is the title of this New York Times op ed by Samuel Loewenberg. I think it should be mandatory reading. The Horn of Africa is facing massive famine. Loewenberg writes, appropriately I would say,
American attention to the hunger crisis has focused on the dire conditions of Somalis, but they account for just about a third of the 13 million people affected. According to the United Nations, hunger afflicts 4.5 million people in Ethiopia and 3.75 million people in Kenya, which has about half of Ethiopia's population. An estimated half a million Kenyan children and pregnant or breast-feeding women suffer acute malnutrition.
He also writes
Unlike earthquakes or hurricanes, droughts and food price increases take time to develop, and the resulting hunger crises are forecast well in advance. From water harvesting to livestock support to cash assistance, there are a plethora of steps that could have significantly ameliorated the current crisis. Why weren't they taken?
There is more, much more, in his op ed, including why it makes more sense to send money than our excess food - the latter loses half its value in transport, while the former allows local purchase which can help build up a sustainable food production system; to build roads - transport of food stuff and broader markets for local agriculture. We know that. You can read what he has to say.
I want to use his column as a starting point for a further discussion.
We now bring you this short break from the Virginia elections for a matter of extreme urgency for our planet:
I was at Lafayette Park and around the White House today, participating in and covering the massive protest against the proposed Keystone XL dirty tar sands oil pipeline from Canada to the U.S. For now, I'm mainly going to focus on getting video and photos (click here for my Flickr set) up (see the "flip"). Let me just say GREAT job by the amazing, indefatigable environmental activist Bill McKibben for organizing this. Also, in general, there was tremendous energy there today, tons of young people, totally peaceful (yet determined), demanding forcefully that President Obama keep his promise to stop the destruction of this planet's climate and to get us off of our oil addiction. I couldn't agree more.
P.S. Good seeing The Green Miles there, although we got separated early on and never ran into each other again in the enormous crowd.
It appears that the good folks at Dominion "Global Warming Starts Here" Power have really stepped in it this time. Earlier today, I was on a conference call with the Maryland-DC-Virginia Solar Energy Industry Association (MDV-SEIA), at which several speakers from the solar and renewable energy industries slammed Dominion for its "punitive," "unlawful," "ludicrous" actions. The full press release put out by MDV-SEIA is below the "fold," but here are a few key points made in the release and/or the conference call.
*According to MDV-SEIA Director Frances Hodsoll, "Dominion's proposed charges [on solar arrays installed at a home or business] are excessive and potentially unlawful on its customers who install solar systems."
*Hodsoll adds that the charges also are "punitive to those customers who own clean renewable solar systems, actually harm all Virginians, and are the result of a misguided policy."
*Hodsoll points out that "Dominion's calculations fail to give due and equal consideration to the fact that solar power reduces operating costs and future infrastructure needs."
*According to Hodsoll, "Dominion's charges will severely dampen solar energy growth in Virginia -discouraging these clean sources of electricity and unnecessarily impeding the local job creation."
*Bottom line, according to Hodsoll: these charges are "not justified," "punitive," "discriminat[ory] against people who put solar on their rooftops," set a terrible precedent for Virginia as well as for other states, and are possibly "unlawful." Other than that, they're just peachy! :)
P.S. I'd be very curious to hear what Dominion's substantive (aka, not-Herman-Cain-like) response to all this might be.
Great speech, too bad it isn't really what the REAL Bob McDonnell had to say. Instead, this is "Virginia Sierra Club activist Daryl Downing giv[ing] the clean energy speech Bob McDonnell should have given (but did not) at the Governor's Conference on Energy in Richmond." For his part, McDonnell did the usual Republican/corporate tool "drill baby drill" and "mine baby mine" routine -- back to the 19th and early 20th centuries, in other words. Such visionaries, these Republican'ts. (snark)
The top line numbers were impressive, to say the least: more than 100,000 solar jobs in America, solar jobs up to 24 percent growth over the next 12 months, solar industry growth that is 10 times faster than the national economy as a whole over the last 12 months. However, not all states benefited equally. As Luecke discusses in the video, it basically comes down to whether a particular state has adopted smart energy policies -- or not.
As Luecke explains, "the states that are doing well in terms of solar job creation are the states that have those integral policies like [Renewable Portfolio Standards -- RPS], net metering...local rebate programs...third-party purchase agreements." In contrast, those states that have chosen not to put strong pro-solar policies into place are failing to reap the benefits that more enlightened states are seeing.
The story points out numerous examples in which, contrary to the right wing line that climate scientists are "alarmist", climate change impacts are proving worse and coming quicker than most scientists have predicted:
A decade ago scientists predicted the Arctic wouldn't be ice-free in summer until 2100. But the extent of summer ice in the North has rapidly shrunk and today covers 70 percent of the area it did in 1979. Now some scientists think the Arctic could be naught but open water within 25 years.
In August, a team lead by University of York researcher Chris Thomas published a study showing that plants and animals are moving to higher elevations twice as fast as predicted in response to rising temperatures. They're migrating north three times faster than expected, they found.
As for extinctions,[...]the real-world rates are more than double what the best computer modeling showed: While the studies, on average, warned of a 7 percent extinction rate, field observations suggested the rate was closer to 15 percent.
In short, scientists -- and I would add politicians, the media and much of the environmental community -- have been too conservative in their estimates. In trying to avoid scaring people or overstating the case, too many have understated it, and in the process, failed to rouse the world to action to prevent the awful consequences that are already beginning to come true.
Last night at a fundraiser for the Virginia Progressive Caucus (organized by Del. Patrick Hope) in Arlington, prior to a showing of the powerful, anger-inducing (against the rapacious natural gas industry) documentary film Gasland (on the hazards of natural gas "fracking," of which there are many!) two important environmental leaders - JR Tolbert from the Sierra Club and Jeffrey Painter of the League of Conservation Voters spoke about Virginia energy policy.
JR Tolbert focused on fracking in Southwest Virginia, as well as Governor McDonnell's foolish focus on making Virignia the "energy capital of the East Coast" solely through fossil fuels. Tolbert pointed out that fracking injects chemicals into the ground that have an impact on local communities. The question, in Tolbert's mind, is "do you choose corporations and corporate profits over public health and safe drinking water?" Sadly, it appears that Bob McDonnell sides heavily with corporate profits over public health. Tolbert also emphasized the crucial importance of maintaining our "Virginia State Senate environmental firewall" against the climate science deniers and "radical, anti-environmental agenda" of Bob McDonnell et al. So, get out and vote and protect that firewall!
Jeff Painter reiterated Tolbert's point about the crucial importance of keeping Democratic control of the Senate "firewall" against the Republicans' radical, anti-environment agenda. Painter then talked about uranium mining, and the need to keep the ban in place. Virginia Uranium, which is actually a Canadian company, has been lobbying hard, and spending boatloads of money (including to buy people off), to convince Virginia legislators to lift that ban. Painter emphasized the importance of contacting your legislator and letting them know what you think about this issue (e.g., oppose lifting the ban!). I asked Painter whether Virginia Uranium's lobbying efforts, including flying lawmakers to France and Canada, have been effective. According to Painter, they haven't been particularly effective, "for all the money that they have spent." So now, they're looking at other alternatives, maybe through the budget process and/or through the governor's office via regulations. In other words, these people are relentless, and they get paid good money to do this, so they're not going to stop until they get their way - or, better yet, are defeated once and for all.
P.S. The music in the background is the intro to the film Gasland. I actually think it's appropriate that it was playing during Tolbert's and Painter's remarks.
If the latest job numbers from The Solar Foundation's (TSF) National Solar Jobs Census 2011 are any indication, the bloviating by anti-solar jobs pundits and politicians is...well...really wrong. Unhinged from reality wrong.
Unlike self-appointed clean energy experts, such as Rush Limbaugh and the Wall Street Journal's Stephen Moore, TSF Executive Director Andrea Luecke is actually an expert on such things. At TSF (a Tigercomm client), she authors the Solar Census and leads work on two U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) grants: Solar America Communities and Solar Instructor Training Network. And, she used to run the City of Milwaukee's U.S. DOE Solar America Cities program.
Luecke stopped by the Scaling Green Communicating Energy lecture series to talk about the Census, a follow-up to the 2010 census. Together, the two years' of data show meaningful trend lines that cannot be ignored.
Among them is the fact that the U.S. solar industry has grown 10 times faster than the national economy as a whole over the last 12 months, in the middle of the worst economy since the Great Depression. What about the fossil fuels that underwrite many anti-solar pundits and politicians? Those sectors saw a net job loss of two percent.
I guess the "hate renewable energy jobs" crowd that has been using Solyndra to run down other clean energy companies [see here and here have to re-cork the champagne. Consider other Census findings:
A recent, blockbuster article in Bloomberg detailed how the dirty energy baron Koch brothers - who, the article points out, "blazed a path to riches -- in part, by making illicit payments to win contracts, trading with a terrorist state, fixing prices, neglecting safety and ignoring environmental regulations" - flouted U.S. law by "[selling] millions of dollars of petrochemical equipment to Iran, a country the U.S. identifies as a sponsor of global terrorism." The connection between oil, corruption, and terrorism detailed in the Bloomberg article sounds like something out of the film Syriana. But in this case, it's not fiction, it's absolutely real: the connection between oil, corruption and Middle East-based terrorism cannot be clearer.
Barely over a week after the Bloomberg story broke, the oil-corruption-terrorism nexus was made even more glaringly obvious with breaking news of an Iran-backed terror plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Adel al-Jubeir.
In the Iranian plot outlined on Tuesday by Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in Washington, officials in the elite Quds Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps are accused of scheming to kill Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States by hiring assassins from aMexican drug cartelfor $1.5 million. The main suspects were identified as Mansour J. Arbabsiar, a naturalized American citizen of Iranian descent from Corpus Christi, Tex., who has been taken into custody, and Gholam Shakuri, described by the Justice Department as a member of the Quds Force, who is at large and believed to be in Iran.
The key thing to remember is that these are some of the most heavily subsidized jobs in the U.S. economy. They are subsidized at a level that makes anything Obama did with the stimulus bill look like pocket change.
Why is that so? Well, it's widely known by now, at least in economist circles, that the coal power industry grossly underpays for the damages it does. That's the unanimous conclusion of a flurry of new research that's been done on the question: see, e.g., the National Research Council (NRC), Harvard Medical School's Paul Epstein, or last week's bombshell from Yale's William Nordhaus and colleagues, which found that coal-fired power plants do 21 cents of unpaid damages for every single kilowatt hour of power they produce. Economists call these costs "externalities," but really they amount to subsidies -- the public is paying these costs on the coal companies' behalf. [...]
And these subsidies are not investments that pay back over time, like loans to innovative renewable energy firms. These subsidies come in the form of babies with birth defects, asthmatic kids, and adults with respiratory and heart ailments. These subsidies pay negative returns. They subtract value. All in the name of propping up a dying industry.
The Alexandria plant alone was estimated to kill 37 people & sicken hundreds of others every single year. But the coal industry keeps looking for someone to blame, and it's not just on the human costs of its pollution. As Coal Tattoo's Ken Ward Jr. reports, coal companies are desperately trying to pin falling Appalachian production on regulations & conservationists. That's instead of accepting the simple fact that the low-hanging fruit of Appalachian coal has long since been picked and what little is left is getting more & more expensive to blast out. For today's coal industry, reality is hard to face.
They don't make Republicans like they used to. And they sure don't make them like our former Senator John Warner -- honest, gentlemanly, respectful, and willing to take stands that don't conform to his party's orthodoxy.
Warner continues to expand his profile in courage even in retirement, as a leader in the effort to make the GOP come to its senses on climate change. As a senior advisor to the Pew Project on National Security, Energy, and Climate Change, Warner is in the front ranks of the campaign by a number of retired Republicans to convince their party leaders and members to pull their heads out of the sand and stop trying to drown scientific reality under Big Oil, Gas and Coal-funded climate denial campaigns.
Among the other brave Republicans in this effort are former Secretary of State George Shultz, ex-Congressmen Sherwood Boehlert and Bob Inglis, and John McCain '08 advisor Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Shultz in particular is credited with helping to defeat the California referendum to overturn that state's climate change law.
Sadly, it is more common for politicians to show courage in retirement than in office. As the National Journal article hyperlinked above notes, even so-called "maverick" Republicans like John McCain, Lindsey Graham and Lisa Murkowski, who used to lead on this issue, are now avoiding it to appease the Tealiban.
But just compare John Warner with another ex-Senator of ours, George Allen, who took the precisely opposite path of selling out to the fossil fuel industries so as to peddle their propaganda. And guess which one of these former Senators is more acceptable to today's Republicans? Oy, what a party.
All I can say is: Thank you, John Warner. Somewhere, Teddy Roosevelt is smiling at you.
Back in February, a new Harvard study found that "when the entire life-cycle of coal is considered -- extraction, transport, processing, and combustion," they add up to a cost to the American people of "roughly US$300 to US$500 billion dollars annually." Then, in April, we wrote about our interview with Professor Michael Hendryx of West Virginia University, whose research has found that coal mining "is a loser economically, environmentally, and in terms of public health." Now we've got yet another economic analysis coming to the same conclusions.
When the authors add in highly conservative estimates of the cost of carbon dioxide pollution, they find that "the damages caused by oil- and coal-fired power plants are between 30 and 40 percent higher." With an estimated social cost of carbon -- a damage estimate of global warming pollution -- of $65 (far less than other estimates), the [Gross External Damages - GED] for coal-fired generators is $0.21/kilowatts.
In other words, instead of being "cheap" and "affordable," coal is actually the costliest fuel for electricity.
"The findings show that, contrary to current political mythology, coal is underregulated," Legal Planet's Dan Farber comments. "On average, the harm produced by burning the coal is over twice as high as the market price of the electricity. In other words, some of the electricity production would flunk a cost-benefit analysis. This means that we're either not using enough pollution controls or we're just overusing coal as a fuel."
Actually, we're doing both: not using enough pollution controls AND overusing coal as a fuel. Fortunately, we know how to eliminate both of those problems: by removing coal subsidies, by internalizing coal's externalities, and by removing the obstacles holding back clean energy from rapidly taking coal's place in America's energy picture.
Is this energy summit, being held on October 4 in Alexandria as part of Bob McDonnell's newly-announced "Energy Month" in Virginia, supposed to be satire, a bad joke, or is McDonnell actually serious? Just a few problems here. First, check out the people on the panels, listed below. Can we get any more biased, against clean energy and the environment, than this?!?
Oil and Gas Development: The Onshore and Offshore Challenge
8:45am Keynote: Honorable Mark Warner, U.S. Senate, Virginia
8:55am Remarks: Mr. Terry McCallister, Chairman and CEO, Washington Gas
9:00am Remarks: Mr. Mike Ward, Executive Director, Virginia Petroleum Council
9:05am Discussion: Beginning with Governor Robert Bentley of Alabama (more on climate science "skeptic" Bentley here)
Nuclear Energy: Renaissance or Requiem
9:30am Keynote: Honorable Lindsey Graham, U.S. Senate, South Carolina
9:40am Remarks: Mr. Stephen Kuczynski, Chairman, President & CEO, Southern
Nuclear Operating Company
9:50am Discussion Beginning with Governor Haley Barbour of Mississippi
EPA Regulations and Impact on Energy and the Economy
10:15am Keynote: Honorable Joe Manchin III, U.S. Senate, West Virginia
10:25am Remarks: Mr. Kevin Crutchfield, CEO, Alpha Natural Resources, Inc.
10:35am Discussion Beginning with Governor Bob McDonnell of Virginia
A few comments. First, where are the advocates for clean energy? Where are the voices for energy development that's safe for the environment? Where are the non-corporate voices? Where are the regular Virginians who would be harmed by oil spills, global warming, mountaintop removal coal mining, etc?
As usual, George Allen is not just wrong, but wildly, crazily, pants-on-fire wrong on an extremely important topic. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, as Allen was wrong when he voted 96% of the time with George W. Bush. And he was wrong when he said that Northern Virginia, and the people who live there, are not "real" Virginians. And he was wrong when he said this:
If everything were on the free market system, what would win? Coal, oil and natural gas. There's not much subsidies at all for coal, it's highly regulated. The depreciation allowances for oil are about the same that you would want to do for any sort of investments. If there weren't the enormous mandates and subsidies that have really gotten out of control in the ethanol area, wind power, solar, there's no way they could compete in the marketplace. We almost have a Don Quixote type energy policy in our country, where we're using the medieval technology of wind power, tilting at windmills...If you had a pure, free marketplace approach, what would win are those that are the most reliable, the most efficient, and the other thing is they're American as well...
In fact, according to a new study by DBL investors, George Allen has things totally, 180-degrees wrong and bass-ackwards. Of course, given that he's paid a lot of money to lie for the dirty energy industry, that's not a big surprise, but still...those are some serious Big Lies by our pal "Felix Macacawitz" right there.
It turns out, according to a careful analysis of the history of energy subsidies in this country, that "[f]ar from there being a perfect 'free market' in energy throughout America's history, actually "[e]nergy innovation has driven America's growth since before the 13 colonies came together to form the United States, and government support has driven that innovation for nearly as long." Let's repeat that: since the days of the U.S. colonies, the government has had its finger on the scale, big time, in the ways we produce, transport, and consume energy in this country. Anything else is nothing more than a fanciful, farciful myth/Big Lie spun by industry hacks like George Allen.
Where has that government support gone? Check out the pie chart above (click to "embiggen"). What it shows is clear: cumulative federal subsides for oil and gas, at $447 billion, utterly dwarf those for non-ethanol renewables (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.), which received just $5.9 billion in federal largesse. That's a 75:1 ratio in favor of oil and gas. And that's not even counting state subsidies to fossil fuels, which have been enormous as well. It's also not even counting indirect subsidies, such as military operations in support of oil flows from the Persian Gulf, etc. -- another enormous number. Finally, it's certainly not counting the environmental "externalities" of fossil fuels. But even if we don't get into either indirect subsidies or externalities, the findings here remain crystal clear: federal support for fossii fuels has been enormous in U.S. history, continues to this day, and utterly dwarfs support for renewable energy.
In sum, there hasn't been a "free market" in energy in U.S. history, going back to a protective coal tariff in 1789, and there most certainly isn't one today. So George Allen's wrong if he thinks there ever has been a free market in energy in this country. But he's even more wrong, pants-on-fire wrong, when he claims that fossil fuels haven't received much in terms of government welfare, and he's also pants-on-fire wrong when he says that subsidies to renewable energy have been larger than for dirty energy. In fact, the numbers clearly show that it's the exact opposite, with government support for dirty energy (plus nuclear and hideous corn-based ethanol as well) dwarfing support for wind and solar. As usual, in George Allen/Tea Party land, up is down, black is white, bad is good, war is peace, etc.
OK, not that there was much doubt about it, but after watching this unhinged tirade, I think we can all agree that Morgan Griffith is completely, unequivocally nuts. He's also completely, unequivocally wrong, with every word he spews in his floor speech in the House of Representatives. What's truly astounding is that someone this ignorant, this angry, frankly this unstable, can possibly BE in the House of Representatives. For whatever reason, though, he is, and it's extremely unfortunate (emphasis on the word "extreme") for his district, for Virginia, and for America.
OK, enough of that looniness -- I feel like I need to take a hot shower after watching the Griffith video. Now, watch on the "flip" as Gerry Connolly demolishes Griffith and his fellow riders on the crazy "TRAIN." What "TRAIN" is that, you ask? I'll let Rep. Connolly explain:
...the bill is extraordinary even for the most anti-environmental House of Representatives in American history. The Republican leadership has attempted to pass over 110 anti-environmental bills, amendments, and riders, but the TRAIN Act would be one of the most destructive for America's environment and our public health. It appears that the Republican leadership took every anti-environmental bill, rider, amendment, and night-time fantasy of the Koch brothers and wrapped them into a single legislative package called the TRAIN Act.
Every president wants to leave a favorable legacy behind, one that scores of future generations of Americans will look at with nostalgia and admiration. But if President Obama wishes this for himself, signing off on the Keystone XL pipeline is the worst way of showing it. As proposed, the Keystone XL pipeline would extend all the way from Alberta, Canada to Texas. That's nearly 2,000 miles of pipeline!
But the large distance itself is not the core issue in the matter. What's primarily at issue is the possibility for a leak, a break, or another catastrophe involving any portion of the pipeline. Situated over some of America's most beloved and valued ecosystems and sources of drinking water, any such catastrophe could make BP's oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico look like the best of all possible worlds.
It's understandable that President Obama wants to appease particular elements within the business community, the electorate, and numerous other constituent groups by giving the "all clear" to construct the Keystone XL pipeline. But when American's voted for change, many such as myself voted for a change in the way we deal with environmental and economic issues. When as many unknown variables enter the environmental equation as in the case of the Keystone XL pipeline, then a hold should be placed on whatever might cause human and environmental harm until the unknown variables are found and properly addressed.
The proposed Keystone XL pipeline has become the most important environmental decision facing President Obama before the 2012 election and sparked nationwide opposition, from Nebraska ranchers to former Obama campaigners. A petition with 617,428 names opposing the pipeline will be delivered to the White House today.
Over the course of the two-week sit-in 1,252 people were arrested, including top climate scientists, landowners from Texas and Nebraska, former Obama for America staffers, First Nations leaders from Canada, and notable individuals including Bill McKibben, former White House official Gus Speth, NASA scientist Dr. James Hansen, actor Daryl Hannah, filmmaker Josh Fox, and author Naomi Klein.
"Back home we are fighting to protect our land and water. This week, we decided to bring that fight to the President's doorstep," said Jane Kleeb, Director of BOLD Nebraska, who led a delegation of Nebraskans who were arrested this morning. "We are acting on our values and expect our President to act as well."
Despite the 1,252 arrests and about a thousand more people rallying in Lafayette Park, the White House is continuing its code of silence: "We heard not one word from them," McKibben told the New York Times.
More details, photos and a video from Saturday's protest after the jump.
If you're in DC, stop by the White House and express your support for these folks, staging a sit-in at the White House in an attempt to stop approval of the proposed Keystone XL tar sands Pipeline. Why are they doing this? Because, as Tar Sands Action explains, "The tar sands represent a catastrophic threat to our communities, our climate, and our planet. We urge you to demonstrate real climate leadership by rejecting the requested permit for the Keystone XL pipeline and instead focus on developing safe, clean energy." Why the urgency? Because "President Barack Obama will decide as early as September whether to light a fuse to the largest carbon bomb in North America...the 1,700-mile long Keystone XL Pipeline that would transport this dirtiest of petroleum fuels all the way to Texas refineries."
President Obama: say NO to this pipeline. It's wrong in every way, at a time when climate change is accelerating, and also when we urgently need to be getting off of fossil fuels and onto clean, renewable energy (wind, solar, geothermal, energy efficiency, etc.). This really isn't that complicated; in fact, the only reason it's even a question at all is that the oil industry, the wealthiest industry the world has ever known, has been applying enormous pressure on our politicians to "drill baby drill," regardless of the disastrous environmental consequences. In the case of tar sands, it's basically "drill baby drill" on steroids from an environmental damage perspective. Why on earth would we move in this direction, especially when there's a much, much better way? Well, we shouldn't, and the folks in front of the White House are putting their bodies on the line to try and stop this thing. For that, we should all be eternally grateful -- but even better, we should lend them every bit of support we can.
Yes, this is a tough time to read the news. From the Republicans' economic terrorism to the bloodbath in Oslo, it's pretty grim out there. You just want to throw away your papers and smartphones and iPads and go for a walk in the park - except that then you might melt, since decades of inaction and denial on climate change have now produced Warmaggedon.
But don't give up hope. We - and the media especially - tend to focus on the bad news, but there's always progress being made too. Like, amidst the vast flock of politicians abandoning all principle and reason to kiss up to Big Oil and Big Coal and Big Kochs, the one the other day who said "Enough!"
That would be New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who pledged $50 million of his own smackers to the Sierra Club campaign to stop coal-fired power plants. We're talking real money here - as he put it in a tweet, "Bloomberg is all in."
As if any more evidence were needed to demonstrate the purely ideological basis upon which so many within the Republican Congress have based their policy decisions upon, the Better Use of Light Bulbs Act is another ringing example. Eric Cantor (R-VA) voted against this act, an act that would have phased out the energy inefficient incandescent light bulb in favor of more efficient light bulbs like LED's. Thus, making the U.S. a less energy intensive country appears to be a low priority for many within the Republican controlled House.
The irony of the situation is that while most Republicans in the House call for "energy independence" and "energy security," they continually vote down what they apparently perceive to be "liberal" acts that would, in fact, promote more efficient energy use in the U.S. Even in this toxic political environment, what is best for the country shouldn't be a matter of where the ideas come from. But the Republican Party, in both houses of Congress, has epitomized the idea of irresponsible governance.
Not only has this morose party attacked more efficient energy use, they have attacked one of the few agencies whose mission is to protect environmental and human health, the EPA. The Republicans in Congress claim that the EPA is simply attempting to increase its power, totally ignoring the facts on the ground. What the Republican Party is really saying is that their friends and campaign contributors in Big Business feel ill at ease in complying with environmentally friendly business practices. God forbid if big businesses have to also focus on protecting the ecosystems and human populations that surround them!
This is, of course, where we are at right now, a battle between big business and environmental stewardship. What is often lost in the raging debates is that environmental health is also part and parcel with human health. If the former is sick, the latter will no doubt be as well. The Republican Party is in effect destroying human health with their assault on environmental protection.
The purpose of Blue Virginia is to cover Virginia politics from a progressive and Democratic perspective. This is a group blog and a community blog. We invite everyone to comment here, but please be aware that profanity, personal attacks, bigotry, insults, rudeness, frequent unsupported or off-point statements, and "trolling" (NOTE: that includes outright lies, whether about climate science, or what other people said, or whatever) are not permitted and, if continued, will lead to banning. For more on trolling, see the Daily Kos FAQs. Also note that diaries may be deleted if they do not contain at least 2 solid paragraphs of original text; if not, please use the comments section of a relevant diary. For more on writing diaries, click here. Thanks, and enjoy!
It appears that the good folks at Dominion "Global Warming Starts Here" Power have really stepped in it this time. Earlier today, I was on a conference call with the 
Cross-posted at 
Cross posted from 
Cross-posted from 
Every president wants to leave a favorable legacy behind, one that scores of future generations of Americans will look at with nostalgia and admiration. But if President Obama wishes this for himself, signing off on the Keystone XL pipeline is the worst way of showing it. As proposed, the 
Cross-posted at 
Cross posted from 
