(Okay, I've acccepted this is more than a one diary issue). A long time ago there were two bills; a renewable energy bill and a building efficiency bill. Over a wild and wacky session, these bills joined together into what came to be known as the global warming bill. Advocates in each chamber joined together on the new hybrid bill, whose efficiency element was going to cost a little money. To fill this gap, there was first the fuels surcharge - which got (thankfully) dumped as being too regressive. After fits and starts, and in the 11th hour, came the new funding source; the legendary tax that primarily targeted Vermont Yankee.
So advocates moved forward, re-energized. What they didn't realize was that the old bill was gone, and what was in its place was more complicated. By appending the Yankee tax, they tapped into a surprisingly deep and wide resevoir of frustration and energy from the many on the left who have felt that VY has been given a sweetheart deal at the expense of Vermoners' environment and safety. As such, what had been a global warming bill to some was now a Vermont Yankee bill to others (and to some it was equally both).
Fast forward to the mistake in timing that was this week's decision to put the funding source back on the table (instead of holding that card until the veto session) in order to call Douglas's thin bluff at taking the issue seriously. The truth is that no matter when they would've pulled this card, the reaction on the left would have been similarly angry/frustrated/confused.
As a proponent of the global warming bill from early on, I've always looked at it AS a "global warming" bill, and have only just come to understand that many saw it otherwise. To those that saw it as a VY bill, this move is utter capitulation (and I'm not talking about the predatory Greens with their own anti-Dem agenda, such as Colby-boy), leaving those of us more firmly in the global warming camp wondering why people are talking as though the bill has been compromised. But with the narrative on the Dem leadership that's in full circulation; that they run away from controversy and cave upon meeting conflict, it's the capitulation argument that rings true for people.
A lot of lessons here. The big one is that Legislative Leadership should get out more and listen more (as should I, frankly). If they (we) had, they might have realized what they were really doing in plugging into the simmering, untended political lesion that is Vermont Yankee. It's clear that the VY tax couldn't be added as casually and modularly as one might add a sales tax increase, and that reality is just now dawning on those in leadership, as well as folks like me.
The other lesson is that Dem leadership better not give an inch on the global warming elements of the bill in the upcoming veto override session. I'm told both the House and Senate intend to hold firm this time. If they know what's good for them, they'll stick to that.
The AP is reporting that Governor Douglas, Senator Shumlin, and House Natural Resources Chair Representative Robert Dostis are scheduled to meet tomorrow to discuss the global warming bill and the upcoming July veto-override session. Right on the heels of that announcement comes this from the Senate Prez-Pro-Tem's office:
The leadership of the Vermont House and Senate today announced that in light of Governor Douglas's veto of H.520 and his objection to the source of funding for the bill, Senator Shumlin and Speaker Symington will propose a suspension of the rules during the veto override session on July 11 to consider the same bill with the funding for an all fuels efficiency utility removed. Since the legislation vetoed by the governor stipulates that funding for the all fuels efficiency utility will be needed starting in 2009, this proposal would allow the legislature to consider how to fund the utility when it reconvenes in January. In the meantime, the planning process for the utility, as well as other key provisions in H. 520, will be enacted
This announcement is one of two things; either another example of our legislative leadership running to move the goalposts and compromise before negotiations have even begun... OR... a(n attempt at a) savvy move to put the Governor on the defensive, and put the media focus of tomorrow's meeting squarely on the content of the bill and not the "dreaded" funding scheme vis-a-vis Vermont Yankee.
My money's on the latter, but its risky. Still, the papers and internet are replete with conservatives claiming that they'd be all for this bill with a different funding scheme. This calls their bluff, and leaves them nowhere to hide if they really are global warming deniers. It also puts the BS to the GOP nonsense line that the bill is all about "getting" Vermont Yankee.
Unfortunately, it also leaves the Dems nowhere to go in a July compromise, but to take actual policy content out of the bill. It's a good ploy, but the risk seems perhaps disproportionate and the timing dangerously off. We'll see. The content of the full press release is below the fold, along with a poll as to whether or not you think this is a wise strategic move...
Jim Douglas hardly tries to conceal his snarky streak anymore.Freyne has a quote where Douglas lets his contempt for concerns about climate change shine through:
"I’ve said many times that Vermont has such a small imprint on the surface of the planet that we can do as much as possible and still not save a single polar bear or make any significant impact on global warming,"said Vermont's Republican CEO.
"But China can have an impact because of the environmental challenges the environmental officials we’ve met with recognize and need to deal with. I would hope that Vermonters who have a serious interest in climate change would devote their time and energy to places like China
Looking for the perfect gift for Dan DeWalt this summer? Click here.
Shad 2, Vermont Yankee 1. A judge has again ruled that Vermont Yankee can't dump its water discharge into the Connecticut River (potentially harming fish) after receiving permission from the Douglas Administration to do so.
Speaking of haters, are authorities getting involved with the threats received by Rep. Bill Lippert (D-Hinesburg) thanks to Bill O'Reilly? This site and other Vermont sites have received hits from law enforcement via a Google search for "bill lippert fag". It's not the norm for people in law enforcement to use department computers for personal use, so this is likely a sign of some sort of official inquiry or investigation. Book 'em Dano, I sez.
Climate Change has sure been the topic of the week.
Internationally, of course, Bush predictably rejected German Chancellor Merkel's proposals for greenhouse gas reduction benchmarks, but allowed her to attempt to save face by agreeing to some other meaningless promise to look into the matter, once again. Wonder how many backrubs that measly accomodation cost her.
Locally of course, Governor Douglas followed through on his promise to veto the Vermont Legislature's Climate Change bill, and on news that Al Gore's aid had been enlisted by the Legislative leadership, Douglas quickly cobbled together his own proposal in a failed attempt to steal Gore's thunder (instead, I think he may have added to it, based on the prodigious news coverage).
Douglas's plan at a glance seems odd. A thrown together jumble of half-considered ideas to provide loans to Vermonters for energy efficiency. As if low-income Vermonters will fall in line to heap more debt on themselves (of course, the banks must love it, as these loans would be guaranteed by the state). No idea where the funding for those guarantees will come from (well, we know it won't be Entergy). As for incentives for renewables, I haven't heard anything, and exactly what's supposed to be done with this proposal now that the biennium is done is anyone's guess. Wait til next year I s'pose. All in all, Douglas couldn't have piked a clearer way of showing how little regard or concern he has for the issue.
As for the Gore videoconference over Vermont Interactive Television, his remarks can be heard on VNRC's website. Freyne has a lot of quotes from Shumlin in the brief presser that followed, and he is absolutely right when he says that Shumlin was in top form. Seriously, this was the best he's sounded in many weeks, as he demonstrated a real command of the room. Symington as well seemed more focused and passionate than usual. I suppose the break has already done both of them some good.
And for a hastily thrown together event, it was surprisingly well-attended at the remote VIT sites around the state. It's a shame the tech didn't go off as well, as Gore's link to the VIT network was routed through the internet, rather than via ISDN or satellite (and we all know how the internet can be). After many fits and starts, Gore's audio was a mess and out of sync (you'll hear it if you go to the mp3 link above) - but it was nevertheless audible.
A veto override is still clearly a longshot, but there's an awful lot of focus and energy around the issue that seems to be snowballing, so contact your legislators if you haven't already (and maybe you should do it again if you have).
Now, I'm not trying to be a jerk or aggressive here because I really like her personally, but Charity's blog, She's Right, has been the gift that keeps on giving lately. I read about her announcement about an S. Fred Singer, PhD, who is giving a talk at UVM on March 28th at 7 pm in the Ira Allen Chapel, called, "500-Year Natural Cycle or Disaster Of Our Own Doing? - A look at the science and politics of global warming". So considering the source and the coded wording, my bullshit detector started beeping, so it was time to dig around.
See, Dr. Singer's got quite the career of being a p.r. hack for big, harmful corporations. He first rose to prominence as a a flack for big tobacco:
Singer has been accused of conflicts of interest, most notably involving financial ties to oil and tobacco companies. In 1993 APCO, a public relations firm, sent a memo to Philip Morris to vice-president Ellen Merlo stating: "As you know, we have been working with Dr. Fred Singer and Dr. Dwight Lee, who have authored articles on junk science and indoor air quality (IAQ) respectively ..."
The 1994 AdTI report was part of an attack on EPA regulation of environmental tobacco smoke funded by the Tobacco Institute. Singer was also involved with the International Center for a Scientific Ecology, a group that was considered important in Philip Morris' plans to create a group in Europe similar to The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). Singer is also a Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, another recipient of Philip Morris and ExxonMobil funds.
A nonsmoker himself, Singer serves on the Science Advisory Board of the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH). The ACSH strongly opposes smoking but otherwise tends to support industry positions on health issues, for example downplaying risks associated with dioxin, asbestos, and other carcinogenic materials.
It's got to be hard to be a conservative, especially nowadays. It seems like the only way they can get out of bed in the morning is to exist in some alternate reality... you know, the one where 'they attack us because they hate our freedoms', 'the Founding Fathers wanted this to be a Christian nation', 'intelligent design is real science', 'supporting the troops means keeping them in Iraq','George W. Bush is a fine Christian man of integrity', 'if we would just let the markets decide, everything would be fine', and the latest doozie, courtesy of Charity at 'She's Right', 'global warming is not caused by humans'.
Apparently, there was a documentary on the BBC's Channel recently, called 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', which basically says that the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming is a lie. Turns out, it's yet another right wing propaganda hit-piece that plays loose with the facts. Like most classic propaganda targeting right-wingers, it even plays to their sense of perpetual victimhood, driving home the point that 'you are being told lies.'
The documentary was directed by self-proclaimed 'living Marxist' (whatever the hell that is) Martin Durkin, who also directed a BBC series in 1997 called 'Against Nature', which dismisses environmentalists as anti-progress, and believe that sustainable development practices are a 'conspiracy against people'. So his ideology should be quite apparent.
The UK Independent did an investigation of the 'The Great Global Warming Swindle', and found that it:
"was based on graphs that were distorted, mislabelled or just plain wrong. The graphs were nevertheless used to attack the credibility and honesty of climate scientists.
A graph central to the programme's thesis, purporting to show variations in global temperatures over the past century, claimed to show that global warming was not linked with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide. Yet the graph was not what it seemed.
Other graphs used out-of-date information or data that was shown some years ago to be wrong. Yet the programme makers claimed the graphs demonstrated that orthodox climate science was a conspiratorial "lie" foisted on the public."
Just when I was wondering where to get that extra bit of cash to finish out the winter, here comes the delightful announcement (covered here by the Guardian), that the American Enterprise Institute (Bush's other brain, and funded by big oil) is offering $10,000 to professionals who will refute the findings of the newly released, definitive international document laying the blame for climate change at humanity's feet
Finally some easy money!
So I am wasting no time firing off my own piece to collect my $10,000 bounty. I've posted it below for your perusal. By all means, give me your feedback (and you might wanna consider penning yer own and gettin' a piece of this - I understand profits are up, so there's...er... money to burn - which is a good thing, since we're running out of oil...)
Today at 9:00 AM, Middlebury College professor and internationally renowned author and activist Bill McKibben will address a joint House/Senate Committee at the Vermont Statehouse to discuss the urgency of addressing Climate Change. Although he's not going in with any prepared statement, he did offer the following to pass along regarding the website he and six recent Middlebury grads launched a few days ago - stepitup07.org - to coordinate a national day of action on climate change on April 14th. According to the website, there are already 94 local events planned in 30 states, but obviously much more help is needed. The following is from the email he sent out announcing the site:
Dear Friend-
I'm writing to ask your help. I know you've already made changes in your own life to deal with climate change; I'm guessing that, like me, you feel a little helpless about the scale of the problem. Some of us who are eager to do something more are organizing a day of demonstrations for April 14. We're calling ourselves Stepitup2007.org, and we need you to be a vital part-to organize a rally in your neck of the woods. If everyone pitches in, we'll have by far the largest action yet in this nation about global warming-large enough that Washington will notice and start to act.
It's going to be an unusual day. People will be rallying in many of America's most iconic places: on the levees in New Orleans, on top of the melting ice sheets on Mt. Hood and in Glacier National Park, even underwater on the endangered coral reefs off Key West and Hawaii. But we need hundreds of rallies outside churches, and in city parks, and in rural fields. It's not a huge task-assemble as many folks as possible, hoist a banner, take a picture. We'll link pictures of the protests together electronically via the web-before the day is out, we'll have a cascade of images to show both local and national media that Americans don't consider this a secondary issue. That instead they want serious action now.
We're not an organization-we're, in essence, a few people sending out invitations to a party. A potluck. This is going to be a homemade day of action. So go to our website at stepitup2007.org, and say `here's where I live-I want to help organize.' We'll coordinate the responses, introducing you to others from your area, and give you everything you need to be a leader, from banners to press releases. You don't have to have ever done anything like this-you're not organizing a March on Washington, just a gathering of scores or hundreds in your town or neighborhood. We need creativity, good humor, commitment. If you are active in a campus group or a church or a local environmental group or a garden society or a bike club-or if you just saw Al Gore's move and want to do something-then we need you now.
And by now, we mean now. The best science tells us we have ten years to fundamentally transform our economy and lead the world in the same direction or else, in the words of NASA's Jim Hansen, we will face a "totally different planet." We're calling for 80 percent carbon cuts by 2050, which would be a good first step to warding off that future. But the exact numbers are less important than the underlying message to Washington: get serious. The recent elections have given us an opening, and polling shows most Americans know there's a problem. But the forces of inertia and business-as-usual are still in control, and only our voices, united and loud, joyful and determined, can change that reality.
Please join us.
Bill McKibben
Although it's hardly news to visitors of this site, it still can't be said enough; it is impossible to work too hard, or move too quickly on this issue. Stop by the website and spread the word.
Okay, so it may not officially start until this upcoming week, but in many ways that matter, the '07 Legislative session has been underway for a while now. It doesn't take a genius to see that in recent legislative cycles, the more a Party holds control of the public debate, the more they control the actual agenda. In '05 after a lot of good work by the Dems on health care, Governor Douglas stepped into the limelight and took complete control of the discussion before lawmakers had even left the Statehouse to return to their districts. That control was certainly on display in the final product, as well as in the accolades from the likes of the AARP.
The Republicans (naturally) are the only Party who seems to be tackling this in an organized, head-on way. Despite the fact that both the Ds and the Rs are in transition - moving into a new legislature as well as new Party leadership - you wouldn't guess it on the R's part from the recent papers. Message testing and propogating is very much in play, seemingly already pushing the GOP framing of property taxes and a new twist on civil confinement into the media forefront. Take a look at this AP piece on the upcoming agenda which leads on property tax:
(House Minority Leader Steve) Adams and his colleagues called for creation of a special House committee dedicated to property tax reform, much as Symington created for health care when she was elected speaker two years ago.
But she has rejected that approach, arguing that a much broader debate has to take place about why education costs what it does as well as about how it's funded.
Not only is the issue front and center on the GOP's terms, but Symington is already being placed on the defensive.
I sure wish I were in Vermont this week. I could join writer/environmentalist/deep thinker Bill McKibben and whoever else shows up for a four-day walk seeking to kindle federal action against global warming.
Billed as "The Road Less Traveled, Vermonters Walking Toward a Clean Energy Future," the march will begin Thursday noon at Robert Frost's old writing cabin near Ripton, stop in cities along the way for Conversations on the Green, and end 43 miles up the road in Burlington. Knowing McKibben's work and the kind of people he attracts, I imagine those are going to be eye-opening conversations for participants and bystanders alike, a traveling teach-in, if you will. You can get a taste of this in my five-question interview with McKibben below.
Many here, I know, downplay the value of a public demonstration, even public action of any kind outside the realm of lawsuits and legislation. Sooooo '60s, they say. Doesn't work anymore. If it ever really did. I couldn't disagree more. Perhaps the reason people say this comes from their being so comprehensively saturated with a megamedia caricature of the era. They don't believe most or any of what the megamedia tells them about the times they themselves live in, but they accept as gospel what's been told them regarding one of the periods of greatest social change since the Civil War.
The public intellectuals and other activists who spurred that change worked inside and outside the governing system, using whatever megaphone seemed proper at the moment to capture public attention and increase the pressure on public policy. What you mostly hear about that era today is the media-mediated version, a distorted fraction of the story. That's not my way of trying to sanctify the "protest" movements or say that we made no mistakes, no strategic blunders, or engaged in no counterproductive activism. Surely, we did more than enough of that and were paid for it with half-victories and outright defeats, some of them long-lasting. But, please, most of the focus, even most of the public events, had nothing to do grubby street demonstrations.
Okay, energy/environment diaries are not my primary forte. I'm sure someone could do a way, way better job with this than I could.
But being in media, I get all kinds of funky emails. I got one from CEI a couple of hours back that we'll have fun tearing up below the fold.
