Details
Category: Politics
Hits: 10785

How anyone in this supposedly enlightened day and age can actually find a “good side” to the nagging problem of global warming seems at once to be quite beyond the pale. With all the scientific evidence backing the issue's devastating effects on our battered Earth, it is simply absurd that anyone could be that stupid.

But stupid is as stupid does, as a wise character once said, and so Maine Governor Paul LePage has, in an astounding and shameless display of bare-faced folly, reached far and wide and come up with a crackpot theory about global warming that goes against all evidence to the contrary.

“Everybody looks at the negative effects of global warming, but with the ice melting, the Northern Passage has opened up,” LePage said recently at a transportation conference. “So maybe, instead of being at the end of the pipeline, we’re now at the beginning of a new pipeline.”

Sure, Gov. LePage, a new pipeline ... a pipeline to Hell on Earth.

Of course, LePage's screwball theory would have nothing to do with the possibility of financial gain, now would it? According to Daily Kos, perhaps LePage's special arrangement with an Icelandic shipping company whose president feels much the same brings to light their mutual belief that utilizing a Northern Passage route to ship goods into Maine is a simply grand idea.

Read more: Maine Governor Sees the “Bright Side” of Global Warming Add new comment

Details
Category: Politics
Hits: 4626

Pollution-wary government officials in Ontario, Canada have taken the Green pledge to heart and will finally introduce legislation this week that will not only completely ban coal burning within its boundaries, but will also prohibit the construction of any new coal plants within the province.

Ontario also expects to complete the conversion of the huge Nanticoke Generation Station to biomass by the end of 2013. At one time, the plant was the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in all of Ontario, but provided only 4 gigawatts of baseline electricity. Now it will serve to “top off” demands during peak electrical consumption hours, having had about half of its generating units dismantled over the past few years.

Not that the Province of Ontario is short of power. No, not by a longshot. With an aggressive combination of ultra efficient habits and an effective renewables reclamation program, and then by adding nuclear and natural gas into the electricity generation equation, Ontario has actually become a major exporter of excess electricity. Last year alone, the province sold 10 terawatts of redundant energy to Canada's surrounding territories and provinces.

Read more: Ontario Officials Say “Coal, Be Gone” Add new comment

Details
Category: Politics
Hits: 5284
In late January, during Obama’s second Inaugural Address, the president ushered in his second term with a promise to respond to “the threat of climate change.” He added that “the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.” Environmentalists and the Scientific community were pleased that action would finally be taken to tackle global warming. However, Obama’s recent support of the Keystone XL Pipeline seems to be in stark opposition to that promise.
image courtesy of http://www.treehugger.com/fossil-fuels/memo-obama-denying-keystone-xl-good-politics.html

 
Van Jones, Former Obama administration greens jobs advisor and long-time Obama supporter, has recently spoken out against the President over his support of said pipeline. Jones says, "If after he gave that speech for his inauguration, the first thing he does is approve a pipeline bringing tar sands through America, the first thing that pipeline runs over is the credibility of the President on his climate policy."

Jones continues with challenge for President Obama, "If he honestly believes that this pipeline, which will be a huge part of his legacy, will be a good thing he should call it the Obama Tar Sands Pipeline but if he has any pause in doing that he shouldn't do it."
Read more: The Obama Tar Sands Pipeline Add new comment

Details
Category: Politics
Hits: 4761
 
The disastrous tornado that recently devastated Oklahoma has left some dead, others injured, and many without homes. There has been much debate about how to provide the much needed aid to victims. The debate around how to disburse aid is divided largely on party lines, with Republicans demanding that relief spending be offset before it is sent, and Democrats arguing that budgeting should be dealt with after Oklahomans are taken care of.
 
Image source:  http://www.hoax-slayer.com/oil-rig-tornado-photo.shtml


For instance, Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) has stated that relief spending must be offset by spending cuts elsewhere in the federal budget. Ironically, Sen. Inhofe (R-OK), who voted against relief for victims of hurricane Sandy, is strongly in favor of relief for his constituents in Oklahoma. When pressed for answers about this inconsistency, Inhofe explained that “that was totally different … for instance that was supposed to be in New Jersey, they had things in the Virgin Islands, they were fixing roads there, they were putting roofs on houses in Washington, D.C.”However, as Salon's Joan Walsh points out, this is incredibly dishonest, as the destruction from hurricane Sandy did, in fact, cause damage in those areas.

Republicans are quick to point out that the $11.6 billion that FEMA has available for disaster relief should be sufficient to cover the costs associated with the tornado. Democrats worry that additional funds may be required, and that if that happens, the funds shouldn't be given conditionally. As Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Barbara Mikulski (D-Md) said, "This is not the time for a 'budgeteering' battle.” She may have a good point about this, as vital aid for hurricane Sandy was delayed by several weeks while Republicans debated budget technicalities.
Read more: Who Pays For Tornado Relief? Easy. End Subsidies To Oil Companies! Add new comment

Details
Category: Politics
Hits: 3813
 

As if destroying the planet wasn't enough, climate change is set to make millions of people homeless and starving.

According to Economist and Climate Change expert Lord Stern, "... Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, however. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there."

 
This seems an awfully high price to pay for fuel sources like gas and coal.
Add new comment
  1. What if Solar Energy Was Fairly Subsidized?
  • You are here:  
  • Home
  • Politics