Green Options

Swine Flu’s got nothing on our Vice President’s case of Foot-in-Mouth disease.

If only there was a vaccine.

Joe Biden is well-known for his goofball status of saying exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time in, what we have to assume, is a genetic predisposition to unwittedness.

Take, for instance, yesterday’s announcement that Fisker Automotive would be purchasing a shuttered Delaware GM plant for the future production of Fisker’s upcoming Project Nina plug-in hybrid—the more reasonably priced sister car of Fisker’s flagship $80,000 Karma.

During that announcement Biden—who’s home state is Delaware—waxed on about how the plant will bring jobs back to the area and is exactly what we need to get our manufacturing sector back on line. But he just couldn’t hold himself back at the end of his speech, saying “imagine when this factory, when the floor we’re standing on right now is making 100,000 plug-in hybrid sedans, coupes and crossovers every single year.”

Last week, Fisker Automotive co-founder and CEO, Henrik Fisker, said that his company would very shortly be announcing where project Nina—the company’s upcoming $48,000 plug-in hybrid—would be built. The statement led to all sorts of rumors, but speculation had been growing that the chosen manufacturing spot was a closed GM plant in Delaware.

The Texas American Federation of Teachers (AFT) cites the case of a widowed public school teacher that retired with a $900 monthly pension. She would have been eligible to receive $600 survivor benefits based on her husband’s Social Security contribution, but the windfall elimination provision (WEP) eliminated all of her survivor benefits.

One bright spot on the dark economic horizon is the number of companies across the U.S. poised for growth under a cap on carbon. EDF president Fred Krupp joined Vice President Joe Biden Friday in Philadelphia for the first meeting of Biden’s task force on middle class jobs.

At the meeting we unveiled our new interactive map highlighting more than 1,200 companies in coal country, the rust belt and other manufacturing regions. These companies all stand to benefit from the demand for clean energy technologies created by a cap on global warming pollution.

Corporate image ads are scattered around political news. They’re often masked as green tech, but their pitch more often advances corporate self-interest.

I got an e-mail today from an unknown author that is worth passing on.  Parts of it are copied here, alongside my own personal thoughts.

I don’t know how much you know about the Law of Attraction or if you’ve ever heard of it. But surely you’ve heard of the phrase, ‘What you resist, persists.’ The more we don’t want something, the more it finds us. For example - the more we resist forming relationships with a certain type of person in our lives, the more we attract that same kind of relationship over and over again.  The more we resisted President Bush, the more he stayed in office.  I truly believe that the reason he won two terms as President is because everyone from all sides was so intently focused on him– Democrats with negative energy and Republicans with positive energy.

With fourteen days left until the U.S. presidential election, the heat is on. As much as all eyes are on the candidates, everybody’s pulse is on the economy. People all over America are wondering who will better serve the U.S. Economy and bring it to where it needs to be. What are the candidates saying?

John McCain says that Barack Obama’s tax policy is not conducive to building a strong economy. Obama says he wants to spread the wealth around. Joe [...]

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.

Given the hue and cry that has been unleashed in America with regard to the bailout, there is finally good news for the renewable energy industry. The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, passed by the House of Representatives and signed into law by President George Bush immediately afterwards, extends investment and production tax credits for the wind and solar industries. The extensions will be partly paid for by a change in the tax code for the oil and gas [...]

Generally speaking, if we don’t know what the cause of a given problem is, but we know there is indeed a problem, how do we devise a strategy capable of adequately addressing it?

In the Vice Presidential debate earlier this evening, Sarah Palin and Joe Biden each had a strong point of view on global warming. Gwen Ifill, the moderator, specifically questioned Palin about her views on carbon emissions and Biden about his view on clean coal technology. What do you think? Will a McCain-Palin or a Obama-Biden government really make a difference when it comes to global warming?