At the Wonk Room, Brad Johnson gives a history lesson: The Republican Definition Of ‘Fascism’: Defending Climate Science From Exxon-Mobil Corruption
Please read both.
The West Virginia coal industry has become a virulent opponent of President Barack Obama’s reform agenda, while the state’s political leaders cheered. In June, West Virginia declared coal the state rock. In September, the coal industry sponsored a rock concert and rally to demonize “environmental extremists.” In October, coal companies organized mobs to attack the Environmental Protection Agency’s halting steps to enforce Clean Water Act limits on mountaintop removal mining. In November, the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce told Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to hold health care reform hostage until climate legislation is killed.Today, Sen. Byrd had enough. In a stunning rebuke, Byrd told his state to admit that change is coming, and that the coal industry has to clean up its act.
Listen:
Here is Senator Byrd’s stunning Op-Ed:
Embracing the fevered speculations of right-wing bloggers, a top Republican Senate staffer has accused climate scientists of orchestrating a planetwide conspiracy to convince the public that global warming is real. In an error-ridden email acquired by the Wonk Room, Bryan Zumwalt, legislative counsel for Sen. David Vitter (R-LA), claims hacked emails from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit (CRU) are evidence for what “could well be the greatest act of scientific fraud in history.” Zumwalt’s attacks are part of a global right-wing effort — from Rush Limbaugh to right-wing members of the British House of Lords — to Swiftboat climate scientists on the eve of international climate treaty negotiations. He argues that the “theory of global warming” is now tainted with “data corruption and fraud.”
This has got to be one of the sloppiest emails in goofy GOP Senate staffer history.
Lt. Col. Oliver North (Ret.) has launched a new war against the “cap and tax” plans of President Barack Obama and the “socialists in Congress.” North — when not serving as a Fox News correspondent — runs the Freedom Alliance, an organization supposedly dedicated to “defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense.” In a mailing acquired by ThinkProgress, North pleads for “your most-special and generous donation” to fight the “‘cap and tax’ scheme and the myth of global warming.” North warns that if “Barack Obama and the socialists in Congress” establish a system to limit global warm
Here is the letter:
He continues:
North goes on to attack windmill farms as “virtual bird eating machines.” The attached “petition to President Barack Obama” claims that the “dirty little secret” of global warming “is that it is a scam designed at increasing the wealth of frauds like Al Gore and nations like Red China at America’s expense.”
Kate Sheppard at Mother Jones adds:
Climate change would appear to have little connection to Freedom Alliance’s stated mission, which is “to advance the American heritage of freedom by honoring and encouraging military service, defending the sovereignty of the United States and promoting a strong national defense.” And it’s not clear which roles on North’s resume—his past notoriety in the Iran-Contra scandal or his current gig as a Fox News host and commentator—best qualify him to weigh in on climate science.
While there is a lot of room for a lot of legitimate debate about many aspects of global warming, let us say one thing here: we believe that anyone who reads our chapter without an agenda wouldn’t even find it particularly controversial. They will see that we routinely address the concerns that critics accuse us of ignoring (the problem of ocean acidification, e.g., — touched upon in the previous chapter — and the “excuse to pollute” that geoengineering solutions might afford), and that we neither “misrepresent” climate scientists nor flub the facts.
Tim Lambert over at Deltoid bats this one down by quoting the entirety of what chapter 5 of Superfreakonomics says about ocean acidification:
[Caldeira] and a co-author coined the phrase ‘ocean acidification.’ the process by which the seas absorb so much carbon dioxide that corals and other shallow-water organisms are threatened.
Lambert also notes that those defending Superfreakonomics are almost all either GW deniers or completely clueless:
While Dubner has studiously avoided linking to any of the “attacks” he links to defences. Trouble is, the only defenders he has are global warming deniers like Bret “It’s a Mass Neurosis!” Stevens and Jonah “It’s the sun!” Goldberg, or people like Jon Stewart who admit that they don’t know anything about the subject.
Super-Freaking-Silly, if you ask me.
And while it is bad enough having respected economists, scientists and journalists tearing your work to shreds, having members of Congress do so is that much worse. Via Brad Johnson, here is a clip of Rep. Inslee doing so yesterday:
Here is the best part of that clip:
The second thing I want to note is this is not the only continuing effort to deceive the American public. I want to note a book called Freakonomics, or SuperFreakonomics, that some authors wrote, that basically said or asserted we don’t have to control CO2, we’ll just pump sulfur dioxide up into the atmosphere and that will solve the problem. They purported to quote a scientist named Ken Caldeira from Stanford who’s one of the predominant researchers in ocean acidification to suggest that Dr. Caldeira didn’t think we should control CO2. Which is an absolute deception. Dr. Caldeira I’ve spoken to personally. He’s told me we have to solve ocean acidification. You can’t solve ocean acidification without controlling CO2 and yet people are still trying to write books to deceive the American public. And we ought to blow the whistle on them, we’re blowing the whistle on one today, we’ll continue to do it, because ultimately science is going to triumph in this discussion.
Meanwhile, Things Break and Left as an Exercise continue documenting the atrocities as they unfold.
On last night’s Daily Show, host Jon Stewart heaped praise on the contrarian approach to global warming taken by SuperFreakonomics author Steve Levitt, a University of Chicago economist. Stewart was dismissive of the widespread criticism of Levitt and co-author Stephen Dubner, asking, “Have you stepped on a secular religion?” Stewart, often a tough interviewer, coddled Levitt, saying, “I’m sorry you’ve taken so much s**t for it.” He blamed the uproar over SuperFreakonomics on people who “feel you are betraying environmentalism.”
Here is the clip:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Steven Levitt | ||||
|
||||
Stewart rightly concluded, “I really don’t know what I’m talking about, do I?” However, he failed to understand his mistake when he added that he had “apparently frightened our audience by suggesting that conservation isn’t the only way out of any of our problems.”
Stewart has excoriated other media darlings for their laissez-faire approach to serious issues, from Tucker Carlson to Jim Cramer, and just last week skewered CNN for its failure to do even basic fact-checking of its guests. Unfortunately, in this instance, there was nothing funny about Stewart’s inaccuracy.
This was honestly the worst interview I’ve ever seen Jon Stewart conduct. Very disappointing.
When Paul Krugman, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Joseph Romm, Bradford Delong, Brad Johnson, Matt Yglesias, Melanie Fitzpatrick, David Roberts, Tim Lambert, Felix Salmon, Corbin Hiar, William Connelly, Oliver Willis, Scott Lemieux, Ezra Klein, Daniel Davies, Brian Dupuis, and Mark Thoma have all published scathing criticisms of your book — several days before the book is actually released — something has gone terribly wrong. I mean, wow.
And while most who argue against meaningful action on climate change limit themselves to disputing either the science or the economics, you have apparently accepted no such limitations. Perhaps if you had limited your arguments to one of these angles or the other you wouldn’t have made so many egregious factual errors.
But perhaps this was all just a clever marketing ploy. I can’t help but wonder if chapter five was deliberately crafted to cause an uproar. Some sort of hail mary attempt to draw attention to an otherwise less-than-spectacular book. If this is the case — and you truly have adopted the ‘all news is good news’ mantra — then I guess congratulations are in order. Your book is almost as relevant as the balloon boy.
P.S. This is not fooling anyone.
Here is the chapter everyone is so upset about:
The Wonk Room at Think Progress
Brad Johnson meticulously covers climate change and energy policy both at The Wonk Room and Think Progress. Brad’s sharp eye for detail leaves no stone unturned as he continuously makes the strong case for job-creating clean energy legislation.
Here are some of Brad’s recent pieces:
PG&E CEO: We Left The U.S. Chamber Of Commerce Because They Lied To Us About Climate Policy
U.S. Chamber Of Commerce: ‘We’ve Never Questioned The Science Behind Global Warming’
Many bloggers have already weighed in with their initial reactions. What follows is a round-up of these first impressions, as well as a few thoughts of my own.
Bradford Plumer has a solid summary, running down the list of they key differences between Kerry-Boxer and Waxman-Markey. Key among the differences are the preservation of the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases, a “crackdown on carbon speculators” and “stricter scrutiny for biofuels.” Among (what I consider to be) the weak points in the bill, Plumer identifies increased incentives for natural gas production and use, and a voluntary mechanism for methane capture, which on first glance seems awfully short-sighted.
Brad Johnson writes that: “Incorporating the efforts of a number of senators, the Kerry-Boxer legislation has strengthened a number of provisions.” Among these, Johnson highlights the stronger emissions limits, funding for green transportation, and the preservation of EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, which the House bill foolishly gutted. Johnson also mentions a few Senators who have already attacked the bill, including Democrat Kent Conrad and Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison.
Kate Sheppard makes an interesting observation: “Noticeably missing from both the bill and their rhetoric was any reference to cap and trade. Instead, they’re calling it a ‘Global Warming Pollution Reduction and Investment’ program — and they’re promoting the energy and national security benefits rather than the emissions reductions goals.” Sheppard also observes that, as of yesterday’s unveiling, there was no Republican support for the bill whatsoever.
Elana Schor laments the lack of focus on transport, writing that “transportation reform groups are already strategizing about how to increase the bill’s focus on their area — which currently accounts for one-third of U.S. emissions but stands to receive far less than the 10 percent of total climate revenue that is mandated in the so-called “CLEAN TEA” legislation.” Schor also predicts that the bill will not make it to the Senate floor in advance of December’s climate negotiations in Copenhagen, but that “Senate passage next spring remains a distinct possibility.”
Steve Benen also expresses skepticism that some of the more promising measures will make it to the Senate floor. Benen writes: “So, does the bill have a realistic shot? It won’t be easy. The first step for Boxer-Kerry will probably be the easiest: it’s going to pass the Environment and Public Works Committee, perhaps by the end of the month. From there, however, it will be subjected to scrutiny in at least four other Senate committees, each of which will change the bill, probably for the worse. Some of the entirely worthwhile measures introduced yesterday are not at all likely to withstand the process.” This, of course, brings to mind the old adage that the United States Senate is where good ideas go to die. This statement is as true now as it ever was, as far as I can tell.
Brian Beutler discusses the arduous path the bill must take through various unfriendly Senate committees. In particular, Beutler mentions potential roadblocks in both the Finance and Agriculture Committees. Beutler also takes note of the bright side: “James Inhofe will spend weeks and weeks saying more and more ridiculous things about it. So that should be fun.”
Matt Yglesias raises the same concern that I will below: “Kerry-Boxer is a somewhat stronger and better measure than the American Climate and Energy Security bill that passed the House. But of course ACES passed the House whereas Kerry-Boxer will doubtless be changed many, many times.”
Joseph Romm focuses on the genuine improvement over the House bill in terms of offsets. Romm republishes a guest-post from an expert on offsets, who writes: “Probably the most important difference between the bills is that the Kerry-Boxer bill does not specify which agency would be in charge of administering and ensuring the integrity of any offset program. In the House bill, a last minute compromise switched all of the administration of biological sequestration offsets to the USDA from the EPA, a change widely criticized by environmentalists because of the belief that the USDA would not be as effective in regulation.”
A. Siegel focuses primarily on the price collar, detailing the pros and cons of the approach Senators Kerry and Boxer have used. In the end, he concludes: “From my perspective, for the next 10+ years, it seems almost certain that the floor will have more impact on actual carbon prices than the ceiling … thus, having that floor will help drive more emissions cuts than a program without a cost collar.”
David Roberts takes note of the fact that the bill is called Kerry-Boxer, rather than Boxer-Kerry as was previously expected. Roberts writes: “Word has it this decision came down from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) himself.” He also speculates that this decision was due to Senator Boxer’s “bungling” of the Lieberman-Warner bill, which was the Senate’s last attempt to address global warming.
Personally, I’m cautiously optimistic. While — as others have pointed out — the bill as it currently stands is stronger than the American Clean Energy and Security Act is several crucial ways, it has a treacherous gauntlet to run before reaching the President’s desk. The two greatest roadblocks I anticipate are in the Agriculture and Finance Committees.
In the House negotiations, Agriculture Chairman Collin Peterson was able to extract several major concessions which significantly weakened the bill. Pollution-powered Senator Blanche Lincoln, who recently took over the Chairmanship of the Senate Agriculture will undoubtedly take the opportunity to do the bidding of her agribusiness benefactors. It would be a true shame for the Senate to grant devastating concessions to Senator Lincoln at the expense of the environmental integrity of the legislation.
The Finance Committee Chairman, Senator Max Baucus, is also likely to be a major thorn in liberals’ side. Baucus has been fighting behind closed-doors to have a major role in the key aspects of the bill, including the financing for cap-and-trade mechanism. Senator Baucus’ insistence on wasting months trying to secure Republican support — despite all evidence that such support would never materialize — has been a major detriment to Democrats’ ability to move healthcare legislation in a timely manner. Indeed, many progressives have now accepted that Baucus’ attempts to gain Republican support are little more than pretense for weakening the bill and delaying the process as long as possible.
A smaller but still significant concern is a group of Midwestern Democratic Senators — led by Sherrod Brown — who are intent on extracting concessions for manufacturers in their states. Senator Brown, speaking of Senators Kerry and Boxer to The Hill yesterday, gave the ultimatum: “They don’t get the votes from Midwestern industrial-state senators unless manufacturing is a major component of this.” While the Midwestern Senators do have some valid concerns, the manufacturers they are advocating on behalf of now join a long list of industries seeking favorable concessions (read: free emissions credits): Nuclear, Coal, Natural Gas, Agribusiness, Oil Refining, Electric Utilities, etc. The true test this bill faces is whether or not it can work its way through the Senate without ceding so much ground to these industries that the environmental integrity of the bill is compromised. Either way, as Steve Benen notes, “it’s a fight worth watching closely.”
