Call it "Pollution denying", or "Reality Denying", it's all the same to the Professional Liars who are Senate Republicans.
In a touchdown celebration of "told you so" that is the equivalent of blowing your ACL while dancing after a homerun that went foul, Inhofe proceeds to insult the esteemed Senator from California, Barbara Boxer, by saying "We Won, You Lost, Get a Life."
This is what a stupid dick does, he gloats. The fact that he is dead wrong and corrupt just makes it worse.
Except climate change is FACT, you didn't win and you're a stupid towel, James InhoFAIL.
Since I live in the DC metro area, I attended the rally last Wednesday at which the Clean Energy, Jobs and American Power Act (CEJAPA) was unveiled. Those of you who haven't read summaries or analysis of this legislation yet should check out both RLMiller's diary and Senator Kerry's diary about CEJAPA. I'll say straight out that it's not a perfect bill, but it's a bill I'm happy to support. Its emissions reduction targets are better than those in the House bill, it includes more funding for clean transportation, and, very importantly, it states that the EPA has the authority to regulate carbon pollution. But analysis of the bill has already been diaried, and, to quote "Alice's Restaurant," it's not what I'm here to tell you about. I'm here to talk about the first indications of a political sea-change.
At the rally, I was struck by something remarkable. Democratic senators were speaking to us, their progressive base, and asking us to help provide the grassroots pressure needed to get a climate bill through the rocky terrain of the Senate. Now, politicians from the Democratic wing of the Democratic party have asked for our support before, but this was different. It wasn't just one or two left-wing senators addressing us, but a coalition which included some folks who usually don't talk to us much-and they were asking us, essentially, to do the same thing we've done for the public option for this climate change legislation. Imagine how different the debate on health care would have been over the past few months if Democratic politicians had come to us in April and asked us to mount a grassroots campaign in support of clear policy goals. They didn't, which is a shame. But now, on the issue of climate change, they are.
Folks, we have finally gotten their attention. The remarkable job that slinkerwink, Jane, nyceve, and others have done to keep the public option alive has finally made it occur to more than a few Dems that we're good in a fight-and, perhaps, that we're bad to ignore. Rather than attempting to placate us by throwing us a few bones, then treating us like Typhoid Mary, which has been the MO of most elected Democrats since the late 80s, these Democrats are treating us as useful allies. There is a door opening here between Washington and the grassroots, and we need to wedge it open with a brick and march right through.
So, on behalf of The Carrots and Sticks Project, I am announcing the launch of our campaign to support the Kerry-Boxer bill. We are calling it the Swing States to Green States Campaign, and we are beginning with a petition, which the members of Carrots and Sticks will hand-deliver to senators, calling on them to support CEJAPA. Please click through and sign this petition, and spread the word to your friends to do the same.
We need to do this for the sake of CEJAPA's goal: to reduce carbon emissions and birth the new green economy. But we also need to do this for the sake of another goal, one that brings to fruition the vision of our guiding light Howard Dean: to take back our party and our country.
Our power is growing, the need is great, and we must act now.
Welcome to the 16th installment of "Considered Forthwith."
This weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies.
So now we have vented, we were appalled at the evil of the Bybee memo and the other memos justifying state sponsored torture of prisoners. Here on the internet our outrage has flared and been shared. This is an important aspect as we must make it clear how seriously the people of the Untied States take this issue, but now it is time to pull back a little. Now it might sound funny for the Dog to be saying this especially after the letter he wrote to the President yesterday, but let the old hound explain a little and you will see where he is going.
I'll be posting this over on Daily Kos and Congress Matters tomorrow night. I wanted to give Docudharma the first preview.
Also crossposted at my own blog (for my ten or so regular readers).
Welcome to the fourth installment of "Considered Forthwith."
This approximately weekly series looks at the various committees in the House and the Senate. Committees are the workshops of our democracy. This is where bills are considered, revised, and occasionally advance for consideration by the House and Senate. Most committees also have the authority to exercise oversight of related executive branch agencies. If you want to read previous dairies in the series, search using the "forthwith" tag or use the link on my blogroll. I welcome criticisms and corrections in the comments.
This week, Considered Forthwith will examine both the House Committee on Standards and Official Conduct and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. These are two small committees with no standing subcommittees. For the sake of ease, I will refer to the two committees as the "House Ethics Committee" and the "Senate Ethics Committee."
She spoke about the urgent need for our nation to act on global warming before it's too late.
This talk has material that merits cheering and other parts that merit groans. Join me after the fold for an examination of why Senator Boxer merits some Cheers and some (strong) Jeers.
Senator Barbara Boxer has released a summary of the Manager's Amendment to the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act. In the cover letter, Senator Boxer promises many things, including that this will be "deficit neutral" (sadly, not 'reduce the deficit' or putting funds in reserve) and that it
follows the very strong advice of scientists, who have told us what needs to be done to avert the catastrophic effects of unchecked global warming.
Sadly, the bill does not seem to meet the "strong advice of scientists".
Amidst all the excitement about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize, the questions and dreams about a possible presidential campaign, and the inevitable criticism from right wing cynics (demonstrating, once again, that they neither understand nor even like the concept of peace), let's not lose focus on what really matters. It is not about the man, it is about his cause; and he is the man he is because he puts the cause above any personal considerations, and whether or not he runs will undoubtedly be determined by his best assessment of whether it will be the best way to serve the cause! We need also keep that priority straight! The coming weeks are critical, and we can help!
Largely because of Al Gore and the IPCC, global warming and climate change have now come to be frontline political issues. Bush no longer ignores it, and now tries to spin it (the best he will ever do on any political issue), and Congress is finally crafting legislation to address it. For now, this is where we need focus.
Mark Hertsgaard, the environmental correspondent for The Nation, puts it directly:
Now that Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have won the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, will the US Congress take the IPCC's scientific advice on how to fight global warming? The IPCC holds that the world must reduce greenhouse gas emissions at least 80 percent by the year 2050. Few in Congress seem prepared to go that far, however. And judging from the discussion at a closed-door meeting on Capitol Hill last week, even lawmakers who personally embrace the "gold standard" of 80 percent reductions are prepared to endorse a weaker measure in the name of getting some form of climate legislation moving in Congress.
If we take Al Gore seriously, and we take seriously his Nobel Prize, we need to immediately begin lobbying Congress to do the same. This is no time for the compromises that define the usual failures of our political system. With the issue in the headlines, we need let our Congressional representatives know that we are watching, and that we are expecting more than lip service.
The question is, what bill will reformers get behind? How ambitious will they be? Will they demand what the scientific community says is the minimum necessary to enable our civilization to (perhaps) avoid the worst future scenarios of global warming: deep cuts in emissions by 2020 on the way to 80-90 percent cuts by 2050? Or, in the name of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, will they favor a more modest and gradual approach?
The weak, ineffectual compromise approach is being championed by those champions of political weakness and ineffectual compromise, Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Joseph Lieberman (?-CT). Their bill would mandate emission reductions of 10 percent by 2020, and 70 percent by 2050. That they would, for some reason, decide on an approach that falls 10 percent short on such a critical goal says everything. It won't solve the problem, but it will make nice window dressing. It's not just embarrassing and absurd, it's dangerous!
Not only do these provisions fall short of the scientific standard; there is even less here than meets the eye. The bill, as described in briefings and press accounts, contains a number of loopholes, including provisions that (1) will give rather than sell greenhouse-gas-emissions permits to polluters, thus violating the "polluter pays" principle of environmental accounting, and (2) count so-called carbon offsets--that is, paying someone else to reduce emissions while continuing to emit oneself--as genuine reductions.
An alternative has been proposed by Senators Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Bernard Sanders (I-VT), with a similar bill in the House being sponsored by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). Their bills mandate the 80 percent reductions, on real terms, rather than with carbon offsets, and they make the polluters pay. Hertsgaard links to the World Resource Institute's comparison of these, and other, proposals.
Of course, only one of the bills is getting traction, on Congress.
According to sources speaking on background because of the confidential nature of the discussions, most Senate Democrats and many environmental and other public interest groups are preparing to support the Lieberman-Warner bill, despite misgivings about its shortcomings.
.
While some in Congress apparently believe it is important to pass something, anything, environmental writer Bill McKibben disagrees. Since Bush is likely to veto even Warner-Lieberman, McKibben believes that even passing it will only serve to lower the bar, for the next Congress and the next president. It will make Warner-Lieberman appear to be the proper standard. Clearly, that would be unacceptable.
Since Bush is going to veto it anyway, there is no reason to make [a climate bill] less ambitious than what science requires. Climate change isn't like other issues. It doesn't do any good to split the difference to reach a deal everyone can live with. Climate change is about the laws of physics and chemistry, and they don't give.
We're all thrilled that Al Gore and the IPCC won the Nobel Peace Prize. It's time for us to help them leverage that prestige, by pressuring Congress to do what is right. Call your senators and congresspeople. Tell them that Warner-Lieberman is unacceptable, and that the only valid options are Boxer-Sanders and Waxman. We now have the political momentum. Let's not waste it!
Reform Immigration -
March on Washington
the 
