I'm sure you all are aware of the diary atop the rec list that trumpets our fearless (chuckle) President's decision to reject a few MTR permits.
While this in itself is not a bad thing (and has some beneficial local environmental effects), the time to do something about our coal USE is far more important.
And at this moment, President Obama is currently scheming to get a cap-free, pollution loving energy bill through the Senate.
This sort of thing does not happen because Obama is a great environmental president. This sort of thing happens because the President is trying to put one over on us.
He knows a cap on carbon won't pass. So, he pulls his MTR permit pander out of the "break glass in case of having no political balls to pass comprehensive reform" case and then expects us to shower him with kisses.
The diary atop the rec list takes this approach.
I beg you all to reconsider.
Doing something about climate change in such a way as to actually have an impact on its outcome requires huge, systemic change. It requires bold, presidential, Lincolnesque leadership.
Leadership that this president is not providing.
So I beg of you: don't give him the satisfaction of your adoration of his environmental bona fides.
Kill the energy bill. The NRDC knows it's crap. So should you.
But, knowing that some are still calling for the Senate to think small by passing a bill that just boosts energy production from clean and dirty sources, I thought it would help to outline five reasons why a comprehensive package will do more for national security, the economy, the budget and the environment than an energy-only bill.
Independent analyses show that a strong comprehensive clean energy and climate bill would:
* Cut US oil imports in half, by reducing our dependence on oil and enabling US producers to maximize the output of aging land-based wells, according to Advanced Resources International. An energy-only bill won’t.
* Cut Iran’s oil revenues by $100 million. A strong limit on carbon pollution could significantly cut the flow of petrodollars to Iran, which would lose approximately $1.8 trillion worth of oil revenues over the next forty years. Meanwhile, an energy-only bill would do little to reduce U.S. oil imports beyond opening new areas of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) to oil drilling with all the attendant environmental problems.
* Cut our budget deficit by $24 billion between 2010 and 2019, according to an analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). An energy-only bill would increase the deficit by $13.5 billion over the same time period, according the CBO’s analysis.
* Create about 1.9 million jobs, according to independent analysis by the University of California and further substantiated by a literature review by Third Way. That’s nearly four times as many jobs as an energy-only bill would create.
* Cut 2 billion metric tons of global warming pollution from 2005 levels, by 2020. An energy only bill would at best cut just a tenth of that amount, but could also increase pollution levels depending on its details.
Anyone contemplating supporting energy-only over a comprehensive bill should bear these facts in mind. And realize that whether your top priority is national security, deficit reduction, job creation or pollution reduction, a comprehensive bill clean energy and climate bill does a lot more for our country.