I want to see aggressive goals set in the climate/energy policy realm. Back in 2004, Colorado voters approved Amendment 37, which established a goal of attaining 3 percent of electricity from renewable energy resources (renewable electricity standard, RES) by 2007 and 10 percent by 2015. Even back then, I thought the goal was so achievable that I characterized it as weak, but an important step forward.
By 2007, it was already quite clear that, not only had the 3% goal been easily achieved, but that the 10% goal was well within reach. As a result, the state legislature and Gov. Ritter passed and signed a law requiring a 20-by-20 goal: 20% of electricity need to come from renewable energy sources by 2020.
I heard about single-payer advocates being arrested at a Senate Finance Committee meeting on the Ed Schultz show today. What happened? The Senate Finance Committee was holding a "roundtable discussion" on healthcare access and coverage. What interest group didn't get a formal invitation? Single-payer advocates. Not one person who could argue in favor of a healthcare system that a majority of Americans want was invited. Tragically, yet unsurprisingly, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries hold sway over Sen. Max Baucus (bought-MT) and his fellow committee members.
A group of single-payer advocates came to the meeting and had the temerity to ask why it wasn't being discussed. It was shocking to hear that they were arrested. It was even more shocking to hear that Sen. Baucus and some of his preferred guests were joking about the situation as the arrestees were being taken away. It is disturbing, to say the least, to see how the powerful and elite (with excellent health care plans!) so easily treat the rest of us in so callous a manner.
I'm going to make my opinion on this subject as crystal clear as possible: I don't think the populist energy that propelled Barack Obama and Democrats at all levels of government across the U.S. in 2008 was about Cons vs. Dems. It was about carrying out the will of the American people, regardless of who is "in charge". That populist energy can be directed just as easily at Democrats as it was at Republicans. I prefer Democrats to Republicans in most instances. But I will refuse to support anybody who stands in the way of protecting the American middle- and lower-class, regardless of the letter after their name.
I got behind the news late last week and into the weekend, so this the first of two roundups of items I saw.
State Representative Sara Gagliardi (D-JeffCo) introduced a bill (HB09-1331) that promotes low-emitting cars and trucks. It makes changes to the existing tax credit for purchases of vehicles using alternative fuels, for purchase of idling reduction technologies or for conversion of vehicles to use alternative fuels. I heard a segment on the Ed Schultz show earlier this afternoon about an idling technology that I'll have to look into. It sounded like it would reduce the amount of fuel burned from 1 gallon per hour during idling to 1 gallon per 20 hours, but I could have heard the improved ratio incorrectly.
The money comes from the city's half-cent sales tax, collected especially for economic development projects that bring new revenue into the Pueblo area.
A 1/2 cent sales tax, in just this one instance, will create 140 high paying jobs in Pueblo. That tax and those jobs are an investment in the community of Pueblo. Cons would rather see that tax go away, and with it, this expansion and those jobs.
Reading about a national energy efficiency standard made me remember the full-page, color package of lies ... I mean advertisement I wrote about just over a week ago. A group spun efforts by Congress to consider reducing greenhouse pollution as a direct tax on the American people. The pollution must be reduced - the sooner the better. No matter the manner in which Congress works to introduce the first nationwide effort to reduct that pollution, for-profit energy corporations will do their best to pass on any new costs directly to consumers. I suppose there is nothing intrinsically wrong with those costs being passed along - it's the nature of corporations to do so, after all. What I object to is the morality of doing so when easily implementable solutions are available to those corporations. That's where citizen activism comes in - if the corporations refuse to think outside their little box, other people can and will.
(and she's speaking at Netroots Nation in Your Neighborhood - promoted by johne)
Gov. Bill Ritter named former state legislator Alice Madden as Colorado's Climate Change Coordinator. I think this is a smart thing to do because of the complexity of plans to address climate change at the state level here in Colorado. What exactly will Madden do? The job description didn't show up in the Daily Camera article, but I think there is enough information there to get an idea. In a very general sense, she will work to achieve the goals in Colorado's Climate Action Plan (more on that below). Madden's comments on the appointment fill out some details for us:
Madden, who was term limited last year, said in the release that climate change is, "taking its toll in every corner of Colorado."
"Farmers, ranchers and the ski industry are concerned about winter snowpack," she said in the release. "Citizens are worried about rising energy costs. Commuters are concerned about efficient and affordable transportation choices, and we all are worried about the future of our forests, air and water."
As I've written about, climate change is a very big, very complex problem. It touches every other policy area I can think of, so efforts to address it introduce the need to address how those efforts impact other policy topics. So it's not very surprising that the job description at the time of announcement is a little fuzzy. I'm sure they're going to further define her role as they move forward. Much like President Obama, I don't necessarily envy Madden - both for the reason listed above (complexity) but also because the problem will be seen to grow in scope in the public's eye as additional scientific evidence of climate change comes forward. Additional, unforseen consequences of climate change will come to the fore as well. Madden and others are going to need to be nimble yet aggressive as they craft climate change policies. I'm not sure how you write that into a description for any job. But I'm glad Madden is doing it.
The House passed their initial version of the 2008 energy bill. Two major focal points of this bill are the following: it would allow drilling 50 to 100 miles off-shore and it would repeal tax breaks (corporate welfare) for oil corporations. Republicans have been pining for the former and screaming about the latter for months. Americans generally support increased drilling as long as its coupled with renewable energy research funding increases. A clear majority of Americans support rescinding the fossil fuel industry's welfare. Americans can pretty easily make the connection between $4.00 gas and news of record profits that corporations like Exxon enjoy every quarter. They're tired of that being the status quo. So I say let Republicans continue to scream about stopping the corporate welfare. They'll continue to look like ideologues for it.
Republicans are also whining about no "litigation reform". But here's the reality: if the off-shore areas end up going up for lease, which would require Senate passage of the same bill (unlikely this year) and no veto by Bush (not a guarantee in the off-chance Congress actually passes something), it's not like they'll drill on those new areas. Why? Because here's the dirty secret Republicans want to keep out of the spotlight: fuel corporations currently hold leases on 68 million acres of land and they're not drilling on them right now. More than that, those corporations have no plans to begin drilling any time soon. They're enjoying the high fuel prices too much. Increasing the supply would bring that price down. That situation was true before demand for fuel started falling in the face of $4.00 gas and is even more true now. With demand decreasing, they have absolutely no incentive to put more fuel into the market. So no environmental lawsuits will be issued because no corporation will drill.
By this point, President Bush's announcement that he wants the oil shale development moratorium repealed, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and off-shore drilling opened up for oil and gas drilling should be well known. But is it well known for the correct reasons? Is the media focused on the true aspects of this issue or are they caught up once again in ridiculous tiff reporting?
Allow me to provide a short answer to the second question: the media has reported on the "he-said, she-said" side of the issue more than the details of it. No one should be surprised. After all, the AP seems to be more worried about how much quoting of one of their articles by blogs constitutes fair-use, even though it's not in their purview to decide such things. Perhaps if they spent more time on actually reporting, bloggers wouldn't have to quote the one or two salient facts they actually managed to write down and then do the hard work of providing the context the corporate media decided wasn't sexy enough to include in the first place.
A longer answer to the questions raised above can be found below the fold.
Let's start by describing Ritter's plan, which isn't done until the last 1/3 of the article (controversy over journalism).
Ritter endorsed a citizens initiative Thursday to eliminate a property tax credit for the oil and gas industry unique to Colorado. Killing the tax credit would bring the state about $200 million more a year.
Under the plan, 60 percent would go toward "Colorado Promise" scholarships to help families pay for college. The other 40 percent would be divided among projects to help communities offset the impacts of the oil and gas industry, set aside wildlife habitat and develop renewable energy sources.
RSS Feed
