracy to commit fraud). There have been multiple calls [to join one] for a Department of Justice investigation into the matter.

In a letter sent to [Attorney General] Holder, Sierra Club Legal Director Patrick Gallagher argues that at a minimum, the firm Bonner & Associates appears to have committed fraud, and that a thorough investigation may reveal that the firm “devised a scheme to defraud constituents of Rep. Perriello … by depriving them of the intangible right to the honest services of their representatives.”

Third, there is the “who is behind it” question? Now, again, Bonner wants us all to accept that this was a “rogue agent”, not reflecting the intents or business practices of the firm in any way, shape or form. … Got it? Today’s news is that the massively funded, astroturf American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity contracted (e.g., paid) Bonner for support. As they explained,

We are outraged at the conduct of Bonner and Associates

Outraged, outraged I tell you!

Outrage from the people who think Clean Coal is the right thing for a religious holiday, sending out a Santa to give out “clean coal” and created “clean coal caroling‘.

Outrage from people who are systematically distorting the debate over energy in this nation and to perpetuate (and expand) the use of an energy source responsible for massive devastation from destroyed mountaintops to damaged lungs of our children to damaging the oceans (acidification) to destroying the habitability of the planet (global warming) to …

I’m outraged … aren’t you?

Bonner and Associates was hired by the Hawthorn Group – our primary grassroots contractor – to do limited outreach earlier this year on H.R. 2454. Based upon the information we have, it is clear that an employee of Bonner’s firm failed to demonstrate the integrity we demand of all our contractors and subcontractors. As a result, these egregious actions led to falsified letters being sent to Members of Congress.

“ACCCE has always maintained high ethical and professional standards. In this case, the standards and practices that we require for grassroots advocacy outreach were not adhered to by Bonner and Associates. In this sense, the community groups involved, the Members of Congress who received the fraudulent letters, as well as ACCCE, were all victimized by this misconduct.

Okay, so lets get this.

• Bonner & Associates isn’t responsible because it was all the unsupervised (unnamed) intern acting in a way totally out of line with the firm’s business practices.

• ACCCE isn’t responsible because the hired Bonner & Associates who failed to follow ACCCE’s “high ethical and professional standards”.

Sort of reminds me of something:  “Teacher, it isn’t my fault, the dog ate my homework …”

UPDATE: Since writing this, several new items and developments:

• Brad Johnson, Wonkroom, Fraudster Bonner’s Client Exposed: ACCCE, King Coal’s Dirty Front Group
  

  ACCCE’s choice of Bonner comes a little surprise, as Bonner has built a reputation as one of the most effective and amoral Astroturf companies inside the Beltway, having generated “grassroots” campaigns on behalf of the tobacco and pharmaceutical industries.

• Pete Altman, NRDC Switchbard, ACCCE Hired Firm That Forged Opposition Letters
  

  This makes our discovery that ACCCE changed their lobby disclosure report for the 2nd quarter of this year even more interesting. … ACCCE initially reported a whopping $11,317,625 for lobbying on climate issues in the US House and Senate; then four days later ACCCE submitted a revised report, showing just $544,853 in lobbying expenses

  That’s over $10.5 million that ACCCE suddenly realized it didn’t want to report as direct lobbying. At first, we figured that must have been tv advertising. But now we have to wonder – maybe that money has something to do with Bonner and Associates?

• Sierra Club, “Is Coal Behind Forged Letters? Sierra Club Urges Department of Justice to Initiate Criminal Probe of Bonner & Associates Carl Pope’s statement:
  

  “We believe the allegations against Bonner and Associates are so serious that they merit immediate investigation by the Department of Justice. These kind of dirty tricks have no place in our democracy. Bonner needs to come clean about what they did and be held accountable. Both the coal industry’s ACCCE and Bonner have denounced the sneaky tactics and firmly placed blame elsewhere. It is clear that the Department of Justice and Congress may be the only ones can really figure out who is responsible for these dirty tricks.

  “Big Oil, Big Coal and other special have already spent more than $100 million to kill a comprehensive clean energy jobs and climate plan. By faking these letters, Bonner and the special interests they represent admit that an army of lobbyists and hundreds of millions of dollars still can’t overcome real grassroots power. This just proves we need to redouble our efforts to demonstrate how much real support there is for clean energy jobs.

Finally, note that one of Americans For Prosperity’s largest donors, who fights heavily against a clean energy future, also contributes, heavily, to a number of Democratic Party politicians.

[Read more →]

In Sunday’s Washington Post, yet another inane, deceptive, truthiness laden OPED appears on energy issues. Not satisfied with publishing George Will’s Will-ful Deceit, Krauthammer’s fact-free forays into energy analysis, Samuelson’s truthiness, and Sarah Palin’s paltry shallowness, and others, Kathleen Parker has stepped up to the plate for an attack on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act (Waxman-Markey) that creates a strawman argument, ignoring core elements within the bill, to make a dishonest case that such legislation would weaken US security. Parker’s oped is, quite simply, inane, as it “lacks sense or substance” as long as one assumes that sense or substance should rely on fact and truth.

In A Crude Reality About Energy Independence, Parker asserts that ACES should be called the “American Clean Energy and InSecurity Act”, asserting that

The greener we are, the less secure we’re likely to be.

Meaning, we either can be green or we can be less dependent on oil from terrorist-sponsoring states.

Now, let’s be clear, we should listen, intently, to her because Kathleen has serious credentials since, according to her words,

As a Prius-driving, pro-seal, recycling, organic vegetarian, [Kathleen is] heavily tilted toward saving the planet.

Parker spends this article asserting that ACES does nothing about transportation (thus oil) and that, due to the carbon-intensity issues, ACES would drive greater US use of Saudi oil, rather than the greater security of getting oil from Canadian tar sands (and, one would think, oil shale).

Parker’s piece is filled with so many falsehood, on so many levels, that it is hard to figure out where to start. Matt Denorga eased the burden, with an extremely well done dissection that is entitled, simply and accurately, Kathleen Parker Dead Wrong. As Denorga highlights, Parker doesn’t even bother to mention that Global Warming, itself, creates what is likely the greatest national security threat the United States has faced since the English burned the White House (e.g., an existential threat: honestly, also faced probably from Nazi Germany and from Soviet ICBMs). Thus, her assertion that ACES is promotes “insecurity” totally discounts climate change’s security implications.

Parker asserts that ACES does nothing about transport, due to its focus on stationary sources,

Meanwhile, the transportation issues remain largely unaddressed. The extent to which oil and gasoline imports do decline in coming years wouldn’t be a function of the Waxman-Markey bill, but it will be thanks to initiatives begun by George W. Bush and implemented by Barack Obama, according to C. Boyden Gray, former ambassador to the European Union and pro-ethanol “green” Republican, who served under Bush 41 as special envoy for Eurasian energy.

One of those, the so-called CAFE (corporate average fuel economy) legislation, raised auto mileage standards by about 30 percent. Bush 43 also pushed through energy legislation in 2005 and 2007 that requires the blending of 36 billion gallons of biofuels in the transport sector — or about 20 percent of total liquid fuel consumption.

“These measures should significantly reduce oil imports,” says Gray. “But both CAFE and the biofuel legislation predate Waxman-Markey and would achieve much of the import-reduction security goals publicly associated with Waxman-Markey.”

That Parker is ignoring the reality that ACES has many provisions that relate to transportation (both directly and indirectly) evidently escaped those top-notch Post fact-checkers. That, for example, there will be carbon pricing associated with processing oil into gasoline will help drive ever more efficient processing. (Very roughly, about 1/5th the CO2 impact of the gasoline burned in your car is in the supply and processing change that got the gasoline to you.) But, more directly, ACES has provisions to help fund and otherwise promote electric vehicles, improved public transport, and other measures that will help drive down oil dependency.

While Matt does a great job in a discussion far more worth reading that Parker’s drivel, there are other elements of Parker’s truthiness that merit some attention. Being the good political operative she is, all hail George HW Bush and George W Bush for their thoughtful and perceptive leadership on energy issues.

Note that the CAFE standard improvements were “implemented by Barack Obama”, as if the leap forward in CAFE standards negotiated out of the Obama White House a few months should be created to George W Bush.

Sigh … How much time should we spend shredding apart yet another deceptive, truthiness-laden Washington Post Op-Ed on energy and climate issues?

As per the title, a question arises as to whether it is inane (“lacking sense”) to bother writing about falsehoods on energy and global warming issues that appear in the Washington Post opinion section. They just keep appearing, as opinion editor Fred Hiatt seems to relish his role providing a prominent publishing venue for those will-fully seeking to deceive Americans on the greatest threat (and opportunity) that this nation faces. As for hopes to sway Hiatt and the Post toward actually erquiring truth and truthfulness from their opinion writers, as Albert Einstein famously said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”.

For far too long and far too extensively, various industries have used astroturfing methods to distort public debate. They create false groups. They fund “institutions” with impressive sounding names to spout deceptive propaganda.  All of this is fraud, outright fraud on the very concept of intelligent discourse in a civil society.  Now, this “fraud” typical doesn’t cross into actual directly illegal activity, a “fraud” that could attract the attention of the Postal Service (using the mail for fraud), police (stealing letterhead, using copyright / trademark protected material as part of a misrepresentation), and Congressional inquiry.  Sometimes, however, it does cross the line to directly illegal activity. And, well, on even rarer occasions that fraud is uncovered in the light of day.

Such is the case of lobbying firm Bonner & Associates forging letters from at least two minority organizations to Representative Tom Perriello urging him to vote against clean energy legislation, seeking to show (falsely) that minority constituents in his districts were against energy smart legislation. The organizations involved are, justifiably, outraged.

“They stole our name. They stole our logo. They created a position title and made up the name of someone to fill it. They forged a letter and sent it to our congressman without our authorization,” said Tim Freilich, who sits on the executive committee of Creciendo Juntos, a nonprofit network that tackles issues related to Charlottesville’s Hispanic community. “It’s this type of activity that undermines Americans’ faith in democracy.”

The NAACP, which just issued an historic statement on climate change a few weeks ago, had this to say

“The NAACP is appalled that an organization like Bonner and Associates would stoop to these depths to deceive Congress. In this case Bonner and Associates are exploiting the African-American Community to achieve their misdirected goal. These tactics illustrate that discriminatory tactics normally used to deceive voters are now being used to deceive the Congress,” stated Hilary O. Shelton, Director of the NAACP’s Washington Bureau and Senior Vice President for Advocacy.

The American Clean Energy and Security Act, sponsored by Congressman Edward Markey and Congressman Henry Waxman, contains provisions that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and create grants for green jobs.

“These letters that were sent to members of Congress in the name of the NAACP are completely false and the NAACP is diametrically opposed to the claims made in the correspondence.”

Now, the reaction to this incident is spreading quickly. John Kerry spoke up forcefully,

Nothing should surprise us anymore after we’ve seen powerful interests mislead about the science, twist the facts about climate change, resort to a whole host of tactics to try to hide a simple fact: the earth is in trouble because of manmade greenhouse gasses, our planet is getting closer and closer to a dangerous tipping point, and we must do something about this immediately.

But I have to say, this appears to be a desperate distortion too many.

There is going to be a Congressional investigation.

Juliana Williams highlights how fraud and identify theft are “all in a day’s work” and asks “How many lobbyists does it take to screw in a lightbulb up democracy?”

Grist even has poetry

There once was a firm known as Bonner
Whose tactics were lacking in honor.
“Can’t get white letters read?
We’ll forge brown ones instead!”
Oh Bonner, you should be a goner.

Avaaz Action Factory went out into a rainstorm with a rather vivid statement about the naked frauds being perpetuated by those fighting against a clean energy future. (As a note, those involved in the protest did not realize that Tom Perriello was one of the Avaaz founders.)

Sadly, this is almost certainly not an isolated incident (and this is not the first time that Bonner & Associates has been caught playing games), but such fraudulent misrepresentation has a long history even as they claim the ‘intern’ defense. Whether in distorting science or seeking to misrepresent public support, fraudulent claims and representations are core to the anti-science sydrome suffering haters of a livable economy.  And, it seems likely, that direct “fraud” and misrepresentation is far from isolated to Bonnor & Associates.

Now, I don’t know Claire’s stance on the CFC, have to believe she supports the Combined Federal Campaign (a path for Federal workers to have donations directly deducted from their paychecks).  And, it is unlikely that she is a big supporter of CFC destruction of the Ozone layer.  However, when it comes to CFC, Cash For Clunkers, @clairecmc simply has it wrong. She has twittered away with her opposition to reinforcing this massively successful federal program.

We simply cannot afford any more taxpayr $ to extend cash for clunkers. Idea was to prime the pump, not subsidize auto purchases forever.

Claire must see a parallel between the auto industry and a literal reading of the Biblical explanation of creation, because anything that lasts more than seven days seems to, for her, border on “forever”.

We put a billion $$ in cash for clunker program.That’s 250,000 cars. We weren’t sure how long it would last,but a billion of your $ is alot.

Well, the original concept was for a 1 million vehicle program or sparking about a 10 percent increase in car sales. While, as discussed elsewhere, there are plenty of issues with the C.A.R.S. Program, a 2-3 percent “prime the pump” seems unlike to do anything serious, while a 10 percent boost actually could help some dealers stay alive, have workers back on assembly lines, and otherwise have a meaningful impact.

While I still have serious concerns about the legislation’s structure, Claire should recognize that the $1 billion dollars is having a real stimulative impact.

I will consider using EXISTING stimulus $ that has already been appropriated to finish up cash for clunker program. No new $.

The one-week old ‘forever’ program is having real impact on Main Street, unlike the $100s of billions sent to help out Wall Street. (The Federal subsidies to Wall Street bonuses are easily an order of magnitude larger than the Clunker program’s cost.) Thus, perhaps Claire can find that “already been appropriated” cash in some Wall Street executives’ pockets?

In any event, yet again Claire McCaskill seems to be taking pride in positioning herself as some form of false moderate, placing herself between those who criticize government (at least a Democratic Party led government) every chance they meet and those advocating/fighting for sensible government policy.

NOTE: A reminder, as per To Twit Claire, this post is a reproach (although some might call it a taunt) to some of Claire’s “twitting” habits.

twit (twt)

tr.v. twit·ted, twit·ting, twits

To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults.

n.

1. The act or an instance of twitting.

2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.

3. Slang A foolishly annoying person.

CFC, Cash For Clunkers (the Car Allowance Rebate System (CARS) Program), certainly is in the news today. Almost no one expected the massive surge of interest in the program such that, within a week, the program required more funding. Now, in the debate about how to stimulate the economy, there has been a divide between those focused on Wall Street (and some form of trickle-down economic theory) and those who argue for focusing on Main Street, getting cash into people’s hands to spark retail economic activity that will be respent in the local economy and, eventually, trickle up to Wall Street.

Well, the $1 billion that the nation’s auto dealers look to have gone through in just one week sparked, quite easily, $4 billion or more in sales at those dealers. Right off the top, that implies about $200 million (or more) in sales taxes, salaries (commissions) for workers in auto dealerships, work in junk yards for the old cars, etc … We are talking a quick leverage effect, moving cars off the lots, with a trickle up occurring boosting the stock prices of auto companies and their suppliers.

Now, I’m among the many who criticized the C.A.R.S. program for fundamental problems in its structure. While I stand behind those critiques, I believed and believe, even as highlighting the structural problems, that a “clunkers” program can make sense when well structured.

The House of Representatives has already acted in the face of the $1 billion having gone through so quickly, passing a measure for $2 billion in additional funding. Sigh … from what I can tell, none of the structural flaws have been solved. Yet, the direct boosting to the economy is a major accomplishment of governmental action and could represent the fastest and most widely spread stimulative activity that we’ve seen, to date, of government spending.

Now, one of my critical concerns remains in terms of the structure. The rebates can be had for what are, at the end of the day, truly marginal improvements in fuel efficiency. I am very pleasantly surprised that the fuel efficiency savings are well above the minimums required for getting rebates. A good sign, it seems, that when given the choice and some information and some incentive, Americans are ready to make Energy Smart choices. It looks like the vast majority of those taking advantage of the CARS Program, to date, aren’t interested in doing the “minimum”, but are upgrading at least somewhat better. As per Congressman Jay Inslee, one of the real leaders in the House of Representatives on energy issues:

I want to just make a point that this program has been spectacularly successful from an environmental perspective. It was originally criticized that we did not call for a high enough efficiency improvement of these cars. The people have fixed this problem for us. We are seeing average increases of efficiency of 60% — well, well above what was required by Congress. One car company 78% of the cars that they’re buying are over 30 MPG, 39% above 30 MPG. The American people have had spectacular improvements in the efficiency and the environmental performance.

Here is Representative Ed Markey’s statement:

This program is a win for consumers who are trading in old gas guzzlers for hybrids, a win for our economy and a win for energy independence and the environment as the new vehicles are averaging 60% more fuel efficiency than the junkers being taken off the road.

Some points about the program’s success (in just one week) via statistics from carmakers and cashforclunkers.org:

• 79% of clunkers being traded in so far are SUVs, trucks and vans with over 100,000 miles
• 84% of the new vehicles purchased are passenger cars
• Clunker consumers are getting an average 69% MPG improvement, which will result in an average savings of $750 in gas bills per year
• During the week that the ‘Cash for Clunkers’ program was launched, GM’s small car sales increased 54.8 percent over the preceding week
• The leading Ford vehicle being purchased under the program is the 28 mpg Ford Focus at nearly 30 percent of all Ford sales
• Toyota reports that 78% of their Cash for Clunkers volume were the Corolla, Prius, Camry, RAV 4 and Tacoma, with a resulting average of 30 mpg
• Hyundai is reporting a 59 percent increase in fuel economy compared to the old vehicle—which averaged 140,000 miles

Now, the program remains poorly structured, with its mandates for fuel efficiency far weaker than it should, with a number of troubling inequities, and it helps prop up America’s car culture. Recognizing all that and, even as I wish that they would fix some issues (see after the fold), kudos to the House of Representatives for acting so quickly to add funding to what is an impressively successful government program.

And, lets hope we move forward with other legislation and other programs that work in win-win-win strategies to improve the economy, reduce our wasteful energy practices, and improve the environment. As Markey notes in a Huffington Post piece, this ain’t just about cars people.

With Clunkers in the win column, now is the time to move on other provisions in the Waxman-Markey Clean Energy Jobs legislation that will stimulate other areas of the economy. The steel industry will see a bump from wind turbine construction. Manufacturing workers will be needed back on the line for solar production. And contractors will be put back on the clock making efficiency retrofits for building and homes. As Clunkers demonstrates, smart energy policy is what the U.S. economy needs to get back on its feet.

[Read more →]

The oil industry is in trouble, trouble I say.

Exxon-Mobil executives are almost certainly having their meals serenaded with much smaller violins this year as the second quarter profits were just (ONLY!!!) $3.95 billion — or a 66% drop from the 2008 second quarter. Sigh … no $40 billion+ in profits this year.

Shell also saw a 2/3rds drop in profits.

The oil company executives seem to agree: worldwide oil demand is low. Shell’s Peter Voser

Our second quarter results were affected by the weak global economy. This weakness is creating a difficult environment both in Upstream and Downstream. Energy demand is weak. There is excess capacity in the market, and industry costs remain high. Conditions are likely to remain challenging for some time, and we are not banking on a quick recovery.

Even so, oil prices are in the $60 range, not the under $20 as just a decade ago.

Okay, a bit hard to see this as actually reflecting what could happen by 2015 … but the perspective is still worth a watch.

Hat tip to ZapRoot.

Since launching The Pickens Plan in 2008, T Boone Pickens has become a face for American households about the potential for changing America’s energy structure. In short, T Boone advocates for a program that would reduce America’s dependence on overseas oil by:

• Constructing a major wind electricity generation and transmission capability
• Use that wind to displace the 20+% of electricity from natural gas
• Use the natural gas, instead, for transportation (cars, buses, trucks)

While T Boone’s downhome style and $10s of millions of investment in advertising / web services / etc have helped build up quite a following, the details of the plan don’t stand up to any serious scrutiny:

• The Pickens Plan is not cost effective when compared to other options for reducing our foreign oil dependency;
• Wind is not an easy path for displacing natural gas electricity transmission. In fact, wind and natural gas are natural partners for a cost-effective energy system.
• The plan moves the US from one fossil-fuel dependency (oil) to another (natural gas).
• The Pickens Plan does nothing to reduce the most serious concern in the energy sector when it comes to Global Warming: coal-fired electricity generation.
• And, so on … the list of problems is quite long.

Perhaps due to the very concept that a conservative Republican would embrace wind power and well aware of his $10s of millions in advertising resources, too many leading Democratic Party politicians have seemingly embraced T Boone and have given him extensive private access to private Democratic events.  Now, putting aside the not-minor issue that T Boone is unapologetic for his leading role in funding and supporting the vicious and deceit-laden swift-boating of the Democratic Party Presidential nominee, John Kerry, in 2004 (thus helping ensure Bush’s second term), there is the quite serious reality that The Pickens Plan is fatally flawed and those flaws are not brought to the table at these events were Pickens is warmly greeted as “my friend”.

And, T Boone has had quite a bit of access within leading Democratic Party circles. For example, Nancy Pelosi (whose husband, by the way, invests with T Boone) arranged for T Boone to speak with the House Caucus.  This private access continues tomorrow, as the Democratic Policy Committee (DPC) will (reportedly) have T Boone Pickens as its speaker at its weekly lunch.

DPC Lunches. Every Thursday the Senate is in session, the DPC hosts a lunch at which Senators hear from leading figures in government, politics, business and journalism. Past guests have included Al Gore, Madeleine Albright, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Henry Paulson, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates, Michael Bloomberg, John Sweeney, Rupert Murdoch, Bill Moyers, Tim Russert, and Tom Friedman.

Yes, it seems that T Boone could meet the requirement of being a “leading figure” but we have to wonder whether there is going to be anyone in the room prepared with the information to and willing to challenge T. Boone Pickens’ smooth truthiness-laden sales pitch.

And, let us not forget that this is occurring just as the Senate is struggling to figure out how to develop a sensible energy and climate bill to marry up with the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act.  Anyone doubt that T Boone will push hard for funding for natural gas vehicles?
Now, T Boone has spent much of the time since putting forward The Pickens Plan saying that there is no one else with an energy plan and challenging others to ‘come up with a plan’ if we don’t like his. Well, the reality has been that there were lots of plans out there prior to his launching The Pickens’ Plan and there are many still around. If the DPC is interested in having a serious discussion about energy issues with people whose plans will enrich the United States, improve U.S. security, and mitigate climate change, there are many (MANY) people to have in for a lunch before bringing in T Boone.

• How about, for example, Eric Schmidt from Google, who has a compelling presentation and speaks to a clearly achievable and profitable path toward 100% clean electricity within 20 years.  Google.org is also investing serious money in clean energy and energy efficiency (strategic investments), with a philosophy worthy of discussion with a group of Senators.
• Or, why not bring in Sunil Paul to talk about the Gigaton Throwdown:  looking at nine different paths for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 1 gigaton (or more) by 2020, with a cogent discussion of the barriers for actually achieving those reductions?
• Or … the list is virtually endless.

No, rather than bring in serious people who are discussing serious solutions,  the DPC is bringing a snake-oil salesman who merits credit for dishonorable attacks on the 2004 Democratic Party presidential nominee … Giving T Boone such prominence is bad for energy policy and bad politics.  Now, the insanity of this embrace is that The Pickens Plan is a Potemkin Village, on many levels, and is not good on fiscal, energy, or environmental grounds.  This is simply bad politics: what should be done is setting Pickens up as the extreme of legitimate debate. He is offering a fossil-fuel heavy (natural gas rather than oil) answer to our challenges, while admitting that Climate Change is a reality. This should be laid out, clearly, as the limit of legitimate debate and discussion (with some elements of Pickens concepts / plan worthy of inclusion) rather than embracing Pickens as some form of (false) messiah.

UPDATE: Sigh, should have included to start. There is a Senate bill to execute a massive subsidy program to help make the inanity of Pickens’ Plan reality.

From Robert Menendez’s web site:

U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senators Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Robert Menendez (D-NJ) were joined today by energy-independence advocate T. Boone Pickens to tout new legislation that would boost vehicles that run on clean natural gas. The NAT GAS Act, introduced today by Menendez and co-sponsored by Reid and Hatch, would extend and increase tax credits for natural gas vehicles and refueling.

That bill would greatly increase resources toward natural gas vehicles when the resources could be better spent elsewhere and otherwise to reduce America’s oil dependency.

[Read more →]

Peter Sinclair’s Climate Crock of the Week are steadily becoming a must watch item among those besieged by climate denier truthiness and deceit. Most recently, Sinclair took on well-known climate skeptic Anthony Watts (based, in no small part, this study).  Watts, evidently, did not enjoy Sinclair’s attention and filed a complaint with YouTube that led to the video’s removal with no serious explanation forthcoming either from YouTube or Watts.  And, as per any good fight, the commentaries are spreading — some more absurd than others.

The setting
Notable (notorious) anti-science syndrome suffering climate skeptic Anthony Watts has made much of looking at scientists work and seemingly showing where there problems with that work. Evidently, however, he has some concerns when he faces such a look; perhaps because that look provided a clear and accessible demonstration of the shallowness of Watts’ claims. A recent video in Peter Sinclair’s excellent “Climate Denial Crock of the Week” series (see, for example, this GESN post) highlighted how Watts’ work is fundamentally flawed.

Watts complained to YouTube, evidently asserting copyright infringement, and, voila, the video “Watts Up With Watts?” is no longer available.

As Kevin Grandia put it,

So what do you do when someone posts a YouTube video saying you’re a crock? One way is to complain and get it wiped clean off the ‘inter-tubes.’ …

The video was removed after Watts complained under YouTube’s Copyright Infringement guidelines. This has become known as a DMCA Takedown – with the DMCA being the US copyright law used to criminalize anyone infringing and/or circumventing copyrighted works.

… I think this is about a video that thoroughly shreds Watts and his argument that the world is wrong about climate change and he is right.

So what is it Watts? Instead of hiding behind an automated service that deletes any video on YouTube that someone claims infringes DMCA, why don’t you … explain why you think Sinclair’s video should not be viewed by the public.

Perhaps, Kevin, it is simply because Watts is uncomfortable when people are too skeptical about skeptics.

It isn’t just Kevin, others are reacting and entering the discussion.

A Watts’ ally speaks up and says something truly inane

Roger Pielke Sr has decided to step into the fray, with a no-holds barred statement in support of Anthony Watts, calls “a well respected colleague who has provided a much needed analysis to the climate science community”. “Well-respected …” Okay, let’s not touch that one with a ten-foot pole. But consider this phrase:

resorting to the absurd connection of climate to how the health issues of tobacco were reported

As per the title of this piece, a simple (painful) question: Should we be laughing or crying at the absurdity of (false) outrage that anyone would suggest that there is a linkage between “Thank you for Smoking” and what has happened with the political and social debate over climate change for the past 20+ years.

Now, the failure of this opening? That MOD Squad (Merchants of Death) are solely the Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms industries. It so easily could have had those who fight against any (and all) efforts to reduce America’s CO2 emission addiction.

In any event, back to the absurdity.

In January 2007, the Union of Concerned Scientists released a report on this issue: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco’s Tactics to “Manufacture Uncertainty” on Climate Change (pdf).

ExxonMobil has manufactured uncertainty about the human causes of global warming just as tobacco companies denied their product caused lung cancer,” said Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ Director of Strategy & Policy. “A modest but effective investment has allowed the oil giant to fuel doubt about global warming to delay government action just as Big Tobacco did for over 40 years.”

Not only are the tactics that global warming deniers and those who denied linkages between tobacco and cancer eerily the same, but many of the institutions and individuals involved are the same. The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) big on arguing uncertainty about tobacco’s links to health issues; bit on global warming denier. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen: ridiculed linkages between smoking and health risks; ridicules those concerned about Global Warming.  There is (was) Frederick Seitz. Monbiot even identifies the global warming denial movement having started with Big Tobacco.

In 1993, Philip Morris, getting hammered in public opinion over second-hand smoke after the release of an EPA report, hired the PR firm APCO. APCO designed a campaign to fight a ban on passive smoking by creating the impression of a grassroots movement to fight over-regulation and to portray tobacco fears as just one of many unfounded fears. What are some of the other unfounded fears you may ask? According to big tobacco, one is global warming. Interesting.

Now, I’m not sure that Monbiot is fully right on this (after all, there was denial going on well before this, fighting against George HW Bush, for example, taking action at Rio) but this is just a taste of the very clear relationship between those who distorted the science about tobacco’s health risks and those distorting the science on climate change despite Roger Pielke, Sr’s, outrage over the assertion of ” the absurd connection of climate to how the health issues of tobacco were reported”.

Despite Pielke’s protestations, the linkages between how industry and ideologues fought to confuse the public discussion of the science about tobacco/health and polluting fossil fuel use/global warming are quite clear and strong. They are clear enough that a scientific institution could write a solid report solely based on one fossil-fuel company’s activities.  They are clear enough that denying them is along the same lines as denial of global warming (and human contributions to it) and ‘birther’ assertions that President Obama isn’t a native born American.

A simple question when facing absurd statements from global warming deniers (no matter their scientific qualifications):  Should we laugh or cry?

Update:  Surprisingly, as noted by Greenfyre, there is a notable silence in the deniersphere about the Sinclair-Watts face-off and not just from Watts. Roger Pielke, Sr,’s comment seems to be an isolated one.

Interesting.

The Deniers are never one to miss a pretext to cry about being wronged, censored and oppressed. Here was a chance to rally the peasants with torchs and pitch forks to protest the vile treatment of Watts, and yet …nothing.

Is it that they are so locked into playing the victim that they don’t want the Faithful to know about censoring others?

Or are they afraid to mention the series at all lest some of the mob see it and actually learn something?

[Read more →]

This is a follow-up discussion from mwmwm to his thought-provoking “The End of the Beginning of the Collapse“.

“The End of the Beginning of the Collapse” addressed some conflicting economic-analysis diaries by bonddad and bobswern about “the end of the end of the Recession.”

I made the case that a real economy operates within a larger context, and that current economic analyses, stock markets, and fund managers weren’t contending with “the converging emergencies”: climate chaos, biology breach, species collapse, infectious disease, and resource depletion. Further, I said that the next three to ten years were going to be nothing like the last three to ten, because of these “converging emergencies” — and that there were serious shifts ahead which would roil markets, economies, and even societies.

What I want to start to do is to begin envisioning the likely “converging emergencies,” and asking policy, political, and practical questions about them, of this community.

[Read more →]