The Green Police!

Great 80's style music.

Joe Romm hates dividends

Joe Romm hates dividends. Doesn't want the money. Would rather give it to coal companies? Maybe that's going too far. But definitely has the same distaste for giving money to people as I do for fake offsets and giveaways to utilities (he likes those though). In my mind, lobbyists are the problem. In his mind, they are part of the system and must be accommodated.

I tried to comment on his blog, but I got moderated (censored). Luckily, the blogosphere is a democratic forum, so, Joe, here you go:

First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they try to convince you that you don't want a dividend check and that a carbon price will only be "a postage stamp a day," then they lose the Massachusetts Senate seat, then you win.

Exxon behind bin Laden climate tape

I haven't done a conspiracy theory post in a while. Well, OK, maybe I have (some past favorites included Sarah Palin and anthrax), but if so, then here's another one, just for fun.

So, Bin Laden Rebukes U.S. on Climate Change

I can already hear the teabag-climate-denier refrain: “I knew that Al Gore and Bin Laden were friends, and I always thought Gore was a secret al Queda operative, climate change isn't real, I'm an idiot, I don't read books, Sarah Palin is hot, blah blah blah…”

Superficially, Saudi Arabia’s wealth comes from oil, which causes global warming. But oil is also the cause of Western interference in the Middle East. So Bin Laden wants to return to the pre-Western days, by getting the U.S. off Middle Eastern oil?

Seems consistent, but I think there's more to it.

According to Joe Romm, bin Laden called for the “wheels of the American economy” to be brought to a halt to stop global warming. Hmm, this sounds like something the Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, or the chief of Exxon might say about any potential climate legislation. Now we're getting into conspiracy theory territory.

What if the same people who are using bin Laden as their puppet to scare lawmakers into approving trillion dollar defense budgets year after year (remember the Cold War ended back in 1989), and billions in Homeland Security no-bid contracts to look at people naked at airports, and wiretap people's iPhones and blog-tap people's computers, and keep those oil profits coming in until the wells run dry...what if they're now using bin Laden to try to derail climate legislation? Right when the Senate may have the best solution in front of their noses. That's pulling out the big guns (even if the guy is on life support hidden away in some bunker under Abu Ghraib).

Just when the Middle Class is about to get a dividend, a politically supported carbon price to reduce our reliance on foreign oil, and to save our coastal cities from eminent extreme weather events (Bechtel I'm sure wanted those lucrative rebuilding contracts), only a proclamation by Bin Laden could scare people into voting against their own best interest, or at least bridge the gap until the next election cycle when the corporations will unleash a bailout's worth of campaign finance, thanks to the Supreme Court of Robotic Enslavement. Here another link to the judiciary-robot theme.

Weird to think that Bin Laden could have a climate policy. Sitting in his cave, reading James Hansen papers? Almost makes him seem like a real human (not a hologram projection created by Rumsfeld's DIA?). Next will we find out he has an opinion on universal health care, or banking reform? I assume it would involve blowing things up, kind of like the Joker in the “Dark Knight,” but I’d start to get worried if he suddenly came out for universal health care and public floggings of Goldman Sachs executives and their puppet Treasury Secretaries. The Supreme Court definitely sided with McWorld the other day with their campaign finance ruling, and if Jihad starts putting out statements favoring people over corporations, they might attract some interest from the semi-populist teabaggers, and that’s kind of troubling. (note to NSA wiretapper: reference Benjamin Barber’s book Jihad vs. McWorld)

How Obama can get back on track

Take a risk or two.

Make it clear you represent the people, not the special interests.

Break the gridlock by showing some leadership, getting tough, and not waiting around for Congress. If some Senators are giving you a hard time, let them know that you will be supporting their primary opponents in the next election.

Fire Bernanke and Geithner. They smell of Dubya economic policy, Wall Street Bailouts, and Goldman Sachs bonuses. Corporations already have too much power, time for you to represent the people, and appoint some pro-people, not pro-too-big-to-fail banks, economists (if there are any).

Make it simpler. Sure, they are complex problems, but many of them have one sentence answers. For example:

Health care: Expand Medicare to cover all Americans. There, you did it. Was that so difficult? Some of the elderly might vote against it because they don't care about their own kids or grandchildren, but it seems like every human being (not corporation) would support it. You'll need those votes, after that Supreme Court ruling.

Climate Change: The CLEAR Act. Auction permits to polluters and return the revenues back to people as a cash dividend. The CLEAR Act is only 39 pages long, unlike the 1500 page pork-fest that the House passed.

Iraq: War is over, if you want it. Bring 'em home. Make a spectacle out of it. No need to land an airplane with a "Mission accomplished" banner, but do something honorable and classy, and tell us about the peace dividend and the balanced budget. Sorry to say it, Obie, but same for Afghani-quagmire. Your approval went down after your Peace Prize "War is good" speech. People like you because you can use words and diplomacy and don't need to use guns and swagger like that previous guy. We have problems at home, and stop using these Dubya-inspired wars as excuses.

Guantanamo: Close it. Yesterday. Find a loophole, do what you need to do. This represents an unfulfilled promise, an image of powerlessness, and it bothers me.

Jobs: Disaster prep and relief (Haiti), rebuilding New Orleans, energy retrofits. Make it happen, on the fast track.

Military spending: Cut it by about 50%, balance the budget, and pay for all the domestic programs above. This will take some guts. Do you have it?

I'm telling you, if the State of the Union is the same ol' "The State of the Union is strong, settle down America, eveyrthing is just fine, G-d bless America" eloquent but without substance, we won't be impressed, and we'll be back to yearning for change we can believe in, and I wish that change was the Green Party, but our Coke and Pepsi political system only seems to allow for two parties, and so the other one, the one with no solutions, will benefit, and the American people will suffer.

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Cap-and-Trade Program Recommendations

Governor Schwarzenegger Issues Statement on Cap-and-Trade Program Recommendations

Posted using ShareThis

Notes from an Imaginarium

I saw the Terry Gilliam movie "Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus." Very Gilliam-ish, non-linear, and creative. It was great, but weird. I had to watch ESPN SportCenter for an hour afterward to get back to reality.

Here are some notes of my thoughts about themes which are open to interpretation in the movie. If you haven't see it yet, you may want to stop reading now.



The main theme was the father's (Parnassus's) fear of his daughter growing up and losing her innocence. When she turned 16 she could start making choices, and so had the capacity for "sin" which meant that the devil could take her (At the end, the "his" mirror for Valentina said "sin" in the reflection (the "H" had a slant that became the "N")). Parnassus wanted to prevent her from becoming an adult and preserve her childhood, but that would be impossible. She just wanted a "normal" life, and at the end Dr. Parnassus had to acknowledge that this was OK.

Tony (the Heath Ledger character) may have been Valentina's projection of her perfect man. So there was an element of the Fight Club two characters in one. She only slept with Tony in her imaginarium. Anton was intimidated by Tony's presence. When Anton "dies" in Tony's imaginarium, this is Anton and Valentina growing up. Then Tony is killed by Parnassus in P's imaginarium. Tony represents the transition to adulthood for Anton and Valentina, which is Parnassus' fear.

At the end of the movie, Valentina grows up, and she realizes that she really wanted a real person, Anton, not Tony from her imagination, and Parnassus lets her go live her own life.

Does this make any sense?

CNNMoney.com covers Dividends and Elinor Ostrom on the Commons

Good job CNNMoney.com for totally being on it.
The article "Fight global warming, get $1,100 a year" covers Maria Cantwell's CLEAR Act. A bit too much air time to the traders who are like, "But I want the money." But otherwise, it's the best article they've ever done.
Here's the link:

http://money.cnn.com/2009/12/23/news/economy/cap_and_dividend/

Plus it includes a great interview with Elinor Ostrom, the winner of this year's Nobel Prize in Economics. Hooray for Elinor! She's great.

Climate Scoreboard

More cool climate widgets.

What remains broken about the health care system: Fee-for-service, malpractice, lack of competition

Here's a brief health care bill analysis, excerpted from the Votemaster, a website I recommend for insider political info at http://www.electoral-vote.com/.

"When all is said and done, we may have a bill, but it really doesn't reform what everyone agrees is a broken system. What it does is have the government buy poor and semipoor people insurance within the framework of the current system. The fee-for-service paradigm, which encourages doctors to do unnecessary procedures thus driving costs (and their income) up, is still fully intact. The malpractice situation, which drives doctors to practice defensive medicine by ordering all kinds of useless tests to cover their tushes in the event of a subsequent lawsuit remains the same. The fundamental lack of competition between insurance companies, most of whom have something close to a regional monopoly does not change. In short, while 30 million people will get health insurance as a result of this bill, the factors driving health-care costs ever upward will not be broken."

My own editorial is simple: expand Medicare to all U.S. citizens.

Cap and Share (Copenhagen is Over)

Cap and Share (Copenhagen is Over)
Sung to the tune of “Happy Christmas (War Is Over)” by John Lennon and Yoko Ono
- - - - -
So this was Copenhagen
And what have you done
Another COP over
A new decade just begun
And so this was Copenhagen
I hope you had fun
The protests and speeches
But nothing got done

We face a scary future
Starting with the New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
But I have some fears

And so this was Copenhagen
The UN is not strong
The rich watch the poor drown
The world is so wrong

And so glaciers melting
Refugees and drought
Hurricanes and diseases
Makes me want to shout

A very scary future
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

And so this was Copenhagen
And what have we done
Another COP over
And a new decade just begun

And so this was Copenhagen
I hope you had fun
Next time Cap emissions
and give Shares to everyone

A very scary future
And a happy New Year
Let's hope it's a good one
Without any fear

Cap and Share it
If you want it
Cap and Share
Now...

Story of Cap & Giveaway

This video is about 10 minutes, by the Story of Stuff folks.

The Story of Cap & Trade from Story of Stuff Project on Vimeo.

Grist has a counterargument here.

I agree with the Story people that giveaways are bad, offsets are mostly a sham, and there's potential for Enron-type shenanigans. But I see why David Roberts of Grist is worried that overly broad critiques of cap and trade may sway the political outcome so much taht we'll end up with nothing, which is Exxon's divide and conquer strategy.

In the end, c'mon Obama and the Democratic majority. Do something, how about Cap and Dividend, Contraction & Convergence, or something. With Obama's 30,000 more troops being sent to slaughter, I'm at a personal all-time Obama-era low in hope for change we can believe in, just in time for Nopenhagen.

Sacrificing 30,000 troops for Lieberman's health care vote

Everyone knows the war in Afghanistan is pointless. But Lieberman is so bloodthirsty, that he probably extracted the additional 30,000 troops in exchange for his vote on health care. I can see why Obama may have taken the deal. 30 thousand American lives in exchange for health care for 30 million Americans.

But why waste the time and money? Would it be cheaper to just fly the troops to Connecticut, maybe line them up in front of Lieberman's district offices or his house, and shoot them dead now, rather than wait for them to trickle in 5 a day? Maybe this would appeal to Lieberman's budget hawk tendencies.

Oh well, thank you to the brave soldiers who are being sacrificed so that the rest of us can have health care.

Cool California

Tell McChrystal that all the new troops are going to fight climate change instead

Sorry McC. Rumsfeld had his head up his butt. His worldview was warped, and I would sympathize with you for trying to invent a reason for being in Afghanistan, but you military folks are holding a hammer and try to make everything into a nail. Now, if you could look around for a minute, you might notice that the whole biosphere is under attack, and the national security of the United States of America is threatened. The enemy? Climate change.

So, Obama, tell McC that he can have extra troops, but that they won't be sent to Afghanistan. They'll be assigned to stopping climate change, and they won't have any guns or missiles or things that kill.

By the way, Mr. Obama (and I did like your books, and I am trying to have hope and I like change), while I'm giving you orders, you could make me General of the CarbonWarRoom and let me invade Congress and the NYSE and institute a Carbon Share program. Maybe I'll take an army of wonky climate economists to Copenhagen and force the world to support a Global Climate Trust too.

To summarize, whatever the mission was in Afghanistan (helping Bush run up deficits so that Obama can't pass universal health care now?), we don't want it anymore. Bring the troops home, well, maybe leave a few Special Forces to hunt down bin Laden, but no need to try to run the whole country. Sure, I want to help women over there. Let's help fund some US AID workers and Oxfam and others that can set up shelters for battered women and schools, etc, and bring home the macho dudes with the rifles, who only make people anxious and aren't the right people to help women in burkas anyway.

Carbon War Room

Cap and Trade costs are only half the story - Auction revenues can be returned to consumers

Anti-cap and trade forces (oil companies, coal companies, and their campaign contribution recipients) are publicizing a U.S. Department of Treasury report on the costs of cap and trade. Their right-wing spin interprets the total in "new taxes" (which are actually auction revenues from the government selling permits to corporations, then having them pass costs to consumers) of between $100 billion to $200 billion a year as meaning the cost per American household could be up to $1,761 a year.

The spin is wrong for several reasons. First, it depends what you do with the money. You can return the auction revenues back to people as a dividend or share. The costs are totally different depending on what you do with the money. Look up Dallas Burtraw's papers on the RFF website for more info.

Second, each state has unique carbon costs, depending on the amount of coal in its electricity mix, investment in energy efficiency, weather (too cold or too hot and you use more heat or AC), and more. So if you're in ND, WY, or WV, sure, you'll pay more. But if you're in Vermont, CA, or even Idaho, you won't pay that much. Now, maybe you want some redistribution payments to make it more fair, and that can be done through modifying the per capita dividend or share. But let's take the right wing spin with a large grain of salt (or chunk of smoggy coal-filled toxic pollution).

Why do smears only work on good people? A Requiem for Van Jones

Why was my 6-year smear campaign against Rumsfeld less successful than Glenn Beck's 2-week smear campaign against Van Jones?

Do Dems just have no backbone, and when they get criticized they immediately run for cover? But I know Van Jones and he's no wimp. Maybe Obama can't stand up for his people, and wants to cater to the Repubs so he can get every possible vote on health care and climate. But how far will he bend? You give up Van Jones after a mere week or so?

I don't follow right wing media, so I don't know how loud their echo chamber was on Van. I don't know if the minority party Repubs had traction and could have actually used it to distract people from the important issues coming up. Is the very mention of having another commission examine 9-11 enough reason to fire a green jobs expert? What are people so afraid of? I do know that Van's a good guy, and doesn't deserve to be booted after only a few months on the job.

Is Obama going to be spineless when attacked? If so, here are some modified slogans for your next campaign: "Change we can believe in (until someone says something mean, then, we'll ask our change agents to resign)" "Change we can believe in (as long as no one ever asks any questions, and repudiates anything they ever said that was the least bit controversial, about Bush, Rumsfeld, the Iraq War, or 9-11)" "Hope (that Fox News doesn't smear anyone who works at the White House because if they do, then we'll immediately give up our whole agenda and hope they don't think of anything else to smear)" I really do hope that this isn't the case.

In counterpoint, Rumsfeld stuck around for 6 disastrous years. I wasn't smearing what Rumsfeld said about 9-11, I was smearing what he DID about it. Well, it's not really a smear if it's true. But Rumsfeld got to stick around, and Dems voted to support Bush's war plans, and to keep funding the war (even now).

In my idealistic blogosphere, smears against Rumsfeld would work, and Repub smears against good people would be ignored.

Advice for "No Impact Man"

No Impact Man, it's a stunt, don't get so defensive.
You should have spent the year going to NYC City council meetings, getting them to buy recycled toilet paper, and you'd save more trees than your patient wife who is a saint for being such a good sport just like the Supersize-Me guy's vegan girlfriend was.

We need to work for institutional change. When McDonald's began printing their logo on their napkins instead of embossing it, fitting more napkins per package needing fewer shipments, they saved more trees and reduced more GHGs than I could in my whole life.

We need a mandatory carbon cap, so that the price signal rewards good behavior, and makes Hummer drivers pay more. This could be done through a carbon tax or through cap and dividend, etc. Hopefully, No Impact Man will start promoting this, not just telling people to stop using toilet paper.

For most people, every weekend is a possibility for a low-impact day, the Sabbath. Yom Kippur is coming up, and millions of Jews will participate in a low impact day, and spend the day thinking about the impact they have made in the last year.

But Kolbert's conclusion is powerful, think about the impact you can make on those around you, don't just focus on your poor suffering patient wife. Make an impact on policy, don't just torture your wife. Hopefully you can use your book tour and publicity to promote that message, not just to defend the righteousness of your stunt.

Earth to Congress: The current health care system sucks

In case you haven't seen the movie Sicko yet, the current health care system sucks. Insurance companies are evil. 40 million people have nothing. Now fix it!

I don't care how warped your ideology is. I don't care if you're the love child of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Alan Greenspan (blech!). I don't care if you're the editor of the Wall Street Journal, you intern at the Cato Institute, and you work at the Plundermaxx Corporation. Your ideology has already been proven wrong and you are like a muttering homeless person who did too much LSD and you think you're at some free-market Woodstock dystopia.

Give it up. We both know the current system sucks. And Canada has a better one. You know what to do, you don't need me to say it. OK, I'll say it. Single-payer universal health care. I heard McGovern on NPR the other day, he said he could fix the health care system in a single line: Medicare is now extended to all Americans.

Did Hope last only 7 months?

At the climate justice march the other day, I was talking to a lady who said that it is a waste to support Obama, that he is the same as all the other corporate politicians. I disagreed and said during the 2008 election, I thought if Hillary had won it would be the same Dem centrist triangulation, but that Obama's young, multi-racial supporters would demand more progressive change, and that when Obama won, it was the signal that the Dean wing (anti-war) had beaten the Kerry wing of the party, something that should have happened in 2004.

Now I'm starting to see lefties get discouraged around (lack of) health care, and I'm surprised at how much media attention these current protesters are getting, while my recent 8 years of protests didn't seem to even cause a blip. What's up with that, "liberal" media?

A few quotes from a HuffPost article and comments show how disgruntled lefties have become:

"(for continuing to support Obama), what will we get in return? If the last six months are any indication, the answer is, "Nothing"...
"Obama is here to tamp down the aspirations of the people. To enact reforms that don't cause any fundamental change. To protect the profits for the big players."...
"warning folks to expect from Obama exactly what we have gotten so far - compromising with right-wing bullies, flip-flopping on most of his campaign promises and turning his back on his progressive base."

(back to my comments again)
I'd hate to be taken in again as naive, I'd like to view myself as more patient to get the change we need to believe in. But I can see people's point that the compromising and waffling and caving in can only go on so long, and at some point, I'd like to see Obama show some strength and twist some arms, and get what he wants. Pull out of Afghanistan, auction 100% of GHG permits, return dividends to consumers, put money towards clean energy, and not corn ethanol handouts to corporate agribusiness (offsets), stop caving in to Wall Street, and get real single-payer health care that is not a sell-out to big-pharma. It's not that complicated, is it? I'm willing to give some more benefit of the doubt, but at some point if we don't see progressive progress, the green party will get another influx of annoyed voters who are saying, "Never again," again.