Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit
If you're a political junkie like me, all you can think about is the primary and the general election beyond. Can you remember a primary season so dynamic and volatile, so dramatic, so filled with hope and trepidation and the stirrings of something historic? I can't decide if I love it or I'm going to have an ulcer by November.
Today I want to take a look at the Dem candidates. Do green issues offer a way to differentiate them? A way to help wavering primary voters decide which way to go?
Sorry, but not really.
In terms of climate/energy policy proposals, there's not a whole lot of distance between Obama and Clinton. On this issue as on so many others, they both followed Edwards' early lead and ended up with strong, ambitious plans. Both would substantially cut greenhouse gas emissions and boost clean energy; both pitch sustainability as an issue of shared sacrifice and economic opportunity; both have an impressive grasp of the policy details. Some resources:
- My analysis of Clinton's plan is here, of Obama's here.
- A more thorough factsheet on Clinton's green record is here; Obama's here.
- An interview with Clinton on green subjects is here; Obama here.
I'll look at the merits of some of their proposals in subsequent posts; for now I want to focus on what differentiates them.
Thing is, there isn't much. There are episodes in their respective pasts that give pause. Clinton burned all those tires (long story). As a Democratic power broker and high-powered lawyer of long standing, she's been cozy with some fairly unsavory corporate players, from Alcoa to Wal-Mart.
Obama, on the other hand, is an Illinois pol. That means he is, by necessity, a little friendlier with coal, ethanol, and nuclear interests than greens might like. Those allegiances led him to vote for the monstrosity that was the Energy Act of 2005, a porkfest that funneled subsidies to all three interest groups (Clinton voted against it). Early last year, he pushed legislation boosting liquid coal. (When greens threw a fit he backed off somewhat, making clear that liquid coal is kosher only if it meets low-carbon fuel standards.) As the NYT exhaustively documents, he gets big campaign contributions from Exelon, a nuclear outfit based in Illinois; his campaign adviser David Axelrod once consulted for the company.
There is, however, no smoking gun of quid pro quo in either's career, and both are well-regarded by greens. Various commentators have blown past transgressions up to make the case that Clinton is secretly an earth-hating corporate sellout, or that Obama is, or that both are. Call me cynical, but all the above seems like relatively run-of-the-mill parochial politics to me. You'd be hard-pressed to find a politician that doesn't have compromises like this in his or her past. If you wanted pure green positions -- no new coal plants, no corn ethanol, no nukes under any circumstances -- I'm afraid your hopes died with the Edwards campaign (or the Kucinich campaign ... is that one dead yet?). Between the two remaining Dems, neither their histories nor their campaign proposals yield an obvious green favorite.
It comes down to these questions:
- Who will be more effective at getting a green agenda past the many obstacles it faces?
- Who will do more to help downticket races and usher more Democrats into Congress?
There's been a lot of chatter about "theories of change" this election, but if you ask me, personal style matters a hell of a lot less than the number of reliable votes in Congress. So who'll get more downticket Dems elected? I think, as his recent endorsement by a string of red-state Dems attests, Obama will. He's got broader appeal with the Independents and wavering Republicans that will make the difference in close Congressional races.
So in the end, if I was forced at gunpoint to pick the greener Dem this election, it would be Obama, but only based on second-order effects, and only barely. By far the larger story this season is that both Democratic choices are advancing a green agenda substantially more ambitious than what was proposed by Kerry, Gore, or Clinton. It's hard for green Democrats to go wrong this year.
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
How about which side has been more honest? Which candidate's spouse told us that we just have to grow slower to be `green'? I don't know how much slower we can grow, from the 2~3% `normal', to make much of a difference.....guess NEGATIVE 3% for a couple of decades ought to do the Greens proud.....as a bonus, will also solve our illegal immigration problems....hehehehe
Posted by Happy at 02/04/2008 @ 10:01pm
We really ought to look closer at nuclear power. I know, I know, nuclear is a forbidden word. Seriously though, we have the ability to go nuclear sooner than wasting time on wind energy (not efficient), solar energy (too bloody expensive), or ethanol (really dumb idea). If we could put some money into research and development and let loose some of our finer minds, I'd wager we could devise a workable solution to nuclear waste. We have got to lessen our reliance and overuse of fossil fuels.
To Frosty, yes, I have turned off excess lights and wear sweaters. :)
Posted by FritztheCat at 02/04/2008 @ 10:03pm
Neither will propose the "economy killers" that the environmental movement ultimately wants. (And please don't deny it, the NICE ones like FROSTY tell us openly they want a "less consumerist" lifestyle to save the planet, and that's code for a stunted economy).
No, we'll get MONEY THROWN AT THINGS....research, hybrid tax breaks, solar panels for Fed office buildings, etc.
That's easy...everybody loves it...and it doesn't allow Rush Limbaugh or Fox News to point at some little town in Kentucky, West Virginia, or Pennsylvania and to Bob and Mary, or Frank and Sue, and say "Look those eco-nuts put THESE FINE FOLKS OUT OF A JOB!"....for the 2010 mid-terms or 2012 Presidentials.
And Hillary AND Obama know it.
Posted by Mask at 02/04/2008 @ 10:40pm
both are well-regarded by greens . . . It's hard for green Democrats to go wrong this year. . . by necessity
what a bunch of crap
Posted by ids at 02/04/2008 @ 10:42pm
To Frosty, yes, I have turned off excess lights and wear sweaters. :)
Posted by FRITZTHECAT 02/04/2008 @ 10:03pm
thanks, counsellor.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:14pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/04/2008 @ 10:01pm
here something to think about happy:
all wealth comes from the earth. sure you've got information, but ultimately that info is used to make or do something earth based.
my earnings as a musician are all tied to wealth extracted from the earth.
google sells ads. ads for things made from the planet.
so, how are we going to grow forever on a finite planet?
see you on mars?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:17pm
Sorry Mr. Roberts, but this going green thing sounds crappier by the day.
Why do I get the feeling that Joe Taxpayer is gonna get screwed at both ends?
Posted by ACook at 02/04/2008 @ 11:20pm
(And please don't deny it, the NICE ones like FROSTY tell us openly they want a "less consumerist" lifestyle to save the planet, and that's code for a stunted economy).
by mask.
well, i'd say that this may ultimately do a whole lot more stuntin':
CONSUMER CREDIT OUTSTANDING 1
Seasonally adjusted
Amount: billions of dollars 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 r Sep r Oct r Nov p
Total 1974.1 2078.0 2191.3 2284.9 2387.5 2360.7 2387.5 2415.7 2448.0 2487.9 2487.9 2489.9 2505.4
that's 2.5 trillion dollaritos of borrowed iPlods
http://www.federalreserve.gov/RELEASES/g19/current/
you could take out chavez and khamenei for less.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:30pm
whoa! lookey here:
CREDIT MARKET DEBT OUTSTANDING, OWED BY SECTOR,
Year
Household sector (in Billion$)
1997 $5,485.8
1998 5,911.8
1999 6,408.4
2000 6,999.5
2001 7,649.4
2002 8,460.0
2003 9,450.3
2004 10,565.1
2005 11,803.9
2006 12,815.9
http://www.iii.org/financial2/savings/cbd/
so if you include mortgages, that's
drum roll, please,
12,815,900,000,000 dollaritos of debt.
so tell me, which is gonna do the stuntin' having a negative savings rate and debt to the moon (alice)
or
buying 33% less tupperware?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:35pm
Household debt rose 8.6 percent from 2005 to 2006, compared with 8.2 percent for business debt.
Over the 10 years 1997-2006, household debt rose 133.6 percent, compared with a rise of 68.3 percent for business debt.
growth, my ass. (no jokes please!)
it's all a sham.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:36pm
Look those eco-nuts put THESE FINE FOLKS OUT OF A JOB!"....for the 2010 mid-terms or 2012 Presidentials.
And Hillary AND Obama know it.
Posted by MASK 02/04/2008 @ 10:40pm
actually, the eco-nuts would replace jobs lost by the
greedo-nuts when they sent them to china.
speaking of debt....................
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:38pm
....things made from the planet.
so, how are we going to grow forever on a finite planet...
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 11:17pm
A long time ago, sand wasn't worth much outside of construction sold by the dump truck load...see, silica is one of the most abundant mineral on this, ahem, "finite planet"...then some dumbass invented `chips'....no, not Dorito chips that sponsored the Super Bowel! (PS: Thanks to the NY Giants for preserving MY Dolphins' PERFECT SEASON!) Next, another dumbass figured out silica is good for converting solar radiation into electricity!
To me, creating wealth out of sands was amazing, but it has to be melted & transformed to add value. Even more amazing over this past 15 yrs or so, was folks turning rocks into "wealth". Imagine shipping containers after containers of sliced granite or marble and selling them for counter tops or sinks?
Do not underestimate mankind's ability to adapt or create new out of worthless old! To be a Green fundamentally means one belongs to the "Glass is half-Empty" tribe........That's just not HAPPY....:~)
Posted by Happy at 02/04/2008 @ 11:45pm
Super Bowel
Posted by HAPPY 02/04/2008 @ 11:45pm
hey that's funny. on the other thread i recommended mask take some metamucil to deal with his "gut feeling".
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:47pm
To be a Green fundamentally means one belongs to the "Glass is half-Empty" tribe........That's just not HAPPY....:~)
Posted by HAPPY 02/04/2008 @ 11:45pm
first of all, the whole "green" label is stupid.
we're not marcians.
humans are the only animal stupid enough to destroy a forest so we can get some "money" and buy a t.v. so we can look at forests.
we are made of dirt. WE ARE the earth. if we can't love the environment that surrounds us, we can't love ourselves.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/04/2008 @ 11:51pm
HEY, HAPPY:
been thinking about sand.
great point.
economic growth has always come from expansion. as the 'once'-ler [en.wikipedia.org]said, "i've got to keep on biggering and Biggering and BIGGERING!!!!
(emphasis mine)
but now the time has come to become for us to become '17,353,689th'-lers
and proceed to keep on SMALLERING!! and Smallering and smallerin'...........
just as their are an infinite number of possible pitches within the octave, and only a finer scale (measurement, puns are fun) is needed to identify them,
their are an infinite number of possibilities achievable in economic terms buy achieving efficiency (i.e. growing smaller).
and how we define efficiency must be determined not only by it's impact on how much wealth is generated from the earth,
but more importantly on how much an activity affects the earth itself, be it adversely or goodly.
for it mustn't be forgotten that we are made of dirt.
we are processed earth.
thanks, happy.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 12:33am
wow. the thunderstorms of february have arrived here in the GWN:
Highest Temperature (1941-2007) 10.2°C 1993
Lowest Temperature (1941-2007) -19.7°C 2007
Condition: Thunderstorm with Rain
Temperature:8.6°C
Humidity:100%
Periods of rain and fog with the risk of a thunderstorm.
Temperature rising to 9 by morning.
fog has become our winter......
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 01:42am
happy:
stock tip:
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSN0457767920080205
Energy consortium launches Alberta carbon project (they're gonna make a giant underground seltzer)
Mon Feb 4, 2008 2:36pm EST
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 02:21am
so, how are we going to grow forever on a finite planet?----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/04/2008 @ 11:17pm
FROSTY....define "forever".
Seriously.
Because it SEEMS as if you think "forever" is "the next 20-30 years". I mean that's your continueing argument, that we "can't keep growing FOREVER because it will end the Earth before the middle of the century".
Forever is....forever. And in the time-span of "forever", we'll be so beyond the "consumerist" society you despise that it will make shopping at Wal-mart look like hunting mammoths on the side of a glacier with a flint spear.
And yes the Earth is "finite"...but not so finite that there aren't HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of tons raw materials left on it.
So it's true within the scope of "forever" (i.e. infinite time) you cannot utilize a "finite" resource.
But that's hyperbole, not argument.
Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 09:20am
LET'S NOT FORGET EXECUTIVE ORDER There's another arena in which we need to evaluate their green creds, tho' there may not be sufficient data available - yet. We should press the candidates for it -- to release a 100 day climate action plan that can be enacted through Executive Order, EPA, Clean Air Act. Especially after Mass v. EPA, the President now has great authority to unilaterally regulate CO2 and send a nationwide signal -- that would go far in making a difference as Congress dickers over an economy wide signal. The President can be a game-changer. We forget that. Wonder why.
See for example: Presidential Climate Action Plan Is Written: Who Can Fill the Shoes? at http://www.solveclimate.com/blog/20071205/presidential-climate-action-pl an-written-who-can-fill-shoes
David Sassoon, www.solveclimate.com
Posted by dsassoon at 02/05/2008 @ 09:47am
Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 09:20am
let's start with water.
how many people NOW are lacking fresh water to drink? it's the next oil.
a new concept of "growth" must be found.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 09:52am
Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 09:20am
State expands fight against emerald ash borer
Posted by Associated Press February 04, 2008 22:37PM
TRAVERSE CITY -- A quarantine zone was enlarged again Monday in the struggle to contain the emerald ash borer, an invasive beetle that is decimating ash trees in Michigan and several other states.
The Michigan Department of Agriculture said it was placing all of Mackinac County in the eastern Upper Peninsula within the quarantined area, which already includes the entire Lower Peninsula.
The emerald ash borer, a metallic-green insect native to Asia, was found in Michigan for the first time in 2002 and has spread rapidly. It is believed to have killed or damaged more than 25 million trees across 40,000 square miles in Michigan and at least five other states. Southeastern Michigan has been hardest hit.
here's a madeinchina problem that will cost billions. i guess those louisville sluggers are gonna be aluminum.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 09:59am
Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 09:20am
i don't despise anybody for shopping, mask.
i just think the whole deal can be done more fairly for workers and our environment.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 10:11am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 09:52am
Okay, FRESH water?...yes. But there are several TRILLION gallons of sea-water on this "finite Earth"....So what we need is more desalination and cheap filtering systems.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 09:59am
And there were no starlings in North America, no rabbits in Australia, and no kudzu in the South, but they are here now and NONE of them imported due to "cheap Asian imports" or the WTO.
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 10:11am
Disengenuous, FZ. How many times have you said "buy less stuff" here? You don't want "fairer" or "more green" "consumerism"...you want LESS "consumerism". Right?
Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 10:58am
what a bunch of crap
Posted by IDS 02/04/2008 @ 10:42pm
crap makes great natural fertizizer, though human crap probably has some bizarre synthetic poisons in it...
thanks david roberts for the issue focus...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 02/05/2008 @ 10:59am
before i answer your questions, i think it's only fair that you take this rare moment to answer mine.
Okay, FRESH water?...yes. But there are several TRILLION gallons of sea-water on this "finite Earth"....So what we need is more desalination and cheap filtering systems.
and who will pay for this? and how will they be powered? and how soon will this magic water be ready? and how will such massive desalination affect the oceans?
And there were no starlings in North America, no rabbits in Australia, and no kudzu in the South, but they are here now and NONE of them imported due to "cheap Asian imports" or the WTO.
and what are the cost/benefits of each of those species? and how did they get there?
Disengenuous, FZ. How many times have you said "buy less stuff" here? You don't want "fairer" or "more green" "consumerism"...you want LESS "consumerism". Right?
what are the benefits of having 13 trillion dollars in consumer debt?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:28am
invasive species arrive with us. i suppose we are the most invasive species. and they arrive because we have gone a-biggering.
and as the biggering accelerates, the number of species suddenly arriving in a place where they're suddenly king accelerates, as well. and as more and more and more ecosystems succumb to the weight of so many topsy-turvies, the very earth we are made from groans a little louder, heading one step closer to the times when only fungi* rule.
(sure the earth will survive our presence, but we need to clean up our mess, now. not for the kids and not to sell "greenie" nonsense, but because our house is just plain filthy)
just as the universe gets bigger and bigger as you go out, it gets smaller and smaller when you go in. our time of biggering must come to an end. the economics of the future must come from smallering, seeking the most efficient path that balances physical well-being (which of course includes happiness) with care for the dirt that becomes us.
* http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1200/is_n11_v149/ai_18160003
************************************************************************
and doesn't 13 trillion in debt tell you that people (i use american stats because they're easy to find; i'm really talking about the ever expanding YOU AND I)
are trying to extract more stuff from the earth than their own fortunes can generate.
so more money is printed to give more credit, and the stuff keeps rolling in,
because
YOU AND I
export the inflation
onto the backs of people who dream
of one day being just like YOU AND I.
************************************************************************
and isn't buying less stuff the same as wanting fairer and cleaner trade?
if the tupperware costs 30%, i buy 30% less, but i also pay the dudes 15% more and help keep their house** 15% cleaner.
**ecosystem
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 1:42pm
BTW
what does maskian environmental policy look like?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 1:42pm
what a cute guy. who cares what he posts.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 2:29pm
what a cute guy. who cares what he posts.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/05/2008 @ 2:29pm
he's my electro-pal.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 2:35pm
ooops,
that sounds like a good name for a vibrator
"electro-pal"
what i meant to say is that i enjoy discussions with mask, even though he sometimes makes me grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 2:36pm
what a cute guy. who cares what he posts.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/05/2008 @ 2:29pm
what does this have to do with Mask?
Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 2:42pm
there is no way that Mask is cute. maybe to his mom, tops
Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 2:53pm
what does this have to do with Mask?
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/05/2008 @ 2:42pm
oh, you're talking about the guy in the picture.
i heard duboisian sarcasm.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 2:59pm
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/action/ignore.mhtml?who=frosty%20zoom
not from me. well there might have been a tiny bit. I was echoing the compliments the recent feminist poster received.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 3:07pm
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/05/2008 @ 3:07pm
i posted a critique of the recent photogate and you called "a waste of time".
it's fun wasting time, ain't it?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 3:35pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 1:42pm
1. You argued that the resource "fresh water" is finite. I argued that it is a matter of application of technology to turn a vast resource (sea water) into it AND I offered a functional solution...while you offered none (unless you're pushing ZPG).
2. You argued about an invasive species and the supposed "relationship" to imports from Asia ("here's a madeinchina problem that will cost billions. i guess those louisville sluggers are gonna be aluminum.")....
I showed how there were MANY examples of invasive species...and NONE of them had ANY relationship to import/exports.
3. You argued FIRST that you "don't despise anybody for shopping, mask. i just think the whole deal can be done more fairly for workers and our environment." NOW, you arge that it's about "consumer debt".
Pick one and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, you admit that I was right and that it was NOT about "more fair to workers and our environment", but that you want a DECREASE in consuming...period and come up with varying reasons to promote that.
Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 3:35pm
sometimes.
you're living in the past.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/05/2008 @ 3:41pm
Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 3:35pm
13 trillion.
that's quite a hole that's been dug.
what is the maskian environmental policy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 3:54pm
what is the maskian environmental policy?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 3:54pm
Just what I said Obama or Hillary will do. The stuff that involves tax rebates/credits for hybrids...research money...solarizing Federal buildings....etc.....etc.
But if you think EITHER of those guys is going to slam the brakes on an economy and DESTROY their re-election chances in 2012...you're HSUBFOOLing yourself.
Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 3:56pm
But if you think EITHER of those guys is going to slam the brakes on an economy and DESTROY their re-election chances in 2012...you're HSUBFOOLing yourself.
Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 3:56pm
c'mon, dude.
i'm optimistic that people will learn better ways,
but to think a corporacrat will do anything substantial is utterly naive.
i'm crazy, but i ain't dumb.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 4:26pm
but what about that debt?
no comments?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 4:27pm
but to think a corporacrat will do anything substantial is utterly naive.----Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 4:26pm
FZ, you made my first point and the following ones.
Given YOUR definition of "something substantial"....NO, neither Obama or Hillary will do anything like that, because it would CRUSH the economy and kill their re-election chances and the GOP would come roaring back in 2012...
and do a HELLUVA lot worse, not a tiny bit better.
Posted by Mask at 02/05/2008 @ 7:43pm
but what about that debt?
no comments?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 4:27pm
but what about that debt?
isn't that going to crush the economy?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:08pm
but what about that debt?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:09pm
you're thinking backwards.
oil is so passé.
THE ECONOMY IS ALREADY CRUSHED.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:10pm
Given YOUR definition of "something substantial"....NO, neither Obama or Hillary will do anything like that, because it would CRUSH the economy and kill their re-election chances and the GOP would come roaring back in 2012...
and do a HELLUVA lot worse, not a tiny bit better.
Posted by MASK 02/05/2008 @ 7:43pm
dude, you see one sliver of "my" argument and then turn it into a talking point cliché.
investing in more sensible technologies will stimulate the economy, not crush it.
the current path leads only to higher and higher oil prices and war.
i say they won't do anything, not because they will destroy the economy, but because they will endanger the mega-profits of their ceo sponsors.
these people are scooping out the sinking ship's flood waters with champagne glasses.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:18pm
and since you know what my ideas are,
please summarize.
it seems to me that you think i favour a complete shut down of the world's economy.
banishing electricity...............
heck, you think i'm a nice khmer rouge.
i am not a cliché.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:22pm
AND WHAT ABOUT THE DEBT?
13 TRILLION
WHAT SAY YOU!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:22pm
Economic impacts
Economic costs due to invasive species can be separated into direct costs due to production loss in agriculture and forestry, and management costs of invasive species. Estimated damage and control cost of invasive species in the U.S. alone amount to more than $138 billion annually. [28] In addition to these costs, economic losses can occur due to loss from recreational and tourism revenues.[38] Economic costs of invasions, when calculated as production loss and management costs, are low because they do not usually consider environmental damages. If monetary values could be assigned to the extinction of species, loss in biodiversity, and loss of ecosystem services, costs from impacts of invasive species would drastically increase.[28] The following examples from different sectors of the economy demonstrate the impact of biological invasions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species
prevention is better than control. a president who could save some of those $138 billion annually would be pretty popular.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:57pm
Pathways for Invasive Species Introduction
Globalization has vastly increased long-distance travel and commerce, and highly altered waterways. These and other factors have increased the frequency by orders of magnitude by which non-native plants, animals and pathogens are introduced to new areas, sometimes with costly results.
http://www.epa.gov/owow/invasive_species/pathways.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 9:58pm
13 TRILLION
WHAT SAY YOU!?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 9:22pm
MASK, guess I'll take this one.......to keep the thread going while NICHOLS count each vote....
The US economy is pushing $15 Trillion...so $13 Trillion in debt is about one year's GDP......think of this another way, the average debt per working person is about one year's pay...if your pay is $20k/year, then $20k is your share of the debt.....if you made $100 million, then that's your share of the debt....doesn't seem, ON AVERAGE, too scary to me! But, as you know, there are plenty of professional fear-mongers out there.....Paul Krugman ring any bells? Al Gore? John Edwards?
Posted by Happy at 02/05/2008 @ 10:05pm
Invasive Plants and Animals: Globalization's Impacts on America's Economy, Health and Environment
Invasive species cause many native species to become endangered and threaten the integrity and stability of U.S. biodiversity and ecosystems. In addition to harming the environment, the U.S. economy faces billions of dollars worth of damage from non-native plants and animals. These escalating losses occur in agriculture, forestry, and several other segments of the U.S. economy.
This biological invasion is an unintended consequence of globalization, which facilitates the movement of species across all geographical and physical boundaries with the vastly increased movement of people and materials.
In recent years, the introduction of invasive species has increased dramatically. Some contributing factors include increases in the number of people traveling; enhanced speed and ability to transport plants and animals so they are more likely to survive the journey; an increase in the modes of transport for hitchhiking organisms, such as airplane wheel wells, bilge water, and pallet wood; and globalization of trade.
http://www.nga.org/cda/files/000227INVASIVEPLANTS.pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 10:34pm
The Invasive Species Problem
Increasingly, global trade and communication are directly contributing to the mixing of faunas and floras across biogeographical boundaries. To describe this new epoch of widespread anthropogenic influence, some researchers have suggested the term Homogocene.
http://www.issg.org/
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 10:34pm
FZ:
I read an article in IBD 1-2 years ago that said some company had come up with a desalination machine that could filter seawater at the rate of 2500L per hour or something like that. Not only that, but it could also draw moisture from even desert(!) air at a rate of hundreds of liters per hour (or maybe day). Pretty cool stuff.
Posted by usc1 at 02/05/2008 @ 10:40pm
1. You argued that the resource "fresh water" is finite. I argued that it is a matter of application of technology to turn a vast resource (sea water) into it AND I offered a functional solution...while you offered none (unless you're pushing ZPG).
But it uses a lot more energy to get the same results as normal water treatment, which can supply water at 10 to 15 cents per thousand litres. Desalination costs up to 10 times that: between $1 and $1.40 a kilolitre.
http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/sa/content/2006/s1781813.htm
here's a better solution. flush the toilet half as often. better yet, use your bathwater to flush the toilet. shower for 3 minutes less. what's the big deal about conservation that scares you so?
with unit water costs five to ten times as high as those of conventional water-resources development.................
http://www.unu.edu/unupress/unupbooks/80858e/80858E09.htm
2. You argued about an invasive species and the supposed "relationship" to imports from Asia ("here's a madeinchina problem that will cost billions. i guess those louisville sluggers are gonna be aluminum.")....
see above posts
I showed how there were MANY examples of invasive species...and NONE of them had ANY relationship to import/exports.
3. You argued FIRST that you "don't despise anybody for shopping, mask. i just think the whole deal can be done more fairly for workers and our environment." NOW, you arge that it's about "consumer debt".
too much debt (fueled by pollution creating greed) means more inflation which leads to higher prices OR exportation of said inflation to places where workers can be exploited and environmental regulations ignored so as to keep costs in devalued dollars low.
if we bought less stuff that was better made, paying a decent wage and offering better environmental conditions to the brown people, they would be better off and so would we.
Pick one and we'll discuss it. Otherwise, you admit that I was right and that it was NOT about "more fair to workers and our environment", but that you want a DECREASE in consuming...period and come up with varying reasons to promote that.
do you honestly think i want people to stop buying stuff. some sort of stuff envy. put down that bong, maestro.
nonetheless, a sensible reduction would be smart.
why?
duh........ less pollution to start with.
look around your house. how much useless junk do you have? you didn't buy it because you wanted to help your economy, you bought it because you thought you needed it. but you don't. i guarantee you could selectively remove 1/2 of the matter from your abode and live exactly the same way tomorrow.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 10:58pm
and so from what i see you:
a) believe building billion dollar desalination plants that produce water 10 times more expensive is better than being frugal with the water we already have,
b) believe invasive species pose no threat to an economy or ecosystems,
c) wish to continue amassing trillions of dollars in inflation spawning debt,
and d) enjoy the cheapness of exploited brown people products without any consideration for them or their environment.
hey, you'd make a great president!
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:04pm
and i repeatedly mention debt because you seem to think (erroneously, imho) that encouraging environmental consciousness will be a politician's demise because acting to make our world cleaner will crush the economy.
the u.s. consumers alone have debt equalling the entire GDP of the u.s. for 2007.
that's something that will crush the economy,
not educating people about water conservation and funding cleaner technologies.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:09pm
FZ:
I read an article in IBD 1-2 years ago that said some company had come up with a desalination machine that could filter seawater at the rate of 2500L per hour or something like that. Not only that, but it could also draw moisture from even desert(!) air at a rate of hundreds of liters per hour (or maybe day). Pretty cool stuff.
Posted by USC1 02/05/2008 @ 10:40pm
great. put it into practice for 7,000,000,000 people.
of course new technologies will enable great advancements in human living standards.
but prevention is always better than a cure, especially when that cure is 50, 100 years away.
ask the folks in georgia.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:12pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/05/2008 @ 10:05pm
well, it's scary to these people:
Euro may become top reserve currency by 2022
--
study Fri Aug 5, 2005 2:20 PM ET WASHINGTON, Aug 5 (Reuters) -
The euro could supplant the dollar as the world's dominant reserve currency within 20 years if Britain and other European Union countries adopted the unit and the greenback continues to slide, a recent study showed.
The paper, released by the National Bureau of Economic Research this week, outlined two key criteria for a change of the current status quo -- where about two thirds of world's central bank reserves are denominated in the U.S. currency.
First was the scope for expansion of the euro zone so that it tops the gross domestic product of the United States and envelops London's dominant international financial center.
Second is the role of U.S. economic policies and the risk that they might undermine confidence in the dollar through inflation and depreciation
. "We find that if all 13 EU members who are not currently in EMU (European Economic and Monetary Union) join it by 2020, including the United Kingdom, then the euro overtakes the dollar a few years later," the study's authors wrote. "We also find that even if some of these countries do not join, a continuation of the recent depreciation trend of the dollar -- were it to occur for whatever reason -- could bring about the tipping point even sooner."
The study, written by Harvard University's Jeffrey Frankel and Menzie Chinn of the University of Wisconsin at Madison, said euro setbacks this year -- from sluggish growth and the rejection of the EU constitution -- were unlikely to delay for long the prospect of continued deficit-driven dollar losses in future. "Our results suggest that such dollar depreciation would be no free lunch, and could have profound consequences for the functioning of the international monetary system," it said
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:17pm
THE WORLD'S RUBBISH DUMP: A GARBAGE TIP THAT STRETCHES FROM HAWAII TO JAPAN
By Kathy Marks, Asia-Pacific Correspondent, and Daniel Howden Tuesday, 5 February 2008
A "plastic soup" of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said.
The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting "soup" stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan.
Charles Moore, an American oceanographer who discovered the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", believes that about 100 million tons of flotsam are circulating in the region. Marcus Eriksen, a research director of the US-based Algalita Marine Research Foundation, which Mr Moore founded, said yesterday: "The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup. It is endless for an area that is maybe twice the size as continental United States."
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/the-worlds-rubbish-dump-a-garba ge-tip-that-stretches-from-hawaii-to-japan-778016.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:22pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/05/2008 @ 10:05pm
Russia shifts to euro as foreign currency reserves soar
June 8, 2003
AFP
The inexorable rise in Russia's gold and foreign currency reserves is being accompanied by a steady shift from the dollar to the euro that is likely to continue as Russia draws closer to Europe, Moscow analysts believe.
Russia posted a new record total of 64.9 billion dollars (55.3 billion euros) in gold and foreign currency reserves on June 1, an increase of 17.1 billion dollars since the turn of the year, central bank chairman Sergei Ignatyev told an international banking conference in Saint Petersburg last week.
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/7214-3.cfm
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:27pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/05/2008 @ 10:05pm
The euro share of global foreign exchange reserves should rise to 30- 40% by 2010.
http://www.dbresearch.com/PROD/DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD/PROD0000000000209994 .pdf
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:43pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/05/2008 @ 10:05pm
and so a recession is two-quarters of negative growth, right?
so paying back the 13 trillion in consumer + 9 trillion in government debt would actually require
22 trillion or minus 100% growth for 2 1/2 years....................
that's a recession.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/05/2008 @ 11:46pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 11:27pm
The US dollar's relative loss--in % of all Foreign Reserves, not in absolute holdings--as a Reserve Currency shouldn't surprise anyone. Post-Cold War, without the major external threat that was the Russian Bear, Europe, aka the EU, is considered both politically stable, of size comparable to the US for liquidity, and an obvious alternative to countries unfriendly to us.
Someday, when the Ruble and the Yuan join in as Foreign Reserves by a multitude of countries, will be the day when peace shall reign over this "finite earth". While it was flattering to have the dollar as the Reserve of Choice (or necessity), it actually meant an unstable world filled w/problems.
Now, be honest, don't you like my "glass is half-full outlook"....even when we are both generally right?
Posted by Happy at 02/05/2008 @ 11:49pm
Posted by HAPPY 02/05/2008 @ 11:49pm |
the main point i'm trying to make is that 22 trillion in debt is something that will destroy an economy a lot faster than asking people to turn off lights or buy smaller cars.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 12:07am
Posted by HAPPY 02/05/2008 @ 11:49pm
have you read this:
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 12:33am?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 12:08am
....the main point i'm trying to make is that 22 trillion in debt....
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/06/2008 @ 12:07am
If all 22 trillion is due tomorrow, yeah, there is a little bit of a problem! But, how does 22 trillion differ from when it was JUST 20, or 17, 12, or even just 5 trillion?
I owe a lot of money, something like 20~30 times what I made coming out of college......but the only relevant fact `the world' cares is that I am current on my debts. In fact, one of my loan matures next month (after 5 years) and it's not much of a `gamble' that I can roll it over...
My main point here is that debt per se, is not the problem....IMO, an advanced society MUST HAVE LOTS OF DEBT, even stocks are a form of `debt'........it's the debtor's responsibility to honor his/her obligation to repay and to stay within his/her capabilities.
Posted by Happy at 02/06/2008 @ 12:21am
Posted by HAPPY 02/06/2008 @ 12:21am
but what about the inflation?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 12:24am
have you read this: Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 12:33am?
Yes, I did! I even clicked over to see Dr. Seus....
I have no problem in the slightest to increase efficiency....and if it meant smallering without losing functioning AND safety AND cost about the same or just minutely more......I am all for it!
Posted by Happy at 02/06/2008 @ 12:25am
inflation?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/06/2008 @ 12:24am
Natural by-product when one's own currency depreciates vis a vis trading partners' currency. One thing you have been right about, and the guilty party includes me who owns lots of cameras and such, is that we Americans do buy a lot of stuff....far more than we really need....but, the overbought stuff tends to be cheap and bought from Wal-Mart. A weak currecny will perhaps force the typical Wal-Mart shopper to be more `thinking' on their outlays!
Give you an example....you know I own some rental properties.....it never ceases to amaze me that about every third tenant that moves out, leaves behind a huge pile of `stuff' (with large deductions to their security deposits). Some `stuff' are toys the kids stopped playing with....but often, the clothing & shoes are totally wearable. I'd sometimes take them to clothing donation drop boxes....but often, it's just a whole lot easier by having the garbage service take it away.
One of the two aquariums in my house, a 25-gallon tank, was left behind....came with its own stand, pumps, everything......actually, quite a few odds and ends in my house or garage came from ex-tenants...since I've been a landlord over 25 yrs.
Posted by Happy at 02/06/2008 @ 12:38am
oh boy, look at this one:
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/nebraska/US-tornadoes-1950-to-2006-bar.html
hmmmm?
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 02:45am
inflation?
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/06/2008 @ 12:24am
good for debtors, bad for lenders. draw your own conclusions.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 08:49am
One of the early English kings had a ring on which was engraved the words: "HE WHO SPENDS MORE THAN HE EARNS KILLS HIMSELF WITHOUT STRIKING A BLOW". Perhaps such a ring should become part of the insignia of office of the President of the US?
Posted by MIKECOPE 02/06/2008 @ 06:28am
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 09:07am
cap'n'trade this:
Irreversible changes
* Arctic sea ice: some scientists believe that the tipping point for the total loss of summer sea ice is imminent.
* Greenland ice sheet: total melting could take 300 years or more but the tipping point that could see irreversible change might occur within 50 years.
* West Antarctic ice sheet: scientists believe it could unexpectedly collapse if it slips into the sea at its warming edges.
* Gulf Stream: few scientists believe it could be switched off completely this century but its collapse is a possibility.
* El Niño: the southern Pacific current may be affected by warmer seas, resulting in far-reaching climate change.
* Indian monsoon: relies on temperature difference between land and sea, which could be tipped off-balance by pollutants that cause localised cooling.
* West African monsoon: in the past it has changed, causing the greening of the Sahara, but in the future it could cause droughts.
* Amazon rainforest: a warmer world and further deforestation may cause a collapse of the rain supporting this ecosystem.
* Boreal forests: cold-adapted trees of Siberia and Canada are dying as temperatures rise.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/scientists-ident ify-tipping-points-of-climate-change-778027.html
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 09:43am
Frosty,
Nice assembly of facts and information. After examining the policies of Obama/Clinton linked to this article, I came across a very disturbing Obama postion related to natural resources and protection of national lands: Obama opposes the House legislation reforming the antiquated 1872 Mining Act, which allows mining industries to rape federal lands for little to no cost. Obama says he'd support a Harry Reid (beholden to his home states' lobbyists) watered-down version of 'reform'. To be fair, I couldn't find a Clinton postion on this issue. Having lived and worked out west in fisheries, I've seen the devastation perpetrated on the environment and personally see the regulatory process overseeing mining industries as a key environmental issue. Bill Clinton pledged to reform this barbarous law when running for his first term, and then crumbled with barely a protest after western senators began to howl over it; Obama doesn't even pretend to understand or address the law's impact. How sad.
this is from the Grist.org, linked by Roberts:
[Obama]Opposes the House-passed bill that would reform the 1872 Mining Law. That law lets companies mine public lands without paying royalties and doesn't hold them responsible for mine cleanup. Obama said "The legislation that has been proposed places a significant burden on the mining industry and could have a significant impact on jobs [in rural Nevada] given the difficulties the industry is already facing in maintaining its operations."
Posted by Oustbush at 02/06/2008 @ 10:13am
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/05/2008 @ 10:58pm
FZ, last 4 points....on the 3 we've discussed and 1 more-
1. Desalination and filtering can be SOLAR-powered or WIND-powered can't they? Seems an environmentalist might support that???
2. Invasive species have been in North America since Jamestown (much of them VIRII). With modern customs and pest control, I'll guarentee we have MUCH lower levels of infestation of them than we did 100, 50, even 25 years ago. ALL of which pre-dates NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.
3. You keep contradicting your original protest against my accusation that you want "less consumerism" not just "fairer consumerism". Admit that point and quit saying "I'm not for less shopping...except I am".
4. ALL of this started on the original post I made about how NEITHER Clinton NOR Obama is going to push some radical, or even strong "anti-consumerist" or "mandatory conservation" program. They're politicians, and politicians (as Charlie Daniels once sang) want the vote.
And they don't GET the vote, if they've crushed the national economy down to 1-1.5% by promoting policies or enacting legislation that turn us all into Ascetics.
Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 10:36am
1. Desalination and filtering can be SOLAR-powered or WIND-powered can't they? Seems an environmentalist might support that???
damn straight. but in the meantime....................
2. Invasive species have been in North America since Jamestown (much of them VIRII). With modern customs and pest control, I'll guarentee we have MUCH lower levels of infestation of them than we did 100, 50, even 25 years ago. ALL of which pre-dates NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.
wrong
3. You keep contradicting your original protest against my accusation that you want "less consumerism" not just "fairer consumerism". Admit that point and quit saying "I'm not for less shopping...except I am"
fair and less are the same thing. fair means higher prices because inflation is not thrust onto to the backs of the disadvantaged
4. ALL of this started on the original post I made about how NEITHER Clinton NOR Obama is going to push some radical, or even strong "anti-consumerist" or "mandatory conservation" program. They're politicians, and politicians (as Charlie Daniels once sang) want the vote.
of course not. pigeons must not know. keep them blind.
And they don't GET the vote, if they've crushed the national economy down to 1-1.5% by promoting policies or enacting legislation that turn us all into Ascetics.
i don't even know what that means. let's check. wtf? i'm talking reducing pollution, not wearing grass underwear.
dude, i'm typing this on a nuclear powered computer.
i honestly don't see why you can't see that reducing pollution is a good thing.
the simplest way to do it is to turn off the light and buy 5 tupperware thingies instead of 6.
sure solar and wind -- but when?
sheesh.
And they don't GET the vote, if they've crushed the national economy down to 1-1.5% by promoting policies or enacting legislation that turn us all into Ascetics.
no comment on the 22 trillion in debt yet. none will come, i bet. but the debt is the threat.
walking to the party store and keeping the house at 69 instead of 70 are not.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 11:30am
2. Invasive species have been in North America since Jamestown (much of them VIRII). With modern customs and pest control, I'll guarentee we have MUCH lower levels of infestation of them than we did 100, 50, even 25 years ago. ALL of which pre-dates NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO.
this is just so plain stupid that i had to comment on it again.
if you refuse to read what i've posted ,
google "invasive species" + globalization
damn it!
READ THIS. PLEASE:
Globalization, Trade, and Invasive Species
GLOBALIZATION AND TRADE ARE MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THE INVASIVE SPECIES PROBLEM IN THIS COUNTRY.
INCREASED MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE, EQUIPMENT AND COMMODITIES AROUND THE WORLD CREATES PATHWAYS FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF ALL INVASIVE SPECIES.
THE FACT THAT MOST INVASIVE SPECIES ARE INTRODUCED INTO THIS COUNTRY UNINTENTIONALLY SHOWS THE BREADTH AND COMPLEXITY OF ADEQUATELY MONITORING THIS SITUATION.
THE SHORTAGE OF RESOURCES FOR SURVEILLANCE OF IMPORTED COMMODITIES IS ONLY ONE REASON THAT THESE SPECIES MAKE IT INTO THE U.S.
WE ALSO LACK A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHICH PESTS ARE THE MOST LIKELY TO BECOME A PROBLEM AND HOW TO ADEQUATELY MONITOR FOR THE PRESENCE OF CERTAIN PESTS.
http://alic.arid.arizona.edu/invasive/sub7/p4.shtml
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 11:36am
the rabbits were introduced into Australia a long time ago. same with some of the horticultural invaders, who were brought in by landscapers. you are not wrong but neither is that other fellow.
Posted by emile duBois at 02/06/2008 @ 12:17pm
If Greens desire to actually stay true to their principles than they would go with the Green Party either Cynthia McKinney or Ralph Nader.
Wait if progressive democrats stay true to their principles than they too would vote for a Green Candidate.
I doubt the later however because party politics have infected the American voting public like a virus.
The cure would be voting for principles not candidates. That is one of the secrets Republicans use, but hey maybe we like it this way.
Posted by ModernMuser at 02/06/2008 @ 12:33pm
the rabbits were introduced into Australia a long time ago. same with some of the horticultural invaders, who were brought in by landscapers. you are not wrong but neither is that other fellow.
Posted by EMILE DUBOIS 02/06/2008 @ 12:17pm
yes, and arundo donax was introduced to los angeles in about 1820 for erosion control. it's a long list.
however, the other fellow is wrong about current trends.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by FROSTY ZOOM 02/06/2008 @ 11:30am
Where, in ANYTHING I posted, did I argue in FAVOR of consumer debt?
I'm just doing the most irritating thing possible....pointing out that if it's Hillary or Obama, the MOST disappointed people are NOT going to be The Right...but the Hard Left, who keeps dreaming that some Ralph Nader/Dennis Kucinich/Gary Snyder type is going to be elected (or become that type after election).
Posted by Mask at 02/06/2008 @ 3:29pm
Posted by MASK 02/06/2008 @ 3:29pm
fuck them!
do it yourself. it's easy to conserve and it's no great hardship.
it makes your kids proud of you.
Posted by frosty zoom at 02/06/2008 @ 3:31pm
The League of Conservation Voters scored Obama ahead of Hillary. The are leading watchdogs of conservation issues.
Posted by Harmony at 02/09/2008 @ 2:13pm
Hmm, about the same huh? But Barack will bring more democratic seats with him.
On the contrary, Barack supports nuclear power, clean coal, and ethanol. Hillary is skeptical of them all. She wants plugin hybrids to be manufactured in the US.
Barack has close ties with the lobbyists due to his position as Senator of the clean coal (fururegen), nuclear (Exelon), and fuel farming (big ag corn commodity growing) friendly state of Illinois.
Don't let's pretend Barack is just as green as Hillary because his candidacey is trendy. Like rock star trendy.
Posted by amazingdrx at 02/10/2008 @ 3:50pm