Get Energy Smart! NOW!

This is a guest post from Renzo Gasolini who, with some painful satire, highlights how (even) the Chinese have “left behind” the United States in a key path toward a prosperous and climate-friendly future.  For those who might question how much this rings true, perhaps it is worth considering that in Wisconsin.

Republican candidate for governor Scott Walker says he’s so opposed to high-speed rail that if he’s elected, he’ll give back every cent in federal funding earmarked for the project.

The $810 million for the rail line between Madison and Milwaukee comes from federal stimulus funds. Walker on Monday said even so, the state will be on the hook for $10 million each year in maintenance and other costs.

Walker wants the money to go to trains. Note that new road construction, as a rule of thumb, means about 10% of that figure required per annum in maintenance.  The Wisconsin project: less than 1% in “maintenance and other costs” … E.g., once you build it, minimal cost to keep it running.

One of the most cost-effective paths toward expanding voter participation: vote by mail. This allows voters to “get naked” to participate in our democratic process.

The expense and challenges associated with running elections are well known. While there is something, truly, fundamentally satisfying for many of us in our public execution of a civic responsibility (do you were a “I voted” sticker?), this does face a crush of reality at times. I’ve been in circumstances where freak weather (ice storm) created risk in getting to the polling booth. There were those times where the line was long and the voting officials, well, not so competent leading to an extended wait while the work piled up at the office. “Vote by mail” and, well, those challenges disappear from the agenda.

The above video comes from Vote Naked Illinois and is rates as one of the most enjoyable non-partisan political ads that I’ve seen in awhile.

Let me give Alan Drake one of the highest compliments that I know of: he makes me think.

I got to know Alan due to some pretty acerbic criticism from him about the viability of aspects of the 2006 Energize America plan. He (rightfully) argued that it gave rail (especially electrified rail) short shrift and questioned other aspects. While that was a consensus document/plan in which I had a hand, but certainly not control, Alan’s critiques strengthened the discussions and improved my understanding of his domains of expertise. While I won’t state that we always agree, when Alan speaks, I listen.

Alan is working on a book on entitled An American Citizen’s Guide to an Oil-Free Economy. A significant extract (the forward and chapter 1) has gone up at Energy Bulletin. Alan begins:

A society that does not plan or prepare, that does not consider the consequences of the present and contingencies of the future, a society that lives only for today, the next quarter or the next election is doomed.

With an election just a few days away, it is worth examining what it means to have a plan that deals with the future and not just the latest poll.

Alan’s first chapter focuses on rail. In short, Alan is proposing a significant national investment (both public and private) to shift a significant portion of American’s transportation requirements from road (especially trucks) to rail. For a total investment of about $650 billion over a decade or so, Alan sees an ability to reduce US oil demand by about 4 million barrels a day (a $350 million or so value, per day, or perhaps $10 billion per month — e.g., oil savings alone would pay for this entire effort in five years). This move wouldn’t just cut into oil imports, but provide the United States significant insurance against the looming threat of Peak Oil, a hedge against higher future oil costs, and a path to significantly cut our greenhouse gas emissions while creating jobs and boosting overall economic performance.

As Americans head to the polls, a question to ponder: Do we have the national will to embrace such public-private partnership win-win-win opportunities that will improve our security, improve our economy, and improve our environment?

Alan’s work merits a deeper look … which I’ll provide in the coming weeks.

NOTE: For a serious review, see Bit Tooth Energy.

Retired Air Force Colonel Jeff Barnett is one of the hardest working Congressional candidates in the nation, having walked his entire (reasonably large) district in an effort to introduce himself to the citizens and voters.  Barnett has a strong resume, pilot, military assistant to the Office of Net Assessment, and time as Chief of Staff of what might rate as the most effective/best run UN peace operation (UNPROFOR in Croatia) over the past 60 years.  Just as in much of his professional career, Barnett’s campaign is focused on the future — recognizing today’s challenges while offering solutions to create a stronger tomorrow.

Here is Barnett describing his ideological position:

3. How would you describe yourself ideologically – “progressive,” “conservative,” “moderate,” “liberal,” or something else?
I am a Democrat. Period. Democrats believe in social justice and economic progress. These are not separate ideals; they are equal sides of the same coin. Social justice means equal opportunity, which ignites competition and creativity, which fuels economic growth, which underwrites social justice. Democrats understand that social justice and economic progress work together to fuel the American Dream. That’s why I’m a Democrat.

Barnett is an extremely intelligent, hard-working public servant who ‘gets it’ on issue after issue.

When it comes to Energy and Environment, here is the material from Jeff’s issues page:

Every day, America sends $2 billion overseas to buy foreign oil. We also send 16,000 tons of CO₂ into the atmosphere. Neither is sustainable. Both sell-out the future for short term profit.

Sending money overseas to feed oil to our McSUVs and sending too many tons of CO2 into the atmosphere absolutely “sell-out the future for short-term profit.” It is hard to think of an opening paragraph to a politician’s issue section that laid the situation out so clearly and accurately.

Renewable energy is the future. Whoever leads in green energy will get massive economic returns, fantastic job growth, and a healthier environment. Virginians have the talent, schools and bandwidth to lead the world – so long as we invest in education and incentivize business.

From the challenge to the opportunity — the solution to our climate challenges is also an answer to our economic challenges.

Because corporate executives respond to incentives, I support a “carrot and stick” approach to energy use: Cap-and-Trade (“carrot”); and carbon tax (“stick”). Cap-and-Trade is a positive incentive that rewards corporations for doing the right thing. Cap-and-Trade worked to reduce acid rain emissions; it deserves an opportunity to reduce CO₂ emissions. A carbon tax, while not the only answer, is part of every solution. Polluters will change behavior when the status quo is more costly than embracing energy efficiency and renewable energy.

This is an interesting and potentially valuable approach, “carrot and stick”.

And, Barnett again lays it out clearly and accurately:  “polluters will change behavior when the status quo is more costly” than coming clean.  They will change behavior when they have to actually pay for damaging our children’s lungs and threatening their future.

The same “carrot and stick” approach can bust logjams in other area. We know we need low impact development, green buildings, renewable energy standards, vehicle energy efficiency standards. Let’s get to work. Combine positive and negative incentives to get people off the dime.

Jeff is right … “let’s get to work”.
Barnett has walked the district, spent some six months without a salary to dedicate himself to connect with voters, in a campaign against 30-year Republican Frank Wolf, Jr. Wolf has created an image of moderate, focused-on constituent issues Republican member of Congress.  Putting aside specific issues with Wolf’s policies, there is a simple reality that Wolf will vote for House leadership and give power over to those who demonized government service and government employees. What is the ‘business’ of Virginia’s 10th district?  Government and those contractors working with/for the government.  Who are Wolf’s voters and constituents?  Government workers.  When it comes to climate change and clean energy, Wolf has made noises about global warming but doesn’t seem capable of articulating any serious path toward dealing with it. Might we want to mention that Frank Climate Peacock Wolf would, if given the opportunity, vote for Climate Zombie Boehner for House leadership?

For the first time, in perhaps decades, the local Fairfax Times decided not to endorse Wolf:

Frank Wolf, as always, is a good, safe choice.

Jeff Barnett, who radiates energy and optimism, is a better one.

Jeff’s has been a long-shot campaign from the get go and is rated at a near zero percent chance of winning even though there aren’t too many polls out on the district.

But if you’re a gambler, perhaps you’re willing to throw in some cash on a long shot to get “a better one” into office.

R L Miller comes to the table with thoughtful, informed, insightful, and passionate writing. This guest post is part of a series highlighting the anti-science syndrome suffering hatred of a livable economic system that is prevalent in the new wave of Republican candidates for Congress. An utter disdain for science, openly using truthiness-laden talking points that are simply false. To paraphrase a famous question, “Have you no shame, political candidate, no shame at all?”

They pay lip service to the Statue of Liberty, moaning for caaasshh.

Their stupid has gone viral.

And if they win, humanity loses.

I’m tracking Climate Zombies: every Republican candidate for House, Senate, and Governor who doubts, denies, or derides the science of climate change. Today, I look at deep blue states of the Northeast, only to find that their red candidates and incumbents are infected with Teh Stoopid.

NOTE: Related posts include:

• Anti-Science SyndromE Sufferers threaten lives
• Stupid Goes Viral: Deep in the Heart of Climate Zombieland
• Stupid Goes Viral: The Climate Zombies of the New GOP

FOR ACTION: Act Blue for Climate Heroes

[Read more →]

The growing threatened and actual violence in American politics should terrify all citizens concerned about a robust and strong Republic.  We’ve had people showing up with weapons at rallies with, at least, implicit threats against the President. In August 2009, many showed up at Democratic politicians’ public fora with an intent to scream and intimidate rather than any interest in dialogue and informed discussion.  In recent weeks, we’ve seen incidents related to Climate Zombie Senate campaigns such as Alaska’s Joe Miller’s hired goons (almost certainly) illegally detaining (handcuffing) a reporter and physically harassing several others. And, yesterday, Kentucky Senate Candidate Rand Paul’s supporters forced a woman to the ground and one stomped her on her head while another held her to the ground.

Rand Paul has issued a bland condemnation of violence in campaigning, certainly implying that this is a ‘everyone does it’ problem, without any serious call for his supporters to surrender themselves to police currently investigating this crime.

We want everybody to be civil. We want this campaign to be about issues. I will tell you that when we arrived there was enormous passion on both sides. It really was something where you walk into a haze of lights flashing, people yelling and screaming, bumping up. And there was a bit of a crowd control problem. I don’t want anybody though to be involved in things that aren’t civil. I think this should always be about the issues. And it is an unusual situation to have so many people so passionate on both sides jockeying back and forth. And it wasn’t something that I liked or anybody liked about that situation. So I hope in the future it is going to be better.

Amid all this, a comment from Dr Rand Paul’s campaign (from Dr Rand Paul, himself?) jumped out:

We are relieved to hear that the woman in question was not injured

The following is from my inbox from someone in contact with the victim:

She’s “devastated” but extremely grateful for the well wishes. Contrary to Paul’s claims that she was uninjured, she was diagnosed at the hospital with a concussion and a sprained arm and shoulder.

Again, it should distress us all that Rand Paul supporters have joined legions of others threatening — and actually moving to — violence in our political space. And, we should be concerned that Kentucky police seemed more concerned about questioning the battered woman rather than catching those who assaulted her.  Understanding all that, Dr. Rand Paul’s long-distance incorrect diagnosis of the victim’s condition seemed all too reminiscent of when Dr. Republican Senator Frist diagnosed Terri Schiavo long-distance via video-tape.  Dr Paul’s and Dr Frist’s diagnoses seem to have about the same degree of legitimacy.

Now, of course, this post seems a bit far afield from this site’s normal conversation.  The ability to magically diagnosis (incorrectly), at odds with the facts, seems to be contagious among Republican Senate candidates not just when it comes to medical conditions that have political implications but also when it comes to the science of climate change. With that “Dr” mantle, Rand Paul’s virulent denial of climate science likely carries weight with people not greatly informed about the state of the science.  Just as Dr Paul was wrong about the victim’s injuries, Dr Paul is wrong about climate science — and his uninformed views are at odds with the opinions of every single relevant major scientific institution around the globe which lay out the very strong case that climate change is real, that humanity is driving modern climate change, and that we must act if we wish to avoid extremely dire circumstances.

ACT BLUE for Climate Heroes!

R L Miller comes to the table with thoughtful, informed, insightful, and passionate writing. This guest post is part of a series highlighting the anti-science syndrome suffering hatred of a livable economic system that is prevalent in the new wave of Republican candidates for Congress. An utter disdain for science, openly using truthiness-laden talking points that are simply false. To paraphrase a famous question, “Have you no shame, political candidate, no shame at all?”

NOTE: Related posts include:

• Anti-Science SyndromE Sufferers threaten lives
• Stupid Goes Viral: Deep in the Heart of Climate Zombieland
• Stupid Goes Viral: The Climate Zombies of the New GOP

FOR ACTION: Act Blue for Climate Heroes

[Read more →]

Koch Industries … one of the wealthiest businesses in the world, privately owned by a far-right libertarian klan who are spending furiously to undermine the very concept of representative democracy. The Koch brothers have their hands (filthy) dirty in funding global warming denial efforts (with Koch funding skewing even Smithsonian museum halls into climate skeptic deceit), attacks on science that shows Koch businesses threatening Americans’ health, Koch efforts to dupe hundreds of thousands (millions) of outraged Americans into anti-Obama/anti-Democratic mania with funding of astro-turf groups like Americans For Prosperity, and have been funding (heavily) campaign efforts to even further open the floodgates to profiting off polluting the air we breathe and water we drink.

Koch Industries is (and the Koch Brothers are) one of the major funders behind Proposition 23 in California, which would seek to kill off California’s innovative approach to tackle climate change mitigation imperatives and opportunities. The all-out attack on Californians has created a serious backlash — with investors, newspapers, politicians, and myriads of citizens reacting with strong outrage to opposed Prop 23. (Even to the extent that the fossil-foolish funders of Proposition 26, which should also be voted down, are trying to distance themselves from Proposition 23.)

Starting to gain some visibility today: a Cal State L.A. debate team alumnus, former student leader and Marine Corps veteran Joel Francis challenged Charles Koch to a debate on Proposition 23.

I’d like to challenge you to a public debate.

You pick the terms.

And, I’ll meet you. Anytime. Anywhere in the State.

Francis wants Koch to explain why he is spending $10s of millions to meddle with democracy in a state he doesn’t even live in.

Joel states: “Silence isn’t an option …” Sadly, it has been for far too long for the Koch brothers — silence about how they have abused laws and our political system for their benefit and others detriment.

Koch Industries is powerful and pervasive in American society yet most Americans are utterly unaware of its existence.

The Koch brothers (and a large network of uber-wealthy they have created) have been manipulating American public opinion not just directly for sales of their products but to sway public opinion to support policies that support their fossil-foolish interests and that favor the uber-wealthy over the rest of U.S.

And, despite damning articles about the Koch brothers in The New Yorker and items showing up in New York Times coverage, the role that the Koch brothers and their allies have played — and play to play — in using their wealth to skew and distort American politics remains outside the scope of decent societies dinner conversations.

Perhaps Joel Francis might play a role in changing that.

Joel has challenged Koch’s Kourage.

As CEO of one of America’s largest privately held companies, I know that you can’t be afraid of just one college student.

It remains unKnown whether Koch has the Kourage to face down “just one college student”.

Other coverage of Francis’ challenge:

• Student Leader Challenges Charles Koch of Koch Industries to Debate Prop 23
• Fed up, California student forces debate with Koch Bros on Prop 23
• CSULA Student Challenges Koch Brothers to Debate
• Charles Koch Challenged To Debate Prop 23 By California Student Leader Joel Francis

And, an excellent discussion worth your time: It’s important that everyone associated with George Mason U. suffer the stigma of the Koch Bros.’ Mercatus Institute

Well, actually, a bit of a typo in the title. We’re actually talking Yeo Valley, a UK organic products farm/ firm in Somerset, England.

We believe living sustainably is just common sense: we look after the land and our animals and, in return, they look after us. We think better grass and conditions makes better-fed, happier cows. Better-fed, happier cows make better quality milk, yoghurt, cheese and ice cream and we think our range of organic dairy products prove the point.

They also believe in communicating with the world in a way that could well catch on.

In the face of anti-green messaging that seeks to demean people for taking paths that are more sensible paths for the planet, this catchy rap ad is nice to see (and listen to).

Tip of the hat to Grist.

Have to say, writ large, of the ‘traditional print’ outlets in the United States, the Christian Science Monitor has traditionally rated quite high with me. While it isn’t part of my every day reading, I have valued it when I’ve gotten my hands dirty reading it. In other words, it really was a bit of a shocker to see that the CSM chose to jump the shark with the distribution of climate denier nonsense from Anthony Watts and his putting of Harold Lewis on a pedestal as some sort of 21st century Martin Luther.

Sadly, before publishing Watts‘ drivel, the CSM editorial staff didn’t bother to actual look into the facts and see what the scientific community reaction was to Lewis’ resignation. They might have, if they’d tried using the Google tubes for a moment or two, bumped into Dear fellow member of the American Physical Society which was part of the 2009 response to a climate denier petition from a few APS members seeking to get the APS statement on climate change science revised to, well, reject science.

Perhaps the editors should have taken a look at the APS response to Lewis’ resignation which includes (supported) statements like “There is no truth to Dr. Lewis’ assertion …” and “Dr. Lewis’ specific charge that APS as an organization is benefitting financially from climate change funding is equally false.” Perhaps the CSM might have spent a moment to determine whether there was a basis for the APS response before publishing something that continued to perpetuate Harold Lewis’ fraud (promoted by Anthony Watts).

The editors might have valued a moment reading Joe Romm’s dissection of Harold “Martin Luther” Lewis. Words like the following might have given them pause in putting Lewis on a pedestal:

the Inhofe-esque statement “this is the greatest and most successful pseudo-scientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist,” accuses the scientific community broadly defined of conspiring in deliberate fraud – and not just the community of climate scientists, but the leading National Academies of Science around the world (including ours) and the American Geophysical Union, an organization of geophysicists that consists of more than 45,000 members and the American Meteorological Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Such a statement accuses all of the member governments of the IPCC, including ours, of participating in that conspiracy, since they all sign off on the Assessment Reports word for word. And it accuses all of the leading scientific journals of being in on this fraud, since the IPCC reports are primarily a review and synthesis of the published scientific literature.

Does the CSM editorial board really stand with those accusing so many scientists, from so many fields, from so many nations of engaging in systematic fraud?

Does the CSM editorial board believe that it is serving any form of public interest by giving voice to anti-science syndrome sufferers, like Watts, who are working so hard to pedal truthiness and deception on such a grand scale?

Rather than Watts’ deceptive drivel, perhaps it would have made sense to publish Climate change and the integrity of science. And, well, if Watts and Lewis ‘earned’ their way into CSM, perhaps the CSM editors should take commentator Medas’ advice:

I would suggest that the CSM run 97 articles on the other side of the story to represent the 97% of climate scientists who support the tenants of global warming. And please, let’s not compare one bitter scientists with a man who changed the course of western civilization. I doubt that Dr. Lewis will be viewed as a hero 50 years from now.

As commented by Eric Grimsrud, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, Montana State University,

I suspect that the CSM indulged in the time-honored newspaper inclination to give equal attention of “both sides” of all issues. Unlike politics or economics, however, in science there comes a point when there are no longer equally valid different views of a given topic. Mother Nature tends to do things either one way or the other. Just as we now know that the Earth is not flat, we also know that it is being overheated by the excess CO2 we are putting into its atmosphere.

As Professor Grimsrud highlights, “fair and balanced” does not lead to truthful. We have to wonder whether the CSM would give equal time to the Flat Earth Society in an obituary for an astronaut.

Amid an election period notable for one party’s serial rejection of science, it is sad to see that the CSM has joined an echo chamber in perpetuating anti-science arguments.