Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label voting. Show all posts

Sunday, February 22, 2015

Conservative #SCOTUS Spurns Personal/Private Responsibility, Encourages Nanny State



The next time a climate denier moans and groans and bellyaches over the "nanny state" forcing the burden of climate change mitigation onto the average taxpayer, remind him or her of Kivalina, AK.

The citizens of this sinking village tried to hold the private parties responsible, rather than their fellow taxpayers, but the SCOTUS and other courts dismissed the case. Tell me again, my precious little right-wing denier friends, how interested you are in personal responsibility, and how averse you are to the big, bad, nanny-state government moving in to offer up its oh so "scary" help (thanks for that, Ronnie), if the way your fellow Americans are being mistreated here doesn't burn your bacon. I just can't get enough of your completely transparent horsepuckey.

How many times are we gonna fall for industry lying in order to push the real costs of their huge profits onto us? No, seriously, how many times?

So keep truckin', America. Keep doing your abysmally confused, misinformed best in those voting booths.



That is, of course, if you can at all be bothered to get up off yer lazy arse and show up at them.

Friday, November 14, 2014

To Paraphrase Bill Maher and Bernie Sanders: Way to Go, America



Before the elections, I gave you the breakdown of where each US Senate candidate in the close races stood on climate change. Well, here are Bill Maher and good ole Bernie to give you a post-elections idea of what thou hast wrought, America. It ain't pretty, so g'head and pat yourself on the back, my fellow countrymen and women, for pulling off a completely mindless job inside those voting booths, and for being too fucking lazy to show up at the polls, exercise your right to vote, and do your duty as citizens. All around, an incredibly pathetic red, white, and stupid performance that would make the Founders wanna puke. Enjoy, you infuriatingly senseless mopes.

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

Forget EPA and Keystone, Election Results Grant Time We Don't Have to Polluters

Needless to say, if you care about climate change, you can't be terribly happy about what went down on Tuesday. Phil Plait posted an excellent rundown of what a GOP-controlled House and Senate could mean for the climate and science in general.

"But this vast, gaping polarization of American politics is toxic, especially where it comes to the crucial issue of global warming. Here, a Senate GOP majority can have an extremely destructive effect."


And Ben Adler over at Grist wrote a similar assessment.

"This is not good news for the climate...The Republicans have two top energy-related demands: stop EPA from regulating CO2 and approve the Keystone XL pipeline."


As much as I agree with these two opinion pieces, like many if not all election diagnoses and follow-ups, there's a critical conclusion which is not being drawn here. Phil mentions it, but fails to recognize it as the truly insidious threat to any hope of reversing the adverse effect our emissions have on the climate.

"What does [a GOP Senate majority] mean? Well, in the short term and for many issues, not a lot. This previous Congress will go down in history as the least effective ever, since all it really did is block White House initiatives."


Quite the contrary, this pointless political tail-chasing and continued inaction means everything, as far as global warming is concerned, anyway. Republicans will waste precious time we don't have grandstanding for their scientifically-illiterate base on issues they know will most likely get vetoed (Obamacare, reversing EPA regulation of CO2, the Keystone XL pipeline, etc.), without hope of a two-thirds overturning vote, and the real winner will be the fossil fuel industry, which will be awarded a de facto license to go on polluting and reprieve from cutting emissions during the next few years of ineffectual, meaningless wrangling in Washington. It should surprise absolutely no one that, coincidentally, these corporations are one of the Grand Old Party's greatest sources of funding.

As depressing as these election results and the impending political inertia may seem, there is still a faint beacon of hope shining far off in the distance, which continues to brighten and spread throughout the land. And it's the idea that, in spite of pathetic ineptitude on the part of politicians, businesses will rise to the occasion, anyway, and see great opportunities for growth, cost-cutting, and profit in greening their operations and combating climate change. Here's Andrew Winston, author of The Big Pivot: Radically Practical Strategies for a Hotter, Scarcer, and More Open World, to explain why caring for the environment and a thriving economy are not only completely compatible, but, in fact, inevitable partners.

Tuesday, November 4, 2014

Climate Change Advocates More Numerous Than Gun Rights, Pro-Choice/Life, Pro/Anti-Immigration Activists

I'm sure you've seen denier trolls like Anthony Watts and Bjørn Lomborg try to pretend the public doesn't care about climate change. Nothing could be farther from the truth, according to a report from a couple years back by the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies entitled Global Warming's Six Americas. As people flood into the voting booths tonight across the US, often to decide very tight races, I think it's a brilliant time to remind everyone how out of touch with, not only the science, but the pulse of the nation the ignorant deniosphere is.

"And the first of those [groups of Americans we researched] is what we call 'the alarmed.' It's about 18% of the public. Uh, these are people who, uh, are absolutely convinced climate change is happening, it's human-caused, it's a very serious threat, it's happening now. They're already taking action in their own lives to try to reduce their own carbon footprint, and they're really hungry to know what's the next thing I can do. This has been called, in political science terms, an issue public. This is the part of the public that is the most mobilized, and most engaged with this issue. And that's actually a very large issue public, compared to other issue publics, like, say, on, on gun rights, or pro-choice, or pro-life, or anti-immigration, or pro-immigration. I mean, those are all different kinds of issue publics out there that agitate or advocate for particular policies. Um, the climate change issue public is actually larger than most of those other ones."

- Anthony Leiserowitz, Yale University


If nothing else, the impressive turnout at the recent climate change march proves Leiserowitz is right, and clueless deniers are miserably and laughably lost once again.

Have a watch, and then make sure you run out to the polls tonight, if you haven't already. Your vote could be the difference between inaction and the adoption of meaningful policy on an issue upwards of 50-60 million Americans care deeply about, and many millions more are concerned about!

Sunday, November 2, 2014

Woody Harrelson Urges Climate Action and YOU (Yes, You) to Vote

Yet another actor proves he understands scientific consensus better than professional trolls and cherry-pickers like Watts and Goddard.





If you want a rundown of climate change stances for the close US Senate races this Tuesday, click here. And get off yer rump and vote!

Thursday, October 30, 2014

The Close 2014 Senate Races and Climate Change

On Tuesday, November 4, 2014, of the 100 total US Senate seats, 64 will not be contested, and 36 will, 21 of which are presently held by Democrats, and 15 by Republicans. The NY Times and CNN appear to agree that the outcomes for about 24 of these Senate races are all but foregone conclusions, with 10 safely resulting in a Democrat victory (Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia), and 14 Republican (Alabama, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wyoming).

If your head is starting to spin a little from parsing those numbers and trying to keep track of the states, don't worry, because the essential takeaway here is that there are about 12 interesting, unpredictable Senate races that could go either way on Tuesday (the NY Times says only 11, but I'm going to throw in West Virginia, anyway...take that, NY Times).

The candidate's stance on climate change could and should be the deciding factor in these tight contests, so let's see who understands the issue and its urgency, and therefore deserves the Senate seat. Based on the position stated outright or implied by preferred policy, the following "thermometer" ratings will be given.



In other words, the candidate gets a red thermometer for being a climate realist, a yellow for being a lukewarmer, and a blue for being a denier.

Alaska - Mark Begich (D), Dan Sullivan (R)

Begich: "You have to broaden the perspective and look at what's the goal here. If the goal is to lower emissions, that's disconnected to most people. If the goal is to save taxpayers' money, now the public has some interest."

Sullivan: "I think the jury’s out on climate change...I think the federal response to climate change should not be what the Obama administration is doing, which is trying to kill energy and low-cost energy, and particularly coal."


Arkansas - Mark Pryor (D), Tom Cotton (R)

Pryor: "A federal cap-and-trade program is perhaps the most significant endeavor undertaken by Congress in over 70 years and must be done with great care."

Cotton: "America has the world’s largest fossil-fuel reserves in the world. I view our fossil fuels as a valuable asset to be used, not an embarrassing liability to be restrained...We must open federal lands and the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to more exploration and production. The oil-and-gas reserves in the Gulf of Mexico, the Arctic Ocean, and federal public lands in the West and Alaska are a tremendous untapped source of economic growth...I strongly oppose all forms of a 'cap and trade' schemes...The government shouldn’t subsidize [alternative energy sources], nor should it artificially increase the cost of oil and gas by singling the industry out for tax hikes and regulatory burdens."


Colorado - Mark Udall (D), Cory Gardner (R)

Udall: "Coloradans know that it's time to start planning for our energy future. Nothing less than our national security and economic success depend on it. Reducing our reliance on foreign oil and curbing the effects of climate change have long been priorities of mine, and I'm working in the Senate to create a plan to tackle these important goals. To do so, we will need an all-of-the-above strategy that includes all of our energy sources, with a special emphasis on those that are clean and domestic. That means focusing on everything from renewable energy and energy efficiency to natural gas and safe nuclear power."

Gardner: "I believe that the climate is changing, I disagree to the extent that it's been in the news."


Georgia - Michelle Nunn (D), David Perdue (R)

Nunn: "Georgia is helping lead America towards an economy that benefits from clean energy investment. We have made huge advances in solar power, becoming one of the fastest growing solar energy markets in the country. Georgia’s solar energy companies are investing in our state and helping increase the amount of energy we use from renewable sources.

"Currently $32 billion leaves Georgia each year to pay for petroleum, natural gas, and coal. But when we supply our energy needs from within our own state, the money stays in Georgia, creating jobs and multiplying the benefits throughout our economy.

"I believe that Washington must create the conditions for these clean energy companies to thrive. This means reducing the uncertainty surrounding renewable energy tax incentives and investing in public-private partnerships that advance clean energy research."


Perdue: "Earlier today, the League of Conservation Voters, a liberal environmentalist group endorsed Michelle Nunn. The group is against the construction of the Keystone Pipeline, advocates for such things like Obama’s war on coal, burdensome EPA regulations, and cap-and-trade...Michelle Nunn supports their liberal agenda. Her own jobs plan refuses to address how burdensome regulations on the coal industry will raise energy prices and destroy jobs. Her website says she wants to 'act now' on climate change."


Iowa - Bruce Braley (D), Joni Ernst (R)

Braley: "Just like our parents and grandparents passed on a better planet to us, we have an obligation to protect the environment for our children and grandchildren. That’s why I supported the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which promotes renewable sources of energy, like wind and solar. It also helps advance alternative transportation fuels, clean electric vehicles, and the smart grid and electricity transmission."

Ernst: "Yes, we do see climates change but I have not seen proven proof that it is entirely man-made. I think we do have cyclic changes in weather, and I think that’s been throughout the course of history."


Kansas - Greg Orman (I), Pat Roberts (R)

Orman: (Kansas Sierra Club Chairwoman Yvonne Cather said she expects Orman is avoiding the subject, as well as the Obama administration's efforts to address climate change with executive action, 'because that's a political hot potato' for many candidates...Loomis similarly suggested that Orman's silence on issues like KXL is strategic, as he aims to pick up voters who have become disillusioned with Roberts as he seeks a fourth Senate term.)

Roberts: "There's no question there's some global warming, but I'm not sure what it means. A lot of this is condescending elitism."


Kentucky - Alison Lundergan Grimes (D), Mitch McConnell (R)

Grimes: "I recognize the reality of climate change and the imperative of addressing its potential consequences...The difference between me and the position of many national Democrats is that I am pro-coal and will lead to develop a long-term strategy that addresses economic and energy demands, as well as climate concerns. I oppose drastic unilateral steps such as cap-and-trade or a carbon tax because they fall far short of that standard."

McConnell: "For everybody who thinks it's warming, I can find somebody who thinks it isn't...Even if you conceded the point, which I don't concede, but if you conceded the point, it isn't going to be addressed by one country. So the idea is, we tie our own hands behind our back and others don't."


Louisiana - Mary Landrieu (D), Bill Cassidy (R)

Landrieu: "The President and I have very different views on how to tackle the challenges of climate change. We both want to protect the environment, but I believe that overzealous regulations are harmful to our economy.

"I wish the President today would have instead approved the Keystone Pipeline to create new jobs here at home. And any call to single out the energy industry, including oil and gas, for increased taxes is unwise and counterproductive to economic growth. We should be encouraged that America's emission of CO2 has declined to its lowest level in two decades, and emissions have fallen 13 percent in the last five years alone.

"I am encouraged that the President wants to make coastal communities more resilient to extreme weather by removing counterproductive policies."


Cassidy: "It could just be a shift on the axis."


Michigan - Gary Peters (D), Terri Lynn Land (R)

Peters: "In 2009, I proudly voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act to invest in renewable energy sources, reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions and lay the groundwork for a clean energy economy. By pursuing clean energy technologies, we'll break our nation's addiction to foreign fossil fuels and create thousands of American jobs. All of us must do our part to fight global climate change and that's why I’ll keep fighting for important legislation like this."

Land: "My #1 concern is Michigan jobs. Climate change is absolutely real but we cannot afford @Peters4Michigan job-killing regulations #MISEN"


New Hampshire - Jeanne Shaheen (D), Scott Brown (R)

Shaheen: "I’ve long believed that we have a moral obligation to address climate change and the time for action is now. By acting quickly, we’ll not only be protecting our environment for future generations but we can also create jobs, grow our economy and reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Brown: (Rubens acknowledged climate change, while Brown and Smith said 'no' when asked if science has proven climate change is occurring.)


North Carolina - Kay Hagan (D), Thom Tillis (R)

Hagan: "This is a pressing problem that needs to be addressed and too often gets pushed to the backburner...This current path is unsustainable, and we must take steps now to slow and stop the effects of climate change. This is a challenge that will need to be addressed from many different directions."

Tillis: (When asked if climate change is a fact, all four candidates vying to challenge incumbent Democrat Sen. Kay Hagan said no.

The candidates, Greg Brannon, Heather Grant, Mark Harris and Thom Tillis, were asked the question during a debate Tuesday night.)


West Virginia - Natalie Tennant (D), Shelley Moore Capito (R)

Tennant: (Capito’s Democratic opponent for the Senate seat, Natalie Tennant, opposes Obama’s environmental policies that Republicans say amount to a "war on coal." Tennant said she does believe in human-induced climate change.)

Capito: (Capito said she doesn’t "necessarily think the climate is changing," but told reporters afterward she misspoke and does think people contribute to climate change.)


So now that you know the breakdown, get yer butts in gear, and vote on Tuesday! You could be the difference between business as usual and the enactment of policy that will actually reduce our emissions.

Oh, and if you were expecting a similar summary of the House and/or Governor elections, there are waaaaaaayyyy too many, so think again. It may not be much of a life, but I'm gonna spend some of it away from the computer. ;)