After Gutenberg

jcwinnie

[Imagined call #2]
“Senator Gillibrand’s office”
(Heavy breathing)
“Yes, I want a frack.”
“What?”
“It’s says here in this brief script that I should say that I’m calling to say that I am in favor of fracking Upstate New York and that we need to study this global warming thing more.”
“Yes?”
“Yeah, and if any of those city kids give you any problems, then the Homeboyz shud tazer ‘em.”
“Yes, well thank you for calling…”
“And, tell Katie if she sticks around, she might get lucky, heh-heh, sign off on some child rape and torture at those New Prisons”
(Click)

jcwinnie

Representative Colin Peterson first evoked the epithet, “ear tagged”, for this blog.

The Washington Independent reports that Agriculture Committee Chair Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.), who voted for the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill in the House, recently told a conservative talk radio show that if a climate bill passes the Senate he wouldn’t support its final passage. “First of all, this isn’t going anyplace in the Senate,” Peterson said. “But if it did and we ended up with a bill that was similar to what came out of the House and that was going to become law, I would vote no.” — Ag Lobby Vows Even More Aggressive Fight Against Climate Bill

jcwinnie

The script that 1sky.org thoughtfully provided when I tried to call my Senators included stating opposition to the Murkowski amendment.

HuffPo published a letter from contributor John de Cock, President of Clean Water Action, to Senator Murkowski.

Dear Senator Murkowski,

I hope that you are well. Hey, some of us were talking and we were wondering what the deal is with this amendment to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating green house gases. I’m sure you’ve got your reasons, or rather the polluters who did the ghost writing of the amendment have their reasons, but we actually prefer to have the Environmental Protection Agency, well, you know… protecting the environment.

I know it’s frustrating to be a Senator from the right when you no longer have your guy from your team in the White House. Remember those good old days when President Bush could just gut a few decades of solid environmental law with a stroke of his Official Presidential Pen? One could sit peacefully by and watch Clean Water Act enforcement grind to a halt while lakes, streams and rivers got dirtier. Good times, good times.

And what about those great presidential appointments? When you could have Gail Norton and Steve Griles running things over at Interior you were really cooking. You know Steve’s out of prison already, he might be willing to serve again if asked.

Christie Todd Whitman. Now there was an EPA Administrator with some gumption! She didn’t let the huge load of carcinogens keep her from declaring lower Manhattan safe for emergency workers after 9/11. No ma’am. She knows they build those New Yorkers tough. I may call it protecting human health and respecting the rights of workers, but I know you think of it as red tape.

Now this Lisa Jackson comes along. Look at her record in New Jersey. I think she never met an environmental law that she didn’t feel like she had to “enforce”. I can see why the EPA is getting under your skin a little bit.

So who can you turn to? Seriously. You’ve got a President advocating rational environmental policy, a Congress that is starting to get it and the prospect of a climate bill with actual teeth coming up for a vote some time this spring. Quarterback Murkowski! Drop way back after the snap and huck that damn ball for all you’re worth toward the goal line! See if you can convince your colleagues that the entire country wants the EPA to ignore greenhouse gas pollution.

I don’t think it’s going to work, but I know you’ve got to try. For our part, I think we’re all going to contact our Senators and ask that they politely vote your amendment down. However I wouldn’t mind if they did some speechifying making note of how completely in opposition to the public good your amendment would be.

Senator Murkowski, I wish you nothing but the best personally, but I feel you are on the wrong track here. We need the EPA to do its job. We’ve got to get real on slowing climate change. Representing the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry is a losing proposition for everyone, even you. You can run this play for the fossil fuel industry, but you’ve got no shot at being on the right side of the issue.

Best Regards,

John

P.S. Please express your opposition to the Murkowski Amendment, click here.

jcwinnie

“A Senate confrontation over the Obama administration’s move to limit emissions from cars, trucks and industrial sources may come as early as next week. Democrats have agreed to give Republicans a vote on the issue when they debate legislation to raise the nation’s debt ceiling, Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, said in an e-mail.”

The Republicans may soon try to “strip” the EPA of “its ability to regulate most carbon pollution, letting the worst polluters off the hook.” So Al Gore, who won an Oscar and a Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to publicize global warming, is rallying support to oppose such action.

And though the Business Week article couches the issue in partisan terms, it really is more an issue of representation, either representation of special interests or survival of future generations.

jcwinnie

In rhetorically inquiring WTF (“What The Frac?”), the business buzz* is that ExxonMobil, XTO Energy and other shale-gas producers probably will avoid having to face US rules about hydro-fracing. After all, such rulings could add costs of $100,000 per well. Not good for BAUAAAE (Business As Usual And As Always Everyone else is fracked.)

* FBR Capital Markets analysts crowing over comments at a Congressional hearing yesterday and the loss of a Senate seat by majority Democrats.

jcwinnie

Think Progress also relays word that nearly 150 farm groups have praised Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) for her attempts to block U.S. EPA climate regulations.

jcwinnie

In response to clicking the Clean Water link and writing to Chuck, I received the following reply:

Thank you for writing to express your opposition to efforts to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from regulating green house gases. I share your concern about the harmful impact climate change is having on the environment, and I believe it is necessary to curb climate-altering emissions in order to protect the environment for our and future generations.

Senator Murkowski and others have proposed legislation to forbid the EPA from working to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and large manufacturers even as the Senate continues to work on its own global warming proposal. You will be pleased to know that none of these efforts have been successful as of yet and no legislation has passed the Senate that would restrict EPA regulation of green house gases.

Scientists tell us that carbon emissions are causing dramatic changes in global climate. These changes could ultimately lead to ecological disasters, including species extinction, floods, and increasingly severe natural disasters. Such change could have damaging effects on people, too – as sea levels rise and droughts become more severe, it could become increasingly hard to feed the world’s growing and hungry population. Communities who live on the margins of health, especially those in the developing world, will be the hardest hit by climate change and also the least able to adapt to cope. I am concerned by this imminent and potentially catastrophic threat, and I believe that we must do everything we can to minimize it.

Experts tell us that burning fewer fossil fuels is a critical component to fighting climate change which is why I have made increasing our country’s energy efficiency a top priority. I introduced the Save American Energy Act (S. 548), which would reduce energy demand and save money through energy efficiency measures, including offering discounts and rebates for Energy Star appliances, installing programmable thermostats, and properly insulating homes and businesses. These energy efficient measures would curb our energy demand and save Americans hard earned money and the technologies exist today to achieve the increases in efficiency that my bill demands – all we need do is create incentives for their implementation. I have also voted to increase automobile fuel economy, a move that would save 10.7 billion gallons of gas annually by 2020. With smart changes, like these improvements in efficiency, our nation can grow our economy while shrinking our dependence on petroleum, reducing fuel costs, and protecting the environment.

Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me on this important issue. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can ever be of assistance to you on this or any other matter.

Sincerely,

Charles E. Schumer
United States Senator

jcwinnie

Speaking of dreadful political realities, Steven Cohen reiterates the political reality regarding climate and energy policy for the new year of 2010. “If new climate and energy policies are to emerge from this Congress,” he observes, “the legislation that comes to the Senate floor must represent a consensus that can attract more than 60 senators.”