The parallels to the House’s Waxman-Markey climate bill - which passed in June in the face of opposition from green stalwarts and Democratic political players like Greenpeace - are significant, and it begs the question: are progressives on board with all of this “progress?” The vote that one House Dem took on the bill is already becoming an issue in the Massachusetts special Senate election to fill Ted Kennedy’s seat. The issue is proving to be the first real policy distinction among four candidates for the seat, and Democrats facing re-elction nationwide in 2010 can now expect Stupak-Pitts and abortion to become a potential anti-incumbency lever.

Progress or Politics?

Presumably, a year ago, as progressives basked in the victory-with-a-mandate of the nation’s first truly progressive president since FDR, they would not have settled for a health care bill that the chairwoman of the House Pro-Choice Caucus called “the biggest restriction of a woman’s right to choose that will be considered on the House floor in my career.” Likewise, they could not have anticipated that they would be left to cheer for a climate bill that not only includes huge subsidies for coal companies and nuclear plants and expansion of offshore drilling, but also does not auction carbon credits under its cap-and-trade program, instead handing the credits as allowances to utilities and other major carbon emitters.

Call it what you like - genuine progress, an important Trojan Horse, political spin - but walking back from hardcore progressive initiatives might have real political consequences as 2010’s mid-term elections approach.

The Known Enemy - GOP Sharpening Attacks and Piling Up Ammo

Of course, the GOP will be taking dead aim at Dems across the country, branding them as government expansionists who have increased the federal debt and mismanaged the financial crisis through free-spending programs like Cash for Clunkers. But, the parrallels to the the 2003 BTU Tax vote also cannot be underestimated.

The House vote on that bill - which put Dems in the lower chamber out there on a somewhat controversial issue in spite of the fact that the Senate never came close to taking a similar vote, and therefore the measure had no chance of becoming law - is often given partial credit for driving the Republican Revolution of 1994. Like ‘94, there is not much evidence that the Senate will be able to pass - or perhaps even vote or move out of committee - a bill that approaches many of the issues that the House rules allowed Speaker Pelosi to put on the floor and take to a vote. Facing high Congressional disapproval already, House Dems are already tacking on the challenges of a still-flagging economy that just breached 10% unemployment, a figure that promises to continue rising right through 2010’s election season. Now they must also defend their vote for this health care bill against GOP challengers. The politics will play out, but there is the chance that the razor’s edge health care vote violated one of the first rules of Washington: never take an unnecessary vote.

A New Enemy Within? Greens, Gay Rights, Pro-Choicers and Peaceniks

More than in 1994 though, Democrats in Congress might be facing backlash from both sides as 2010 advances. The climate bill’s “giveaways” alone would not have been enough to energize hardcore progressives to unseat sitting Democrats, but add in the escalation in Afghanistan; a lack of progress on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell;” and, now the health care vote and its abortion amendment and Democratic leaders may have done just enough to instigate a mutiny that unites the four most active and important political power players within the party: greens, gay rights groups, anti-war advocates and pro-choice women’s interests.

In other words, it is not inconceivable that by splitting the baby (turning John Kerry’s famous phrase on its head, many Dems from deep blue states voted against the anti-abortion amendment before they voted for the bill), Democrats who were already vulnerable have made themselves beatable.

Speaking on CNN after Dems lost the Governors’ mansions in Virginia and New Jersey, but prior to passage of the House bill, Democratic political guru James Carville noted that Democrats might “lose both chambers” if they could not pass a healthy care bill in this session. The father of one of this generation’s most famous political aphorisms (”its the economy, stupid”) may have proven to be a soothsayer yet again. Although, I’m not sure even Carville saw this coming.

Massachusetts is the Test Race - Are Democrats Divided?

If the Stupak-Pitts amendment is an issue that plays with the progressives and gives some daylight for potential challenges from the left side of the party, Massachusetts will be an early - if imperfect - example. Can Congressman Capuano - who voted against the amendment and for the bill - survive an attack on that vote from state Attorney General Martha Coakley?

One startling aspect of the burgeoning Democrat in-fighting is that it was only this past weekend, amid the ouster of the Republican candidate in the special New York 23rd Congressional election (at the urging of establishment GOPers like Palin and Pawlenty) that observers were asking whether there was a fatal schism on the right. Now the question may be turning on its head.

What should not be surprising to anyone is that as major issues in Massachusetts politics and national health care play out, the legacy of Ted Kennedy continues to loom large.

Flickr photo used under a Creative Commons license from BarackObama.com

Today the Center for Biological Diversity announced that the winner of its third annual Rubber Dodo Award is Michael Winer, portfolio manager for Third Avenue Management, LLC (”TAREX”).

The Center for Biological Diversity awards the Rubber Dodo each year to the person who has contributed the most to driving endangered species extinct. Winer was selected this year for his leadership role in Third Avenue Management, LLC (”TAREX”), a giant real-estate investment firm responsible for unsustainable sprawl in California and Florida - and the driving force behind the proposed destruction of Tejon Ranch with a luxury development known as Tejon Mountain Village.

Last year’s recipient was former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.

Read more of this story »

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

Disclaimer: 60 days have come and gone, but still no sign of the lawsuit. Chances are Palin has decided not to pursue this after all.

For the second time in less than a year, Palin’s administration has sought legal action against an endangered species in favor of the oil industry. This time, the Cook Inlet Beluga Whale is her target.

In August 2008, it was the Polar Bear. Now Palin has the critically endangered Cook Inlet Beluga Whale in her sights.

The Cook Inlet Beluga Whale (Delphinapterus leucas) is a genetically distinct and geographically isolated population. And that population is only about 375 whales.

But Palin doesn’t believe that qualifies as “endangered.”

Read more of this story »

With the spotlight shining on clean energy, the stage has been set for the U.S. to rid itself of a harmful addiction to foreign oil. The stars are aligned and the cards have been dealt. Soon we’ll have kicked the dirty habit, right?

Sarah Palin seems to think so. Perhaps you’ll remember her proposal to tap the natural gas supply found under the pristine Alaskan wilderness. As Governor of Alaska she “fought to bring about the largest private-sector infrastructure project in North American history . . . a nearly $40 billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.”

Read more of this story »

Because it’s dramatic, and may presage the switch that I have been hoping for for a while: the divorce of the idea that a Conservative Environmentalist in politics is an oxymoron.

Let’s assume that Sarah Palin is continuing to ride the publicity train because she still has plans for a 2012 run for President.   Leaving aside my personal opinion — that such a a nomination would fracture the GOP irrevocably, to the point that we would end up with three parties here in America –  lets look at how her energy policy was in 2008 and… beyond.

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/05/13/sarah-palin-on-energy-what-a-switch/feed/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/05/04/global-warming-is-naturalyeah-yeah-weve-heard-it-before/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/05/04/global-warming-is-naturalyeah-yeah-weve-heard-it-before/#comments Mon, 04 May 2009 14:33:11 +0000 Amanda Peterka http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/05/04/global-warming-is-naturalyeah-yeah-weve-heard-it-before/

The other week I posted a video of House Minority Leader John Boehner claiming that carbon dioxide is no big deal. The statement was in response to a question from George Stephanopoulos about the Republican solution to global warming.

His answer, word-for-word, follows:

“The idea that carbon dioxide is a carcinogen, that it’s harmful to our environment, is almost comical. Every time we exhale, we exhale carbon dioxide. Every cow in the world, you know, when they do what they do, you’ve got more carbon dioxide.”

Read more of this story »

]]> http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/05/04/global-warming-is-naturalyeah-yeah-weve-heard-it-before/feed/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/19/mean-joe-green-56-the-palin-plan-pipeline-to-presidency/ http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/19/mean-joe-green-56-the-palin-plan-pipeline-to-presidency/#comments Thu, 19 Mar 2009 19:16:37 +0000 Joe Mohr http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/03/19/mean-joe-green-56-the-palin-plan-pipeline-to-presidency/ Turns out that natural-gas pipeline that Palin boasted about a number of times in her brief stint as VP candidate does not exist.

And the mere fact that she is even considering running in 2012 makes me ill…

…but maybe it’s just gas.

Now, there are caveats, obviously. Since the thing “isn’t actually a plan for action”, doubts remain on the efficacy of Sarah seeing the light.  People have been quick to point out the failures of the plan — and rightfully so.   “Drill Baby Drill!” still rings in my years, and we have yet to see Palin embrace a logical route to some of the saving and greening that she sees in Alaska’s future.

But, you have to admit that “a list of resources on which local communities may use to develop their own solutions” is a good thing to have, and some of the plans on the list are big enough (like a hydro electric dam - feasibility study coming June 1, 2009) that some State money would have to be involved.  State money means Federal money at this point, which might even mean the project actually gets built.  Further, response from Alaskan Environmental groups, folks who have not always been so hip to Sarah’s game, are giving the plan rave reviews.

The cynical side of me says that she found some good ‘ol timey environmentalism because she has seen greenwashing go over real well in other polls.  I also register some minor concern that the Heartland Institute thinks it is a good plan.  But, in the end… who am I to question motivation?  I’ve made it through the beginning of the plan (here, in PDF form, if you are interested) and any call for 50% green energy is so much further down the right path then the “Drill, Baby, Drill!” portion of Palin’s career that I wonder how the switch happened.

Palin has some other problems up there in Alaska.  She’s in the news for a lot of the wrong reasons, and has decided that she should capitalize on her moment in the sun to write a book — sure to help her popularity ratings that are already dipping on the perception she doesn’t give Alaska enough time.

But this is a Green blog, not a general politics blog!  So, with the caveat that the invitation might not be permanent, and that I still need to see more actual action before the accolades start rolling off my typing fingers… Sarah, welcome aboard the (I can’t believe I am writing this!) Clean Energy Bandwagon!

I’m excited by nothing so much as the vibe that the soft war - the war of common perceptions - is shifting ground.  Even if it’s just an endorsement of the principle, and even if it’s a calculated political move, Palin gets credit for making theLet’s see if she can bite the Libertarian bullet and accept a handout from the Feds to help get her plans off the ground.

While 58 wolves have already been killed since Saturday, there’s hope that Alaska’s Department of Fish & Game will not reach their enormous quota. Defenders of Wildlife has taken legal action that could stop the hunt immediately.

“The Board of Game did not authorize the use of helicopters by state agency personnel as part of the Upper Yukon/Tanana wolf killing program,” said Wade Willis, Alaska Representative for Defenders of Wildlife. “What they are doing in that region right now is illegal.”

Read more of this story »

Alaska abruptly resumed shooting wolves from helicopters this weekend in hopes that shooting the wolves will increase the population of caribou for hunters to kill. The state plans to kill up to 328 wolves, sparing under 100 in the Yukon area.

Not everyone in Alaska is gung-ho about the plan. The National Park Service has been collaring wolves for a two-decade-long study tracking predator-prey relationships, and now many of those wolves are bound to turn up dead.

>>UPDATE: Defenders of Wildlife has taken legal action to stop the hunt.

Read more of this story »

This post contains additional media. Click here to view the full post.

Now, there are caveats, obviously. Since the thing “isn’t actually a plan for action”, doubts remain on the efficacy of Sarah seeing the light.  People have been quick to point out the failures of the plan — and rightfully so.   “Drill Baby Drill!” still rings in my years, and we have yet to see Palin embrace a logical route to some of the saving and greening that she sees in Alaska’s future.

But, you have to admit that “a list of resources on which local communities may use to develop their own solutions” is a good thing to have, and some of the plans on the list are big enough (like a hydro electric dam - feasibility study coming June 1, 2009) that some State money would have to be involved.  State money means Federal money at this point, which might even mean the project actually gets built.  Further, response from Alaskan Environmental groups, folks who have not always been so hip to Sarah’s game, are giving the plan rave reviews.

The cynical side of me says that she found some good ‘ol timey environmentalism because she has seen greenwashing go over real well in other polls.  I also register some minor concern that the Heartland Institute thinks it is a good plan.  But, in the end… who am I to question motivation?  I’ve made it through the beginning of the plan (here, in PDF form, if you are interested) and any call for 50% green energy is so much further down the right path then the “Drill, Baby, Drill!” portion of Palin’s career that I wonder how the switch happened.

Palin has some other problems up there in Alaska.  She’s in the news for a lot of the wrong reasons, and has decided that she should capitalize on her moment in the sun to write a book — sure to help her popularity ratings that are already dipping on the perception she doesn’t give Alaska enough time.

But this is a Green blog, not a general politics blog!  So, with the caveat that the invitation might not be permanent, and that I still need to see more actual action before the accolades start rolling off my typing fingers… Sarah, welcome aboard the (I can’t believe I am writing this!) Clean Energy Bandwagon!

I’m excited by nothing so much as the vibe that the soft war - the war of common perceptions - is shifting ground.  Even if it’s just an endorsement of the principle, and even if it’s a calculated political move, Palin gets credit for making theLet’s see if she can bite the Libertarian bullet and accept a handout from the Feds to help get her plans off the ground.

The debate over the aerial killing of wildlife in Alaska rages on with Ashley Judd and Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickeisen appearing on CNN’s Larry King Live last night.

Judd discusses why she so vehemently opposes aerial hunting (and later name-drops Van Jones and the Green Collar Economy) while Schlickeisen responds to Palin’s labeling of Defenders of Wildlife as a “fringe group.”

You can find part 2 after the break.

Read more of this story »

We wrote this week about the Defenders of Wildlife’s new campaign (and TV spot) against Sarah Palin and her plan to legalize aerial hunting of wolves from helicopters. Palin’s PR team was quick to the punch and issued this strongly-worded (yet weak on facts) response:

It is reprehensible and hypocritical that the Defenders of Wildlife would use Alaska and my administration as a fundraising tool to deceive Americans into parting with their hard-earned money.

Read more of this story »

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin released an energy plan for Alaska that some might consider more of an abdication of state responsibilities than an actual ‘plan’.

In an effort to re-brand herself as a serious proponent of renewable energy, Sarah Palin has outlined a plan to get half of the state’s power from renewable sources. But be forewarned, I use the terms “outline” and “plan” loosely.

“Renewable sources will play a large role in helping Alaska meet its future energy needs, said Palin last week.

While the plan has been praised by praised by some as “very forward-thinking,” it doesn’t really provide a clear road map for getting to the goal of achieving fifty percent renewables. Rather, it identifies numerous areas in which the state could develop alternative energy.

Read more of this story »

Palin is said to be against the decision because of the effects it may have on oil and gas developments and the expansion of the city’s port. (The area happens to be a mature oil-producing basin.)

Read more of this story »

After years of appeals and court battles, an unprecedented case over the federal Clean Water Act will face the Supreme Court on Monday.

Local environmentalists organized against a plan by a gold mine nearby Juneau, Alaska to dump mining waste and rubble into a nearby lake. While the Southeast Alaska Conservation Council lost the original lawsuit to stop the plan in 2006, they later won the appeal with the federal 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Supreme Court now must decide whether mines should be prevented from storing their waste in water bodies, as specified in the Clean Water Act. Alaska issued a permit to the mine allowing it to dump waste in the lake, but environmentalists pointed out the discrepancy.

Read more of this story »

A wolf was shot from a helicopter in Montana after avoiding hunters for months. The wolf had been picking off sheep from a ranch along with his mate, who was killed in November.

Wolves were removed from the endangered species list in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho this Spring, but a lawsuit from environmental groups reinstated the dwindling species position on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service list.  However, wolves that are believed to be killing livestock can be legally hunted.

Read more of this story »

Australian and East Timorese researchers say that while conducting research, they “found” an amazing whale “hotspot” off of East Timor’s coast.

As quoted by Reuters, the principal scientist working on the study said the following: “In just one day, more than 1,000 individuals and possibly as many as 2,000 whales in eight separate pods — each one containing up to 400 mammals — were spotted over a 50-kilometre (31-mile) stretch of coast.”

Wow! Personally I think that this is a very exciting and cool discovery. The researchers also claim that the area is rich in other forms of ocean animals, like sharks and sea turtles. It highlights the need for greater protection of biodiverse ocean areas like these from unregulated fishing– a challenge given East Timor’s desire to develop their fishing industry.

As mentioned earlier, 2008 was a gigantic year for whale news. Here’s a roundup of some of the stories that were written about whales on EcoWorldly and on other sites in the Green Options network.

Read more of this story »

Score one for the environment - at least temporarily. Shell Oil announced that it will not be drilling off the Alaskan coast in the Beaufort Sea in 2009 as planned. This decision comes after a November court ruling which determined that Shell had erroneously been given permission to drill without properly assessing the environmental impact drilling would have on the fragile region.

The Arctic, already vulnerable and suffering from the effects of Global Warming, has been spared this blow by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals following a formal objection by Pacific Environment. The organization, along with a coalition of conservation groups, formally challenged the granting of Shell’s permit with an aim towards blocking the oil giant from drilling in this fragile ecosystem.

Read more of this story »