Green Options

In response to the contention caused by Meg Whitman’s OP-Ed on rescinding AB32 climate-change legislation, and the pointed response by Mayor Gavin Newsom, CleanTechnica.com is formally offering to host a discussion between the two gubernatorial candidates.

Billionaires for Wealth Care have created this rousing anthem to satirically support our nation’s for-profit health care industries. The group was counter-protesting at last week’s teabagger anti-health care reform 9/12 rally in Washington D.C. (which was funded by major health insurance corporations). The Billionaires were dressed in top hats, tuxedos and evening gowns, and carried placards like: “Fight Socialism—End Medicare Now!” and “Let Them Eat Advil!”.

According to the Billionaires’ website they are:

A grassroots network of health insurance CEOs, HMO lobbyists, talk-show hosts, and others profiting off of our broken health care system. We are not a political, religious or even particularly well-organized group. We’re simple folk, thrilled profiteers pouring out of our corner offices to dance on the grave of “Change.” We’ll do whatever it takes to ensure another decade where your pain is our gain. After all, when it comes to health care, if we ain’t broke, why fix it?

If the Senate can get 60 votes for climate change legislation, these are the six Senators that lobbyists will be courting, the White House will be pressing, and you should be watching.

When the headlines told us that the global warming debate was over, it seemed like we environmentalists could breathe a collective sigh of relief. The United States elected a cap-and-trade-sympathetic administration, and the Environmental Protection Agency says it is going to exert some of the “P” in its acronym after it formally labeled carbon dioxide a pollutant last month. So now that the debate is over, has the discussion ended?

Much of what I assumed to be climate consensus has been turned on its head since I moved to the Midwest from New York. Meaning, there a lot of people here in the Middle who care about environmental issues but are not convinced climate change is related to human activities and/or is as dire as predicted. I believe it is. . .and I also believe that in order to get buy-in from such diverse constituents, it’s imperative that we engage in dialog with those who hold differing opinions.

Obama gets that personal action on climate change is important, but he also gets that it’s not sufficient.

If you watched last night’s debate, you heard the question: What will you do in your first term to reduce our dependence on foreign oil?

Did either candidate actually answer the question? Not really. But here’s why McCain’s answer of offshore-drilling-nuclear-power-wind-solar-geothermal-natural-gas is completely bogus.

Some days my hope wavers that this polarized American society can get anywhere meaningful. The communication gap is so wide and prickly. That goes for environmental issues, political ones, cultural ones and any other kinds of ones. Sometimes it just seems hopeless to me. Or at least very fatiguing.

Consider my most recent sustainablog post — NASA Maps Global CO2 Patterns; Produces More Science for Nonbelievers to Dispute.

I showed some exasperation in that post, too. I wondered how science, a system based on factual discovery as means of proving (or disproving) a hypothesis, is so controversial as it relates to environmental matters. I wondered — and continue to wonder — how two people can look at facts of science and pick and choose what to believe and then vehemently disagree with each other.

With only four weeks to go until Election Day (November 4th if you’ve been living under a rock), now seems like an excellent time to check in and see how the candidates are faring.

In Tuesday night’s debate, not only did McCain ignore the potential solutions presented by truly clean and renewable sources of energy, but he even went so far as to discount Senator Obama’s concern about the disposal and storage of nuclear waste, describing Obama’s position as “something like that”.

On the heels of our first RG&B debate poll conducted to gauge public opinion on the first and only vice-presidential debate, we’ve decided to follow up with a poll for the top of the ticket.

Let’s say you’re a politician, and you have a policy you want to push to the public. How do you get the backing?

You turn to semantics.

Do you call it a bailout or a rescue plan? Invasion of privacy or the Patriot Act? A War on Terror or an invasion of a country that doesn’t possess WMD? Do you say we’re looking for oil independence or to drill in ANWR? Do you call it global warming, admitting that the earth is indeed warming, or do you call it climate change?