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?”

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 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.

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

Olympia Snowe’s support of the finance committee draft puts health care back in play, but without a public option. The Graham-Kerry compromise climate bill would start to cap carbon, but also allow coal to cash in. Can Obama’s progressive base settle for incrementalism? If Arriana Huffington speaks for the movement, HOPE may not hold out in the face of so little CHANGE during the 2010 mid-terms. </p>

After so much bad news on health care, the White House and Senate Dems are clinging to Senator Olympia Snowe’s support of the Finance Committee draft bill. While the bill does deliver on some of the key provisions the White House wanted - including insurance company restrictions on applicants with pre-existing medical conditions - it does not include a public option. What’s more, with CBO costing the “bipartisan” bill out somewhere north of $800 billion, there is little doubt that as amendments are made and more scrutiny is placed on estimated Medicare savings, a $1 trillion price tag is going to put Snowe’s support at risk (to say of nothing of some already-reluctant Democrats.

Similarly, the climate bill strategy that Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham proposed in their New York Times Op-Ed may make passage more likely as some pundits have argued. But, it cannot please progressives to see so many giveaways already - before the Senate has even begun trading horses in earnest. The Graham/Kerry compromise promises to make America “the Saudi Arabia of clean coal,” polishes the drills for more domestic drilling, and lifts restrictions to allow for faster proliferation of new nuclear plants. Not exactly the kind of thing that will warm hearts among hardcore conservationists.

But, a health care bill that restricts companies from discriminating against pre-existing conditions and a cap-and-trade regime (even one with a price collar and a lot of allowances) mean something to the progressive base, right? Not necessarily.

Arianna Huffington, a thought leader of the progressive movement, lambasted Obama and the incremental approach over the weekend on This Week and again on NPR’s On Point. Huffington’s argument is that “No Child Left Behind” is a cautionary tale that the Obama White House should study well. In her reckoning, the Act made no real progress in improving American education, but it gave the Washington establishment cover to say, “we dealt with education,” sapping momentum for any real and renewed action on the issue in the Obama administration.

Could the same happen to Obama’s health care and climate agendas if the Dems take pennies on the dollar for all of the political capital POTUS has invested? And will their base settle for the incrementalist approach anyway? He might have been able to argue the “old college try” if hopes had not been so high, promises so lofty, and the stage seemingly so well set (including the sort-of supermajority in the Senate). Instead, with little more than promises on progressive hot-buttons like Iraq and Afghan deescalation, Gitmo closings, repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell,” health care and climate change, patience among progressives is wearing thin.

The political calculation is tricky. The White House - and Dems facing fights in the 2010 mid-terms - might be better to take outright losses on these watered-down bills, hold their line, and position the GOP as obstructionists in order to reenergize the progressive base.

Photo credit (CC) JD Lasica, socialmedia.biz

It is good to see that there are still some surprises in the world, and - in particular - in politics. Still, truly shocking political events - and reactions to them - are rare. Careful observers can see most Hill happenings coming from miles down the road and months ahead of schedule. We know some things will happen already, still our political and media culture waits out the inevitable before allowing events to capture headlines, ride roughshod over public opinion and exert themselves on political discourse.

Borrowing a page from Maureen Dowd’s “imaginings” playbook, this trip to 2010 explains how Washington’s worst-kept secrets will effect the climate change bill by collaring the President and Congressional Dems, and threatening our collective energy future.

FEBRUARY 10, 2010
WASHINGTON, DC

REACTION MIXED AS SENATE CLIMATE BILL GOES TO FLOOR
Critics Assail Compromises While Some Laud Any Action in Time of Political Turmoil

The Senate will likely take up floor debate of its climate bill this week after the proposed legislation was released from committee with considerable compromise put in place to help win votes from reluctant Senators who are facing election-year political pressure and mounting disappointing news about the economy and the war in Afghanistan.

The White House and Congressional Democratic leaders had hoped to have a climate change bill in place before the global climate change conference held in Copenhagen last December. Instead, American negotiators went to the United Nations conference with only the promise of continued domestic effort on greenhouse gas reduction, and observers felt that the Copenhagen conference’s result was all too similar to the Kyoto agreement it was supposed to build upon. While the world left Denmark with a resolution that features very strong aspirational emissions targets, there remains no enforcement mechanism in place, and it is unlikely that the world’s leading emitters will ratify any of the agreement’s most restrictive standards.

The Copenhagen failure took much of the momentum away from domestic climate change legislation, and action on energy and environmental reform has been further hampered as time gets closer to 2010’s mid-term elections and bad news on the economy mounts. Consistent with moribund projections, holiday sales figures were down for a second consecutive year, and the markets took a tumble as cautious investors reacted to retailers’ figures.

The tumble followed earlier market reaction to early January’s fourth quarter earnings announcements, which showed that in spite of stirring signs of economic strength, real recovery is still far from solidified.

The combination of slow sales and low earnings had brought markets back to a point where many observers felt valuation had leveled off from last fall’s slight recovery bubble. But, as final confirmation of double-digit unemployment became reality with last week’s announcement of jobless figures, the market dropped further.

All of the disappointing economic news made it impossible to get a climate change bill to the floor of the Senate without strong trade protections put in place for the domestic industries that are the most energy-intensive.

The protections spurred objections from global trading partners and concerns from observers worldwide that embedding carbon leakage tariff adjustments into the legislation amounts to protectionism and may further stunt economic recovery. Still, Senate negotiators had to include the provisions to win support from Midwestern Democrats who want both to claim progressive credentials by voting for a climate bill, but also needed any such bill to deliver not only protections - but also dollars - for heavy-emitting industries that employ their constituents.

The bill is expected to be debated next week after hearings on the President’s dismissal of General Stanley McChrystal are complete. In late 2009, Obama dismissed McChrystal from his post as commanding general in Afghanistan amid a very public disagreement about troop levels and strategy. The President has faced immense criticism from all sides after dismissing McChrystal. Republicans have criticized him for putting his own “yes man” in charge of executing the plan that McChrystal concocted because he subsequently adopted the recommendation to elevate troop levels. From his left, Obama has faced accusations that escalation is the wrong course and is a repudiation of the “call to action” that he received with his Nobel Peace Prize award last October.

Pundits had expected the Senate climb to be more difficult even than the House’s trials in passing the Waxman-Markey climate bill in early summer last year. Senate rules, election-year pressures and the fact that the House bill relied on heavy support from very populous blue states to win passage all spelled trouble for the Senate bill. Also, Obama’s own clout on the Hill was heavily damaged after last year’s failure to pass a strong health care bill.

Trade protections, heavy dilution of greenhouse has emissions targets, watered-down fuel and building energy efficiency standards, and huge cash handouts to utilities and the oil, gas and coal industries are just some of the elements of the final Senate bill that are drawing fire. As they did for the much-stronger Waxman-Markey bill, leading green groups like Greenpeace are opposing the Senate bill. Others insist that while the bill is imperfect, an incremental approach to energy and environmental legislation may be the best way to proceed.

Whatever the result, it now seems highly unlikely that the House and Senate could possibly agree on a bill in conference committee during this session, and any climate change legislation will likely have to wait until after mid-term elections. Of course, by that time, President Obama will be ramping up his own re-election bid and with hurt feelings among many of the constituencies that supported him in 2008 (gay rights groups and anti-war activists chief among them), Obama may choose to take on some more mainstream initiatives and leave climate change to the side for a while

Take it for what it is: my imagination. Except that we already know that most of this WILL certainly happen. What we don’t know yet, is how we’ll react.

India’s Union Budget for financial year 2009-10 did not contain any provision for expenditure in promoting clean energy and mitigating adverse effects of climate change. The Indian Finance minister failed to provide any concrete figures that his government would spend in increasing clean energy systems and moving to efficient and cleaner industrial processes including power generation.

Last year the Indian Prime Minister unveiled a National Action Plan on Climate Change just before the crucial G8 Summit in Japan which outlined eight priorities of the Indian government to increase the use of renewable energy. The action plan did not, however, include how the government intends to achieve the goals it had set up. Green groups had been waiting for the government to announce strategy to achieve these goals but the finance minister did not allocate any funds for these goals.

Read more of this story »

Click Play Below,or

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

While solar energy is often touted as a way to avoid fossil fuels, California Senator Dianne Feinstein believes some public lands solar projects in the Mojave Desert need to be reexamined for their potential environmental impact.

Feinstein wrote to the Secretary of Interior Ken Salazar to request that 12 proposed solar plans for the desert lands be scrapped, citing potential habitat destruction. The complaint applies to a small fraction of the 165 pending wind and solar energy leases on 600,000 acres of former railroad land.

Read more of this story »

Given that overall US consumer spending in the fourth quarter of 2008 fell by its largest margin in almost 30 years, one has to wonder how the market for ‘green products’ will be impacted by this recession. Leading up to the economic downturn the momentum of the green economy was chugging along splendidly. The consumer demand for environmentally-friendly products was at an all-time high, even if the products were priced at a premium over standard options.

A recent survey by the consumer research firm Mintel explored the green buying preferences of Americans during this recession. The results should serve as a wake-up call to producers and retailers of green products.

Read more of this story »

When Does an Interest Start Being “Special”?

After years of railing against special interests, I find myself presented with a quandary.  Special interests are lining up behind the Smart Grid technology I love and, in doing so, risk saddling this cool program with the baggage intrinsic to special interests.

Even as lawmakers spent yesterday grilling everyone from members of the DOE to representatives from Google about Smart Grids, the groundwork for a Smart Grid might already have been assumed.  And, no, I’m not talking power lines and sub stations, I’m talking political donations.

The Current System is… Old.  Very Old

It’s a fact: our current system for transporting, producing and storing energy is ancient and inefficient.  Plus, as has been well recorded here on Red Green and Blue, Smart Grid technology theoretically does amazing things for how we use power as a nation and maybe even how we think about consumption.  By using less energy during peak hours, and even allowing personal rigs to feed back into the electricity grid with ease, the technology refocuses the country on conservation.

Read more of this story »

Today, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Leader Harry Reid released a letter asking the Capitol Architect to switch the Capitol Power Plant from coal to 100 percent natural gas by the end of 2009.

The switch to natural gas will allow the CPP to dramatically reduce carbon and criteria pollutant emissions, eliminating more than 95 percent of sulfur oxides and at least 50 percent of carbon monoxide.

Pelosi and Reid’s letter comes just three days before more than 2,500 people from across the country will converge at the power plant for the biggest civil disobedience on climate issues in U.S. history.

Noting that the Capitol Power Plant continues to be the number one source of air pollution and carbon emissions in the District of Columbia, the Congressional leaders thanked the Capitol Architect for the work they had done on increasing efficiency at CPP but that, “more must be done to dramatically reduce plant emissions and the CPP’s impact.”

Read more of this story »

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

Hat tip: The Daily Show

A new study shows that pollution from automobiles and coal-fired power plants is contributing to the melting of mountain snowpacks up to a month early, exacerbating water shortages and polluting streams in the arid West.

We’ve all seen it. That white fluffy blanket of snow that looked so nice after it fell a couple weeks back is no longer white and fluffy. It has been capped with a layer of dark sooty particulate matter, turning it from white to gray to black. Having grown up in the Boston area, this was the reality of virtually every snowstorm I can recall from my youth. But that dark, sooty particulate matter that builds up on the stale snow is not only an aesthetically unpleasing feature of urban landscapes in the winter, it happens in the North American snowscapes of the Rockies, the Sierra Nevadas and the Cascades - with far more serious consequences.

A peer-reviewed study conducted by scientists at the Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, is the first to explore changes to snowmelt caused by soot pollution at a regional level. The study, authored by Qian, Gustafson, Leung and Ghan, is scheduled to be published next month in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres.

Read more of this story »

Arriving in the DC area last night, I’m staying across the Potomac in Alexandria, the obvious buzz in the air is about the inauguration. But this time it is different. That’s the feeling on the air and the word on the street. Estimates are now for two million people to converge on the Mall on inauguration day in what truly is becoming  a Great American Pilgrimage.

Of course I knew when I left San Francisco early yesterday morning that I was one of many - thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions - coming to Washington to bear witness to history. But once the journey is begun, I am myself swept up in its tide.

There is a pragmatic aspect to governance, a political reality to wielding power. But seeing and being a part of this movement of people, I realize there is an underlying spirit to what this inauguration represents. Pragmatism and power lend itself to politics - the art of the possible. They are the tools that, when we strive for our best, serve the ideals and spirit of a nation and its people. This is a proud moment for America and Americans.

The whole world is watching.

Image credit: Tom Schueneman

“The important thing is the change in timing of available water,” explained William Gustafson, an atmospheric scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and one of the study’s primary authors. In essence, there will be plenty of water in the early spring, when water availability is never a problem. But come late summer, rivers are losing their water much earlier than before.

But faster runoff also means less water for farming and residential use, less potential for hydroelectric energy, shorter rafting and skiing seasons and less-than stellar fishing conditions. For Rocky Mountain states like Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the economic impact on the recreation industry alone, is reason alone to take this study’s findings seriously.

>>Sign up for email updates from Red, Green, and Blue

But addressing the problem with real solutions is a political nightmare. Water politics in the West is already tenuous, add to the situation drivers that begin across state and international borders, and you are left with what seems like a virtually untangleable knot. You see, it just so happens that the changes needed in our infrastructure to clean up our automobiles, our factories, and our energy supply to mitigate the effects of rising amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, are the very same kinds of changes we need to reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the air that turns that snow black and melts it so hastily.

Image: 1. CC licensed by flickr user bethography; 2. National Park Service

Two small wind turbines, the type that would power individual homes, farms, or businesses are currently on display at the National Mall and contributing to the Washington, D.C. power grid. The turbines will remain in place through January 2009 as part of a sustainability exhibit at the Botanic Garden.

The two turbines, from Mariah Power (left) and Southwest Windpower (right), are just a few hundred feet from the Capitol, visible from where President-elect Obama will take the oath of office next Tuesday, January 20.

“Small residential wind turbines and solar PV are examples of technologies moving us toward realizing President-elect Obama’s vision for a renewable energy future and also creating thousands of new manufacturing and dealer jobs across the country,” said Andy Kruse, co-founder of Southwest Windpower, maker of the Skystream 3.7, the first real ‘plug and play’ residential wind turbine to hit North American markets.

>>See Also: Top 5 Micro Wind Turbines

This past fall, Congress passed a small-wind tax credit that gives individuals and businesses a $4,000 investment tax credit for the purchase of turbines like those from Mariah and Southwest Windpower currently on display on The National Mall.

Images: Courtesy of the manufacturers

“The important thing is the change in timing of available water,” explained William Gustafson, an atmospheric scientist at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and one of the study’s primary authors. In essence, there will be plenty of water in the early spring, when water availability is never a problem. But come late summer, rivers are losing their water much earlier than before.

But faster runoff also means less water for farming and residential use, less potential for hydroelectric energy, shorter rafting and skiing seasons and less-than stellar fishing conditions. For Rocky Mountain states like Colorado, Utah and Wyoming, the economic impact on the recreation industry alone, is reason alone to take this study’s findings seriously.

>>Sign up for email updates from Red, Green, and Blue

But addressing the problem with real solutions is a political nightmare. Water politics in the West is already tenuous, add to the situation drivers that begin across state and international borders, and you are left with what seems like a virtually untangleable knot. You see, it just so happens that the changes needed in our infrastructure to clean up our automobiles, our factories, and our energy supply to mitigate the effects of rising amounts of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, are the very same kinds of changes we need to reduce the amount of particulate emissions in the air that turns that snow black and melts it so hastily.

Image: 1. CC licensed by flickr user bethography; 2. National Park Service

This is a guest post by Caitlin Sislin, a public interest environmental attorney in Oakland, California and founder of the Transformative Advocacy program of Women’s Earth Alliance.

Barack Obama is committed to slowing and reversing climate change. Environmentally-friendly initiatives such as green jobs are at the center of his economic stimulus plan. So it’s no surprise that Obama’s inauguration will have the smallest “footprint” of any president in history.

>>See Also: Obama Could be Just the Third President to Mention Environment in Inaugural Address

The four-plus million people expected to flood Washington, D.C. in two weeks will be treated to numerous eco-friendly perks:

• For the first time ever, the Environmental Protection Agency will advise event organizers on techniques for throwing a greener party.
• Festivities will include not one, but two carbon-neutral Green Inaugural Balls — one hosted by Al Gore.
• Organic food will be served at official events.
• Bicycle-riders will be treated to valet parking.
• Public restrooms will feature air dryers instead of paper towels.
• Many of the festivities will be lit using energy-efficient bulbs.
• All catered events at the House of Representatives will use compostable or biodegradable plates and utensils.
• A small-wind turbine display from Southwest Windpower and Mariah Power

Environmental groups will also be on hand, working to raise awareness about sustainability among the millions of event attendees. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals will hand out used fur coats to homeless people, as well as hot chocolate with soy milk in cups that read “Thank You for Not Wearing Fur!”

Read more of this story »

Abraham Lincoln was a self-described billiards addict. John Adams swam almost daily in the nearby waters of the often chilly Potomac River. Gerald Ford made use of the White House facilities as if they were at his own private country club wedged in a corner at the intersection of Pennsylvania and Executive avenues in Washington, D.C.

Whether entertaining high-powered guests or for personal enjoyment, American presidents and their families have a long tradition of recreating on the grounds of the White House. When the ability to find simple seclusion in the outside world is nearly impossible, these seven White House facilities can offer respite from the high-pressure job.

1. Basketball

It is no secret that Barack Obama is a huge basketball enthusiast. From his high school days in Hawaii when he earned the nickname “Barry the Bomber”, right up until the day he gave his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, Mr. Obama has played basketball as a way to keep fit, focused and healthy. With an incoming cabinet basketball team said to be the best ever and with Obama’s proclivity for shooting the rock around, the single-basket outdoor court may not be enough.

Installed by George H.W. Bush in 1991, the 26′ by 26′ court sits near the swimming pool and just off the Oval Office. But when Mr. Obama hinted throughout the campaign that he’d like to upgrade from the driveway-sized basketball court to a full-sized indoor court by replacing the existing bowling alley, bowling industry groups raised vocal opposition.

2. Bowling

As opposed to his skills on the basketball court, Mr. Obama’s skills in the bowling alley are, let’s say, not as sharp. Obama displayed his proficiency as a bowler in the Spring of 2008 whilst campaigning in Altoona, PA, when he bowled a less-than-stellar score of 37. But whether Obama will actually make good on his promise to replace the White House bowling alley, remains to be seen. After news broke that Obama was considering gutting the bowling lane and building a basketball court, a coalition of bowling groups offered to redesign the White House lane(s) with a decidedly twenty-first century feel:

The first White House bowling alley was actually built as a gift for President Harry Truman in 1947 in the location of what is now the Situation Room. Though not much of a bowler himself, the Truman bowling alley was well used by guests and staff until it was relocated across the street to the Executive Building. In 1969, President Richard M. Nixon brought bowling back to the White House with a single lane in a basement area below a driveway that exists today.

3. Swimming

Nestled in the trees not far from the basketball court and the West Wing is the White House swimming pool, installed in 1975 by Californian and avid swimmer Gerald Ford. Outfitted with a cabana, a solar hot water system for the pool and a spa that was later added by President Bill Clinton, the pool area is the perfect place to entertain guests, let alone Malia and Sasha.

The original White House swimming pool was built by President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. Roosevelt, who suffered from polio, used the indoor West Wing swimming pool as therapy to strengthen his upper body. The Roosevelt pool was ultimately filled in by Nixon who used the space as an area for press to gather.

4. Tennis

Tennis courts have been in place at the White House since 1902 when there was a court just off the South side of the West Wing, adjacent to the Oval Office. It was on this court where the then-president’s son, Calvin Coolidge, Jr. got a blister after playing without socks, which led to his death by blood-poisoning at the age of 16. This court ultimately made way for the West Wing Terrace.

Ford built a new tennis court in 1975 and on occasion the President would invite Washington bigs over to talk politics over a couple of sets, as he was doing with number 22, Donald Rumsfeld, pictured above.

5. Horsehoes

Nothing says America like horseshoes. Maybe Barack Obama could redeem some middle America cred it he buffed-up his horseshoe toss on the George H.W. Bush installed horseshoe pit next to the basketball court. Pictured above with son Marvin, Mr. Bush apparently preferred to use an underhand grip, whereas, Marvin preferred the overhand. [I'll have to go with the elder Bush on this one]

6. Golf

A putting green was first installed on the South Lawn by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. While most presidents since have been golfers of various abilities, playing golf on the White House lawn hasn’t always projected the best image of a person Americans expect to be working for them tirelessly.

In 1996 President Bill Clinton moved the putting green to its current location with the assistance of a professional course architect. Unless I knew better, I would guess the above was taken at a country club.

7. Billiards

After a long day of sporting around on the White House grounds with Heads of State and foreign dignitaries, where better to retire to and discuss the intricacies of international law than over a game of eight-ball, cutthroat, or snooker? The billiards table currently sits in the White House game room on the third floor in what used to be a bedroom.

Presidents as far back as John Adams had pool tables installed in various spots throughout the White House. Abraham Lincoln was a self-confessed “billiards addict”, who described the game as a “health inspiring, scientific game, lending recreation to the otherwise fatigued mind.”

Images: All images except; 1. Front View of White House(Scott Ableman via flickr under a Creative Commons License)and 4. Bowling Alley Concept (Bowlers’ Proprietors Assoc. of America) come courtesy of WhiteHouseMuseum.org

Welcome to the second official “Caption Contest” for Mean Joe Green and Red, Green, and Blue!

Rules for Participation:
1. Look at the cartoon below.
2. Think of a caption to accompany the cartoon.
3. Post your caption in the comments section.

The winning caption will be published in Red Green and Blue next Thursday (or shortly thereafter).

Enjoy!
-MJG

4. Tennis

Tennis courts have been in place at the White House since 1902 when there was a court just off the South side of the West Wing, adjacent to the Oval Office. It was on this court where the then-president’s son, Calvin Coolidge, Jr. got a blister after playing without socks, which led to his death by blood-poisoning at the age of 16. This court ultimately made way for the West Wing Terrace.

Ford built a new tennis court in 1975 and on occasion the President would invite Washington bigs over to talk politics over a couple of sets, as he was doing with number 22, Donald Rumsfeld, pictured above.

5. Horsehoes

Nothing says America like horseshoes. Maybe Barack Obama could redeem some middle America cred it he buffed-up his horseshoe toss on the George H.W. Bush installed horseshoe pit next to the basketball court. Pictured above with son Marvin, Mr. Bush apparently preferred to use an underhand grip, whereas, Marvin preferred the overhand. [I'll have to go with the elder Bush on this one]

6. Golf

A putting green was first installed on the South Lawn by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954. While most presidents since have been golfers of various abilities, playing golf on the White House lawn hasn’t always projected the best image of a person Americans expect to be working for them tirelessly.

In 1996 President Bill Clinton moved the putting green to its current location with the assistance of a professional course architect. Unless I knew better, I would guess the above was taken at a country club.

7. Billiards

After a long day of sporting around on the White House grounds with Heads of State and foreign dignitaries, where better to retire to and discuss the intricacies of international law than over a game of eight-ball, cutthroat, or snooker? The billiards table currently sits in the White House game room on the third floor in what used to be a bedroom.

Presidents as far back as John Adams had pool tables installed in various spots throughout the White House. Abraham Lincoln was a self-confessed “billiards addict”, who described the game as a “health inspiring, scientific game, lending recreation to the otherwise fatigued mind.”

Images: All images except; 1. Front View of White House(Scott Ableman via flickr under a Creative Commons License)and 4. Bowling Alley Concept (Bowlers’ Proprietors Assoc. of America) come courtesy of WhiteHouseMuseum.org

Campaign politics dominated the headlines in 2008, making it a banner year for the armchair pundit and the politically uninitiated alike. 2008 was also a year that issues like energy use, climate change and carbon footprints came to the forefront of popular culture and political reality. And that’s where we came in.

In the tradition of more credible media outlets, we’ve compiled our most popular stories of the year into an easily digestible top 10 list. As it is based purely on pageviews, we realize that our list of the top ten environmental politics stories of the year is by no means scientific - and we’re okay with that.

Read more of this story »

9. McCain’s Colorado River Gaffe Might Cost Him Key Western States by Timothy B. Hurst

“John McCain has again said something to cause his fellow western-state Republicans to wince at his political inexpedience and apparent naivete for the issue at hand. And even though the Senator has now recanted and begun damage control, Democrats are hoping that this one will cost him. Some even argue that the gaffe was so severe, he may have just lost Colorado.”

8. Imagine a $700 Billion Bailout for the Environment by Jennifer Lance

One of the biggest stories of 2008 (and likely again in 2009) was the economic collapse and the ensuing expanding role of the U.S. Government in backing large corporations. On October 1st, Jennifer Lance considered what that kind of money could do for the environment: “I can’t help but wonder what a $700 billion bailout would do for the environment.  What if the US government had responded to the twenty years of dire warnings by James Hansen in the same manner as the current economic crisis?  Such an aggressive response may have stopped climate change and saved our economy through green jobs and technology.”

7. Schwarzenegger Jumps on Obama’s Proper Tire Inflation Bandwagon by Timothy B. Hurst

Separating himself from his party’s leadership (again), California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger backed the launch of EcoDriving USA, a new web portal aimed at sharing gas-saving tips. About the Republican misstep that gave such rich context to this launch, I wrote: “GOP strategists saw an opportunity to pounce on this bold claim by Senator Obama. And they, along with their friend Rush Limbaugh, lampooned and ridiculed Obama’s tire pressure assertion as a joke. The McCain campaign even went so far as handing out tire gauges branded with the slogan “Obama’s Energy Plan” to reporters traveling with Senator Obama. Let me just say this, whomever was in charge of that “brilliant” move at McCain HQ should be canned.”

Read more of this story »

NASA and the Department of Energy are working together to build the first space-based observatory designed to understand the nature of dark energy.

One of the most significant scientific findings in the last decade was that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The acceleration is caused by a previously unknown dark energy that makes up approximately 70 percent of the total mass energy content of the universe. The discovery of dark energy showed that empty space is filled with a mysterious energy that increases as the universe expands. While Einstein initially proposed a cosmological constant that could explain the dark energy, it is the amount of dark energy that is difficult to understand.

Read more of this story »

In an executive order signed on Monday, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger committed to getting a third of California’s electricity from renewable sources by 2020. Schwarzenegger made the announcement while speaking at a solar panel factory in Sacramento. California Executive Order S-14-08 puts the state’s renewable energy requirement at 33% by 2020, securing its place as the most aggressive renewable energy mandate in the country.

The order comes Just three days after Schwarzenegger issued another unprecedented executive order to state agencies telling them to make preparations for rising sea levels caused by global warming.

Read more of this story »