No matter what happens, a major hurricane making landfall just two months before the election would thrust a number of issues to the forefront - most notably climate change, oil dependence, and the need to reform government bureaucracies.  Each party would put some heavy spin on these issues in an effort to blame the other party for the costs and the destruction that are incurred.

But there is one crucial topic concerning natural disasters that no politician will touch with a ten-foot pole, especially presidential candidates that want to win Florida or any other coastal state.  This topic is the absurd fact that our government continually spends billions of billions of dollars to help rebuild areas that are almost certain to get wiped out again.

Let’s start with Florida.  In 2004, the Sunshine State endured four direct hits from hurricanes, prompting Congress to appropriate $13 billion in taxpayer money to help residents rebuild.  And it’s not like those four storms were aberrations.  In the past eight years alone, Florida has been hit by more than 50 tropical storms and hurricanes that have caused $64 billion worth of damage.  People in Florida don’t talk about “if” another hurricane is going to hit.  They talk about “when.”  And they seem stubbornly eager to pick up the pieces and rebuild time and time again - on the government’s dollar.

And then there’s New Orleans and the Gulf Coast.  I spent the summer of 2000 in the Crescent City.  Back then, residents knew that a category 4 or 5 hurricane would fill up the city like a bathtub.  And when that happened, instead of saying, “Forget this, I’m going to move somewhere safer,” they summoned their pride and their courage, and they went back and they rebuilt - with the help of $116 billion from Uncle Sam.  One can only wonder what they are thinking as they watch Gustav threatening to knock them right back to 2005, and if they’ll show the same resolve to come back and rebuild should they be wiped out again.

It’s time for the American people to ask itself some tough questions.   Should taxpayers be asked to pay for rebuilding in areas that are likely to get hit again?  Should we tell people that if you choose to live there, you do so at your own risk?  Especially in this era when the climate is changing and tropical weather is getting more intense, it’s time for us to get over the hubris that tells us that we don’t have to listen to mother nature. 

After all, with the sea level rising, we’re going to have to vacate our coastal cities anyway.

It is time for an answer, a serious answer, to be embraced by the Democratic Party as an entirety and the nation.

It is time to move from Drillusion to real solutions.

Barack Obama has offered much to think about, with some excellent portions of his energy proposals, and has established meaningful elements for adoption come next January and for policy for years to come. Al Gore has provided a vision, a vision that I would hope would be embraced, but a vision that is essentially irrelevant to the trauma Americans feel when looking at the price at the pump. Members like Earl Blumenauer are offering meaningful pieces of legislation, often with strong sounding names.

But … but … but … These efforts don’t have the intoxicating appeal of Drill Here! Drill Now! Pay Less! in about 20 years, a few cents less. It is time to move from Drillusion to real solutions.

Free Our Oil, Help Consumers, Solve Problems

Here is a seven-word framing, one that is fundamentally based in truth, that provides a path for immediate relief for the consumer at the pump even while setting a path forward toward a prosperous, climate-friendly society.

We should Free Our Oil that is currently locked-up in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). Releasing a limited amount of oil from the reserve will quickly Help Consumers by helping foster a fall in the price of oil. The resources from selling that oil will provide the resources to Solve Problems by fostering energy efficiency and renewable energy programs in the near, mid, and long term.

If we Free Our Oil to the tune of between 150,00 to 300,000 barrels per day this would Help Consumers through lower priced oil and would provide $25+ million/day in revenue to Solve Problems.

What are some of the ways to Solve Problems with those revenues?

Near term

We should pursue Energy Efficiency and renewable energy programs in homes and buildings, specifically additional targeting of places that use home heating oil to relieve pressure on oil supplies in winter months. (We cannot leave out all America, as gas and electricity prices are also mounting.)

These resources can be used to support programs to foster greater fuel efficiency in America’s cars and trucks with a very aggressive public education campaign re fuel efficiency and driving habits. Whether inflating tires, getting a tune up, or learning to drive less aggressively, there is an ability to gain up to 10-30% in automobile fuel efficiency. (This is roughly equivalent to 1.5 to 4+ million negabarrels of fuel use, per day … saving the United States perhaps $400 million/day in reduced purchases of foreign oil.) This would include, Senator McCain, a tax credit/support to have 100% of America’s gas stations provide free air pressure (under-pressured tires cost about 3.5% lost of gasoline across America’s car fleet).

The United States should consider providing tax credits (or other assistance) toward purchase of systems proven to help improve fuel efficiency for both commercial users and individuals. These include things such as auxiliary power units, enabling trucks to be shut down when stop rather than using the engine to cool refrigerated units, to mileage per gallon feedback systems that plug into existing (post 1996) cars to help improve mileage through real-time information about gasoline usage.

The programs should provide incentives to help drive taxi cab fleet purchase of hybrid cars. (Each taxicab is the equivalent of about 5-10 average cars due to its intensive driving.)

There should also be initiatives to help reduce and ease driving requirements, both of which will reduce gasoline use.

One important element to support would be compressed, flexible, and telecommuting work schedules. A worker on a 9/80 drives to the job 10% less. Flexible scheduling enables people to travel outside rush hours, saving time and gasoline. A telecommuter might reduce work related driving by 100%. As a start, 100% of Democratic Party offices on Capital Hill should strive to reduce their office’s daily commuting footprint by 10%, with an additional 10% on flexible hours putting their travel outside traditional rush hour periods.

About the mid-long/term

Electrification of the economy (especially transportation) should be a high priority

We must (MUST) support electrification of America’s rail system. This would, before 2020, eliminate 250,000 barrels of oil used by trains and provide capacity for the rail system to carry more cargo, potential saving millions of barrels per day. Note that drilling the outer continental shelf might add 250,000 barrels of day in supply by 2030, a decade later than rail’s impact. Every other nation in the world is pursuing electrification of rail, but not the United States due to the structure of our rail system.

Electrification also provides a path for getting much of America’s trucks, buses, cars off gasoline (or at least reducing that demand). With just $50 million per year, we could spark Plug-In Hybrid Electric School Buses, starting immediately, as the new standard for school bus purchases, halving their use of liquid fuels and reducing the health impacts to America’s youth from school bus diesel fumes.

The Federal government should also take a leadership position. For example, Federal fleet vehicle purchases should be a minimum of 5% plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV) and electric vehicle (EV) starting in 2010, with a 5% increase each year that follows. And, as called for by Barack Obama, the Federal government should provide substantial tax credits for individuals and businesses for purchase of EVs and PHEVs. (As a detail, the tax credit should take account for capability with, for example, increases as the ‘all electric’ driving distance increases.)

A key element is funding of a Smart Grid, with V2G (vehicle to grid) research and development, which will enable this transportation electricity to come from the grid more efficiently and enable greater penetration of renewable power. (Note that this relates back to electrification of rail, as the rail right-of-ways can be used for a new HVDC backbone to move renewable electricity efficiently across the nation.)

Moving off fossil fuels is not only electricity. Electricity provides flexibility in options, but other options exist. Standards should mandate that all vehicles with liquid fuel be either GEM flex-fuel (100% of all gasoline like fuels (ethanol, methanol, gasoline) can be used) or diesel flex fuel (from 0% to 100% biodiesel).

For further fuel efficiency, there should be a near-term mandate that 100% of new vehicles (of all types) provide real time and longer term feedback to driver as to gallons per mile / fuel efficiency.

We should apply resources for improving traffic management throughout America to help reduce fuel demands.

Of course, we should be investing in the deployment of renewable energy resources.

For homes, something like Architecture2030 should be made national policy, a national standard, to drive down, on a constant basis, the energy requirement for America’s building infrastructure.

And, across the board, energy efficiency and renewable energy should receive greater research and development resources and prioritization.

And, so on …

It is time to be Energy Smart.

To have plans that help address quite real near-term challenges of high gasoline prices while setting a path to real solutions for tomorrow.

We should band together to

Free Our Oil! Help Consumers! Solve Problems!

A Siegel blogs in the domains of energy and global warming at Get Energy Smart! NOW!!!. He is a founding board member of Energize America.

Republicans staged a revolt on the House floor yesterday to protest the lack of a vote on opening more land to oil drilling — but this particular revolution was not televised.

On the last day of the session before a five-week break, several dozen GOP lawmakers took to the floor shortly after the House adjourned and essentially refused to leave for more than five hours, even after — as is customary during an adjournment — the television cameras were turned off, the microphones were silenced and the lights were extinguished. No one occupied the speaker’s chair, nor were any clerks or parliamentarians present to steer the pseudo-debate.

Apparently it is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2.3 million. This is how much the 48 representatives participating on Friday have raised so far from the oil and gas industries in the 2006 and 2008 electoral cycles. We expect this number to climb considerably in the coming months. If that isn’t quid pro quo, I don’t know what is. Details for each Rep. in the table below. All data via Open Secrets

When I’m president, I intend to keep in place the moratorium here in Florida and around the country that prevents oil companies from drilling off Florida’s coasts.  That’s how we can protect our coastline and still make the investments that will reduce our dependence on foreign oil and bring down gas prices for good.

He was just as firm at a campaign stop in Iowa earlier this week:

(Offshore drilling) is a strategy designed to get politicians through an election.  It’s not going to provide short-term relief or medium-term relief or in fact long-term relief. It won’t drop prices in this administration or in the next administration or in the administration after that.

But then, just this morning, Obama had this to say to the The Palm Beach Post:

My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.  If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.

The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling, and so we don’t want gridlock. We want to get something done.

For progressives who are already fuming about the FISA compromise, this reversal on drilling raises even more alarms.  Will Obama say anything to get elected?  How far is his move to the center going to go?  Is he going to abandon his plan for universal health care?  Is he going to start rethinking his position on Iraq?  Is he going to name Joe Lieberman as his running mate?

Meanwhile, all we hear about in the mainstream media are non-issues such as Britney Spears and race-baiting.  I had so much hope for this election, but I have a feeling that it’s just going to drive me back to cynicism and disillusionment.

The idea that oil companies should be given drilling leases on every inch of the continent that we can possibly lease, and that that will give the driving public lower prices, is patently absurd. That hasn’t dampened the continual urge of the wingers to declare it the solution, and that those public-spirited oil companies would be drilling away on the leases they already have except that mean ol’ environmentalists won’t let them.

Hard to believe that the wingers themselves can continue on against the tide of facts, but it seems to be these ponies’ one trick. Feed the hungry? Drill. Clothe the naked? Drill. End the recession? Drill. Give the pony its treat, now.

When I had a little pony farm I had a one trick pony. Interrupt it during its trick, and it panicked and started over from the beginning. Right wingers on the floor in congress remind me that it is learned behavior, and getting out of the groove means thinking for themselves. My pony couldn’t do that either, he did his one trick and that’s all he was capable of.

That drilling, and giving out unprecedented numbers of new leases, has not done anything to bring down prices just hasn’t made a dint in the tin oilwell tree hat the party of oil seems all to have been fitted for.

*******************************************************************

The drilling mantra is the other arm of wingers’ resolute obstruction of Congress, and as much aimed at a public lack of intelligence. What the right wing is doing is dishonest, dishonorable, and attacks the public interest they are supposed to serve. The only way they can believe in it and practice it is by seeing the public as incapable of understanding the truth, and their job as keeping their opponents from achieving anything valuable.

Presently the wingers are keeping the Senate from voting on alternative energy research. If the grants are kept from passage, solar and wind energy will be interrupted and in many cases stopped. The tactic for obstruction has been used 79 times so far, in this Senate session.

I listen to CSpan and watch congressional proceedings while I’m doing other things like blogging, so, for some time, I have seen this going on. For those of you who don’t, I will post part of one among many of senators’ discourses on the subject, this time Sen. Durbin’s from April 15.

Why were we involved in a filibuster until last night by the Republicans on the bill before us today? This is a technical corrections bill. When we passed the highway bill, the Federal highway bill years ago, it was a huge bill affecting the entire United States of America. Then, as we combed through it, word for word, line for line, page for page, we found there were technicalities that needed to be changed: punctuation, references to a road instead of a trail. You find them in here. They go on for hundreds of pages.

But they are technical in nature; it is not a big policy debate. This kind of bill usually passes in the Congress by a voice vote late at night and no one notices. It is housekeeping. That is ordinarily what we do when we try to catch up and make sure everything is done just right.

Senator Boxer has worked long and hard to bring it out of her committee and bring it to the Senate floor, and the Republicans initiated a filibuster against the technical corrections bill. That is like having a resolution to salute motherhood and having them initiate a filibuster. Where is the controversy? There is no controversy in this bill. If they want to offer amendments, we said on this side: If they are germane amendments to the bill, have at it. That is what the Senate is all about, after all.

But the Republican strategy of filibusters, as indicated by this chart, in the history of Congress, the minority party has initiated no more than 57 filibusters in any 2-year period of time. That is the record, 57 in 2 years.

So far in this Congress, we are barely a few months into the second year. The minority party, the Republicans, has initiated 65 filibusters, and we are still counting.

You say to yourself: Well, they must have been some pretty controversial issues they had to filibuster. A technical corrections bill? So why do they filibuster? So that we burn the clock and eat up days so we cannot address the issues that are even more important to this country.

Would it not be great for us as a Senate to consider and debate a national energy policy to bring down the price of gasoline in the United States? No way. The republicans insist on filibustering a bill that focuses on punctuation. Would it not be timely for us to consider the cost of health insurance to businesses and families across America and find a way to make it more affordable and accessible? No way. The
Republicans want to debate a bill which changes the word “trail” to “road” and filibuster it.

The disgust that the public has exhibited for the congress in polls is well deserved. As long as the right wing can keep the public from being served, it will.

We have to bring this travesty to an end, and we need to vote in a new wave of public servants.

In the 4th District of Texas, I am working to elect Dr. Glenn Melancon and his Democratic running mates. You can get to work, too. We can’t let the enemies of the country continue to keep us all from the benefits of good government.

(This post also at http://cabdrollery.blogspot.com )

Update:

Oil companies cut production this p.m., and oil costs went back up, since demand is down.  The law of supply and demand doesn’t apply when it comes to  public savings, evidently.  It is the law oil companies aspire to use, through their monopoly powers. to extract the last penny from consumers who are helpless before that law, when it is used against them.

The Great Global Warming Swindle, a controversial Channel 4 film, broke Ofcom rules, the media regulator says…

The film’s key contentions were that the increase in atmospheric temperatures observed since the 1970s was not primarily caused by emissions of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, and that the modern focus on climate change is based in politics rather than science.

It is seen in some “climate skeptic” circles as a counter to Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, and credited with influencing public perception of climate science.

However “Ofcom” ultimately let the broadcaster off the hook by ruling the documentary did not cause serious “harm or offense,” even though Channel 4 conceded it falsified graphs and data for the film. Curiously, Ofcom also ruled that the link between global warming and human activity had been settled before March 2007 (when the documentary aired) and therefore global warming was no longer “controversial” at the time of broadcast — basically saying Channel 4 gets away with airing the Great Global Warming Swindle because everybody would have known by that time it was crap!

(IPCC chair Sir John Houghton expressed outrage at this notion, saying he knew for a fact the film misled people who believed they could trust the information presented in the documentary.)

This ruling reminds me of Al Gore’s comments to NBC last year, in which he compared global warming deniers to people who think the world is flat — implying global warming is no longer a “debate” and therefore deniers should not get “equal time.”

Apparently, Ofcom agrees with Al Gore….. though more importantly, can you imagine a US agency ruling against an American broadcaster for violating impartiality obligations? (Can you imagine American broadcasters even having impartiality obligations?)

Seminal readers, what are you hearing today?

Yesterday McCain surrogate (and economic adviser) Steve Forbes seemed to reiterate Pelosi’s sentiments, suggesting the Senator would dump his cap-and-trade policy if elected to office, while stating of similar market-based environmental policies “those things are not going to get very far:”

You’ll notice Forbes also praises McCain for reversing his position on offshore drilling and embracing nuclear energy, which Forbes outrageously calls “moving in the right direction.”

McCain of course was the first Senator to introduce a mandatory cap-and-trade bill in Congress back in 2002, a move that has let him get away with (falsely) claiming leadership on environmental issues. Yet besides his many position reversals against the environment in recent years, such as those on drilling and nuclear power, on cap-and-trade itself McCain is now dramatically toning down his rhetoric. Last month he denied that his cap-and-trade plan included any “mandatory” targets (even though it does, albeit weak ones) and asked journalists to please stop confusing the term “cap-and-trade” with “mandatory targets” (even though the latter defines the former).

As the Wonk Room notes:

On July 9, conservative journalist Larry Kudlow reported that he was told “on deep background” by a “senior McCain official” that McCain was off cap-and-trade…Forbes is signaling that Kudlow may be right, and McCain will follow in the footsteps of George W. Bush. As a candidate in 2000, Bush pledged to impose mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide, but reversed that position once he took the oath of office. In 2001, newly elected Vice President Dick Cheney said of Bush’s pledge, “It was a mistake.”

For the record a (mandatory) cap-and-trade scheme does not constitute a “gigantic tax” (though I personally would be in favor of a gigantic carbon tax…). It is by far the most flexible and industry-friendly policy approach available to us that will actually address global warming. Here’s hoping 2009 brings a climate plan no less stringent than Barack Obama’s proposed, IPCC-compliant, cap-and-trade scheme.

Garrett Moon runs the tech side of things, while Dustin is mainly concerned with the physical de/re/construction process. Their skill and drive are showcased by their actions, whether it is Garrett’s excellent websites, rescommunis.org  and pdxlivingbuilding.com, which feature detailed architectural plans, or Dustin’s efforts to take apart the house board-by-board in order to reuse and recycle as much material as possible.  Their aim is to not only build a self-sustaining home, but to make the entire process as low-impact as possible.  As Dustin said, “It’s not enough to build a sustainable house, you have to make sure that everything from process to materials is as sustainable as possible.”

The greening of America cannot be approached in an ends-justify-the-means fashion, because a sustainable system must have sustainable inputs as well as sustainable operations.  The Moons are taking a holistic approach, and while they are being forced to make compromises, their efforts are geared toward being as sustainable and as imitable as possible.  Figuring out how to pursue a more sustainable collective existence is the great task of our time, and the Moon’s Living House has been a huge inspiration to me by showing me how a daunting but crucial process can be approached by normal people with normal resources.   Read on for more details…

As the fuel, food, and water crises begin to affect even the long-insulated first world, the words “sustainable,” ”organic” and “green” have become buzzwords and sales points, easily found a million times within the walls of a single supermarket.  But while it takes certain steps to be able to label a product “organic,” there are no such requirements for other popular terms.  Greenwashing has become a booming market force, where it runs the gamut from “green homes” (some obviously much greener than others) to “green appliances” (a useful rundown).  Naturally, some of these claims of energy efficiency and low pollutants are valid, while others are merely clever marketing.  It’s important to look at the process by which a product is created and delivered as well;  an energy-efficient dryer built in a massively underregulated Chinese factory may save you money on electricity while actually creating more net pollution than a traditional dryer. 

It is the Moon brothers’ ambition to build a Living House with sincerely sustainable roots.  Their plans are quite ambitious and include passive solar, water collection in a 12,000 gallon cistern, a solar array, an underground workshop, sunroom, and 8 inches of arable soil on the roofs.  When I first met Dustin and Garret Moon at the beginning of the year, the lot on 2222 Woodward in SE Portland was occupied by a dilapidated and junk-filled house from the early 1900’s. As of last week, the lot is a gently-sloped hole in the ground.  The foundation has been excavated and trucked away, and the lumber from the old house is neatly stacked in a massive pile across the street.  I visited the site today, and the foundation for the workshop is being poured this week.  See their current photos on Flicker.

Perhaps the most startling revelation to me about this project is the fact that the technology for sustainable building is not only available, but in many cases, predates modern building practices.  Rainwater collection is nothing new, nor are living roofs or solar panels or skylights or passive solar.  The main obstacles that the Moons have faced have come from the difficulty inherent in getting their plans through the county building offices, as building codes are incredibly slanted toward the tried-and-tired (and generally very wasteful) construction techniques of woodframe houses.  A particularly difficult issue has arisen over their desire to deal with their own greywater, which is illegal in Oregon.  The Moons hope that a bill currently before the Oregon legislature will legalize private greywater treatment by the time they complete their house in 2009.

Garret Moon emphasised his desire to smooth the way for similar projects, both by streamlining the planning and pre-construction phases, and by ensuring that their house is a model for lowbudget green construction.  “If a process isn’t sustainable, its product cannot be sustainable, and if you can’t afford a process or product as a normal person, it isn’t sustainable.” 

In a similar vein, Dustin pointed out that we often examine only one aspect of a product or project when discussing sustainability, but the reality is that a truly sustainable home is one that fits into a larger ecosystem.  “When the focus is on discrete, individual issues, people can get isolated or blinded and forget that everything and everyone are connected, that everything relates and relies on everything else.  It’s easy to focus on architecture or agriculture or transport, or on smaller subsections thereof, but there are no seperate issues; in the long term, we are talking about the global ecosystems that support human life on earth.”

The Moons’ Living House is an inspiration to me, and has fuelled my interest in the greening of America.  To successfully thrive in the 21st century, America is going to have to make massive changes in its social structure and infrastructure.  While we’ve started seeing wind and solar arrays, the great gas guzzlers still roam and asphalt tiles still suck sunrays atop houses.  The Moons are before their time, but only slightly; they are the foam of the coming wave, the rumble of the train through the tracks, and I am excited beyond words to watch their house rise from the ground over the coming year. 

Recommended Reading:  Bill Mollision, Permaculture I & II; Wikipedia: Permaculture; Other write-ups of the Moons’ projects:  PDX Green; Portland Architecture.

The graph showed how much gas prices have risen during the Bush years.  With a Republican-controlled Congress from 2001 to 2007, the price went from $1.47 to $2.10.  Under the Democratic-led Congress that began in 2007, prices have jumped to $4.06.  The graph was clearly designed to show one thing - that the current Congress is to blame for the spike in prices.  Westmoreland confirmed this claim during his speech.

Let’s check Westmoreland’s claim versus the facts.  Following are the five most common reasons that are given for the high gas prices.  Let’s see if they correspond to any actions or inactions on the part of the 110th Congress.

1. Too much speculation.  This could be blamed on an act of Congress - namely, the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which deregulated the commodities market and allowed for much more speculation.  But the Congress to blame would not be the current one - rather, this law was passed back in 2000 by a Republican Congress.  It was backed by Enron lobbyists, spearheaded by Phil Gramm (who is now an adviser for the McCain campaign), and signed by Bill Clinton. 

2. Increased demand from China and India.  The world is using more oil, but the supply of oil is staying the same.  Price increases are inevitable.  I don’t see how this could be the fault of Congress, or of anybody in the United States, for that matter.

3. The War in Iraq.  Many say that our invasion has destabilized the Middle East and upset the people who control the oil.  Is it coincidence that the surge in gas prices roughly corresponds to the time we have been in Iraq?  It was the Republican-led Congress that authorized the war and funded the first four years.  True, the Democratic Congress has approved Bush’s surge strategy - but are the Republicans really going to fault them for that? 

4. Not enough refineries.  It’s been 32 years since the last refinery was built in the United States.  How could this possibly be the fault of lawmakers who have been in power only 18 months?

5. Too many environmental regulations.   This is the one leg that Westmoreland and the Republicans might think that they have to stand on.  In 2007, the Democratic Congress did pass the Energy Independence and Security Act.  This legislation sought to expand the production of biofuels and to set a national fuel economy standard of 35 mpg by the year 2020.  A majority of Republicans opposed it, though it was signed into law by Bush on December 19, 2007. 

Even if it could be shown that this law is bad for gas prices (which it is not, since it reduces consumption), could the Republicans possibly make the argument that in seven short months, it has been responsible for the jump to $4.00 a gallon?  I don’t see how.

The only thing left, then, is what the Democratic Congress has not done.  And that is what the Republicans are clamoring about: more drilling.  They argue that the Democrats are blocking efforts to drill in ANWR and off the Atlantic and Gulf coasts.  Along with the gas tax holiday, this seems to be their main prescription for our energy woes.  It also seems to be the area where they are the most unrealistic and the most short-sighted.

According to The Heritage Foundation, a very conservative think tank, it would take at least 7 years of work in ANWR before the first barrel of oil becomes available.  It would also take at least that long to get through all the legal and technical hurdles before any offshore drilling could occur.

Hmmm.  Seven years.  That means that if we wanted to see any positive effects from more drilling by the year 2010, it would have to have been approved by the Republican Congress back in 2003.  I guess they didn’t think about more drilling back then, because they were counting on that $20 a barrel oil that the War in Iraq was supposed to give us. 

How is it that anyone is taking Westmoreland and other drilling proponents like him seriously when they operate completely outside the realm of reality?

I can’t even imagine how we go forward in many areas if we don’t win this election. There’s so much at stake. Barack Obama’s election is essential in so many ways…

John McCain has said he is interested in the climate change issue. He had said he opposed George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy and changed his mind. He was the author of comprehensive immigration reform and changed his mind. And I don’t know how he will rally the Republicans behind something unless he has tremendous enthusiasm for it, and so far the two things he had enthusiasm for he has walked away from. So, the only answer to this is to elect Barack Obama president of the United States.

Pelosi also said she believes Al Gore’s JFK-esque call to phase out 100% of fossil-fuel based electricity in 10 years is “doable,” and praised his leadership in global warming. Last week in Washington the former Vice President challenged Americans to meet this goal, adding some truly progressive suggestions for how to go about it. From the Guardian:

Gore urged the US to institute a carbon tax that could be offset by reducing the payroll tax on employers.

“We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” he said.

Underpinning Gore’s remarks, however, was a finely tuned sense of the economic anxiety that dominates American life 13 weeks before the next presidential election. He observed that the environmental, fiscal, and national-security dangers facing the country would be eliminated by a conversion to clean energy.

“We’re borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet,” Gore said to wild applause. “Every bit of that has got to change.”

I suppose it’s too much to hope Obama and Pelosi would go to bat for a carbon tax anytime soon, though Gore’s suggestion is certainly a great one.

Seminal readers, heard any straight talk today?