Green Sexy

Where the Candidates Stand On the Environment

It seems like all the talk lately has centered around our nation's ailing economy and not much else.  An issue like the environment has become a second-tier issue in the minds of many financially-struggling households.  In light of immediate financial concerns, it may be easy to lose sight of the bigger picture---all of the money in the world won't make a bit of difference if we don't have a planet to spend it in.  Also, all the money in the world can't cure all of the Earth's problems, but adequate funding, paired up with the proper legislation can truly make a difference with our environment. 

I've been combing through a zillion articles on the candidates' stances on the environment and energy policies, and I have struggled mightily with how to convey all of this information in a way that could be easily digested.  Finally, after much searching around, I finally found what I was looking for!  I found this handy-dandy chart on the wonderful site grist.org that really breaks down what the candidates' positions are on various environmental issues.  Not only is the information presented precisely and concisely, but also it highlights the oft-overlooked fact that there are other candidates out there besides just Barack Obama and John McCain---imagine that!  The chart details what the candidates have proposed for:  cap-and-trade programs for greenhouse-gas emissions, offshore drilling, fuel-economy standards for automobiles, renewable energy, biofuels, coal and nuclear energy.  You simply must check out this chart today! 

While I have previously expressed my views about John McCain's voting record on environmental issues and the Republican Party's seeming aversion to supporting environmental legislation, you must ultimately vote your conscience when you step into the polls on Tuesday.  Cast your vote for yourself, your family and for the mother of us all, the Earth.

Pelosi Rethinks Coastal Oil Drilling: Politics As Usual

Some environmentalists may be distressed to hear that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats are considering opening portions of the Outer Continental Shelf to oil drilling.  Don't despair---it's simply a case of politics as usual.  You see, the new Democratic strategy is to counter the Republican's argument that the Democrats aren't doing enough to reduce gasoline prices and help Americans in this ailing economy.  WELL, the Democrats wouldn't dare give up any political ground in this ridiculous chess match, so now they say that potential oil exploration and drilling is on the table, but only if paired up with proposals that the Republicans have opposed, such as tapping the petroleum reserve and renewable energy initiatives. 

So, we'll have to wait and see where all this political posturing gets us---who's willing to give up more ground in this election year?  Geez, I feel like I'm commentating a sports event or something!

George Bush Did Not Leave His Heart In San Francisco

Brian McConnell and a group of friends thought it would be a fitting tribute to name a San Francisco area sewage treatment plant after outgoing President George W. Bush.  Thus, the Presidential Memorial Commission of San Francisco was formed, and 10, 000 signatures later, the measure to rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant has qualified for the November ballot.  Proponents of the measure cite President Bush's blunders, from the Iraq war to his handling of the economy, and the fact that we'll all be left to "clean up the mess".  Thus, the sewage plant renaming seems like a fitting move to many.

On one hand, passing this measure would really be a blow to President Bush's legacy and would be a tangible demonstration of the disgust of many an American over President Bush's ineptitude. 

On the other hand, this would just confirm a lot of people's opinions of San Franciscans as a bunch of wackie hippy liberals who do more "fighting of the man" than they do actually doing something of true worth.  Also, there are defenders of the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant who say that it, as an entity "is anything but a symbol of inadequacy", and that "Without it, raw sewage and storm water would flow into the bay and the oceans and the streets. That's not our understanding of what the authors of this initiative believe the current president has delivered."

How will San Franciscan voters respond to this measure?  No one knows, but from now on whenever I flush a toilet, I will be reminded of President Bush.  I guess it gives another meaning to the term "W." C.

Bipartisan Support For the Environment---April Fools!

A recent 60 Minutes interview and profile of Al Gore opened up with how he is trying to dispel the current climate of partisan politics in regard to the environment.  By pairing up oppositional figures such as Nancy Pelosi and Newt Gingrich or Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson in p.r. ads for the environment, Gore is hoping to change the hearts and minds of a very politically-divided country. 

While there have been some positive changes in regard to recent green legislation (increase in fuel efficiency standards for automobiles, creation of the world's largest Marine Conservation in Hawaii), let's face it, when it comes to which party's members typically vote for or against environmental legislation, it's still a very partisan affair.  The League of Conservation Voters recently released their 2007 Environmental Scorecard that details the voting records of Congressional members (to see how this year's presidential candidates scored, click here).  In both the House and Senate, Democrats largely outranked Republicans on the 2007 Environmental Scorecard.  In the 110th, First Session U.S. Senate, Democrats had many members above 80%, while Republicans had many members in the single digits, and 9 members who scored a 0%!  The scores in the 110th, First Session U.S. House reflects largely the same trend, with Democrats scoring very high, and Republicans scoring very low, with 47 members at 0%! 

It is funny how partisan the voting records are when it comes to the environment, and not funny "ha ha".

Economic Stimulus Act- Wasting Money Right Off the Bat!

Hello, my fellow Americans.

No doubt by now you've received the IRS mailing informing you that the United States Congress and yours truly ("W"), have signed into law the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008.  That's right folks, even though we're hemorrhaging money funding two wars in two countries and are in a sizable trade deficit with China, we the government have decided, in all our beneficence, to give you this handout.  So, just like I previously encouraged you in times of national crisis---shop, shop, shop---do your American duty and wastefully purchase impulse items that will stimulate the economy in the short run, but ultimately become landfill fodder in the end.  No better way to exercise your freedom than to engage in slavish consumerism to fill the empty void in your soul where true hope of a safer and more compassionate world used to be! 

And please disregard the fact that it cost $42 million dollars to mail this superfluous letter to 130 million American households---a letter that informs you that all you have to do is file a 2007 tax return to receive your stimulus check (You may call me "Captain Obvious", but I think it's a great public relations move!).  Also disregard criticism from fellow Republicans like Senator Tom Coburn who said, "Congress should be ashamed of itself for approving a 'stimulus' bill that included funding for this wasteful mailing."  Furthermore, disregard the fact that we have wasted a great amount of paper on these letters. Finally, don't pay much mind to the fact that instead of frivolously blowing their stimulus check on useless crap, a good majority of Americans intend to use this money to pay down their stifling credit card debt, which won't give the economy the "feel-good" payoff that I'm looking for to boost my paltry approval rating.

Hey, I'm just a simple guy, like you (only totally privileged socially and economically).  I'm not the type of guy who uses big words...or even the correct usage of words, big or small.  Nor am I the type to rouse the American public with inspiring words and hopeful messages (I'll leave that to Barack Obama).  No, all I can do is ask you to spend your hard-earned money on luxury items you cannot really afford.  But hey, as you fall into a pit of debt due to overspending, you'll become part of the true American Experience and add to our staggering National Debt!

God bless you, and God bless America.

George W. Bush

One.org---Sign their Petition & Get Our Next President to Visit Africa!

I was surprised to find out that President Bush, in his recent visit to Africa (the second of his Presidency), became only the second United States President (the first was President Bill Clinton) to visit Africa while in office.  Only the second!  What is wrong with us?  With all of the human and environmental tragedies that have occurred on the African continent over the years, no other United States Presidents have visited Africa during their terms?  That is deplorable. 

Granted, the United States has been much improved in the past decade in their allocation of aid to Africa.  President Bush's President's Emergency Plan For AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has helped increase the number of HIV and AIDS infected Africans who can receive the life-saving drugs they need to survive from only 4,000 in 2003 to 34,000 in 2006.  In Zanzibar, a partnership between the government of Tanzania, the Global Fund, USAID and the Presidential Malaria Initiative have contributed to an 83% drop in malaria cases in that region since 2003. 

Still, there is no substitute for our leader having tangible and physical contact with the people of a continent  so in need of our assistance.  Having our President visit Africa gives this continent the media exposure it needs to further elevate its status as a worldwide priority for aid and assistance.  A Presidential visit to Africa helps Americans, who may be ignorant of problems outside of their present sphere of existence, to see that we are a global family and we need to reach out to our African brothers and sisters. 

So, with the help of One.org, an organization whose mission is to fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty, I urge you to check out the candidate's positions on tackling worldwide disease and extreme poverty. Then I implore you sign a petition asking the candidates to pledge to visit Africa during their first term as President.
 

If you choose to sign this pledge petition, please leave me a comment on this post and I'll send you a white band that I purchased from One.org (while supplies last).  All the proceeds of my donation will go towards supporting One.org's advocacy and lobbying efforts in the fight against global AIDS and extreme poverty. 

John McCain Strikes Out!

Here's a bit of disturbing news I received in my email from Sierra Club regarding John McCain:

"Last week, the League of Conservation Voters (LCV) released the 2007 National Environmental Scorecard giving Senator McCain a score of ZERO. According to the scorecard, McCain was the only member of Congress to skip all 15 crucial environmental votes scored by LCV."

You may say, give the guy a break---it's an election year and he's absent for the votes because he's hitting the campaign trail.  While it is true that all major candidates have missed some key environmental votes because they were campaigning, both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama missed only four votes in 2007.  Hillary Clinton's LCV National Environmental Score for 2007 was 73% (87% lifetime), while Barack Obama's score for 2007 was 67% (86% lifetime).  Contrast that with John McCain's 0% score for 2007 and his paltry 24% lifetime score! 

So, voter---it appears that either Clinton or Obama would be good environmental stewards based on their lifetime scores as calculated by the League of Conservation Voters.  John McCain's platform is one based primarily on Homeland Security; but isn't our shared homeland, which is the Earth, in imminent peril?  What is he planning to do to protect the only homeland we've got?  So, when you step behind that curtain at your polling place this November, vote your conscience---vote for the Earth.

Bush's Final (yay!) State of the Union Address

Ah, George.  Still trying to capitalize off his previous State of the Union speech where the former(?) oil-brat boldly declared:  "WE ARE ADDICTED TO OIL!" 

In tonight's State of the Union Address George Bush dedicated close to two minutes on environmental issues (which he then transitioned into a diatribe on stem cell research).  He reiterated that we need to reduce our addiction to oil...and replace it with an addiction to a wasteful venture like ethanol. 

And how about his call for more efficient coal-burning energy plants with better emissions-capturing technology?  As if we're not already not "addicted to coal" as well as oil, there are 150 more coal-burning plants proposed in the United States alone, with only 10 percent of those plants slated to use "clean coal" technology.

He stressed the need to support emissions-free nuclear technology.  While nuclear power does hold much favor in energy-progressive countries like France and Japan, which derive a good amount of their energy from nuclear power, it's those "x-factors"--- Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl---that just freak people out!  Nuclear energy proponents like Dr. Bill Wattenburg would argue that technological advancements in the nuclear energy industry since these debacles have all but negated the risk of such a catastrophes.  While that may be true, and also while taking into account that you can never truly negate all risk of any technology, there is one glaring problem with nuclear energy that is usually swept under the rug (or under the Earth)---what to do with the radioactive waste?  The hundreds of thousands of tons of radioactive waste that is produced by nuclear power plants each year are stored underground in cannisters will remain radioactive for thousands of years!  France, Japan and Russia do reprocess a portion of their nuclear waste into fuel, but the byproduct is plutonium, an element used in the production of nuclear weapons, which in itself raises security issues---eh, Bush? 

And what's up with the omission of Wind and Solar technologies in Bush's speech?  I think George is more into pandering to special interest groups (corn lobby, coal industry, nuclear power industry) than he is into technologies that, while expensive on the front end, are renewable and ultimately more Earth-friendly!  Bush is more into short-term solutions, and since so much of our nation's money has flowed into funding his war in Iraq, he's not willing or forward-thinking enough to promote wind and solar energy.  Thus far, wind and solar energy are to the U.S. Government what massage therapy and acupuncture are to health insurance industry.

Will the next President be more progressive in his or her energy initiatives?  Well, the best we can do is vote with our hearts and hope for the best!