He's way too unpopular to consider for the second slot on the McCain ticket, but is a cabinet post for Dick Cheney as energy czar out of the question if the Republicans prevail in November?

After the roll out last week of McCain's drill-drill-drill energy policy, it's pretty likely. Backed by the full might of the Republican message machine, McCain's energy proposals were lifted wholesale out of the Dick Cheney energy strategy that has guided US policy since 2001.

It's the policy that was developed by National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG), a group created by President Bush two weeks after he first took office and placed under Cheney's direction, whose secret deliberations have been a source of controversy ever since.

It's the policy that found expression in the Energy Act of 2005, passed by Congress. And it's the policy described concisely on the web site of the Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force, a group within the Department of Energy, created by the Energy Act of 2005.

In its official documents, The Task Force spells out what the fossil future is supposed to look like according to the energy security gospel of Dick Cheney. At the top of the list of things needed to develop energy sources for the future? Development of the oil shale deposits in the American West.

That's exactly what McCain proposed last week.

So if elected, why wouldn't he provide a cabinet appointment to the dark visionary and architect of America's endless fossil future?

Cheney ain't the decider, but he's certainly the go-to guy.

Twenty years ago today, Dr. James Hansen warned Congress about global warming. To mark the occasion, he was before Congress again today, and at the National Press Club. He has posted the text of his presentation here, and accompanying powerpoint slides here.

Here are some excerpts from "Global Warming Twenty Years Later: Tipping Points Near."

My presentation today is exactly 20 years after my 23 June 1988 testimony to Congress, which alerted the public that global warming was underway. There are striking similarities between then and now, but one big difference.

Again a wide gap has developed between what is understood about global warming by the relevant scientific community and what is known by policymakers and the public. Now, as then, frank assessment of scientific data yields conclusions that are shocking to the body politic. Now, as then, I can assert that these conclusions have a certainty exceeding 99 percent.

The difference is that now we have used up all slack in the schedule for actions needed to defuse the global warming time bomb. The next President and Congress must define a course next year in which the United States exerts leadership commensurate with our responsibility for the present dangerous situation.

Otherwise it will become impractical to constrain atmospheric carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas produced in burning fossil fuels, to a level that prevents the climate system from passing tipping points that lead to disastrous climate changes that spiral dynamically out of humanity’s control.

Changes needed to preserve creation, the planet on which civilization developed, are clear. But the changes have been blocked by special interests, focused on short-term profits, who hold sway in Washington and other capitals. I argue that a path yielding energy independence and a healthier environment is, barely, till possible. It requires a transformative change of direction in Washington in the next year......

Read More

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

• David Sassoon's blog
• 1 comment
• send to friend

On June 23, 1988, Dr. James Hansen provided testimony before Congress, stating unequivocally for the first time that global temperatures had risen beyond the range of natural variability.

To mark the 20th anniversary of the testimony, he's been invited back to the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming to give a briefing on his vision for confronting the climate challenge, and he's also been invited to a special luncheon at the National Press Club in Washington, where he will also speak.

It will be a day to recognize Dr. Hansen, the science he practices, the courage he exhibits; but it will also be a day for Congress and the nation to realize that in order to depart from business-as-usual and reduce carbon emissions, we must abandon politics-as-usual. We've seen what 20 years of it can do.

Nothing.

And with the last seven and a half years particularly egregious and awash in oil and blood, maybe this time, Congress and the nation will listen to what Dr. Hansen has to say.

Happy anniversary.

From the standpoint of global climate change, nature’s incredible assault on the American heartland this year can be interpreted in one of two ways. Both offer lessons about the challenges of adapting to the climate we have created.

The first is that the tornadoes and floods battering the country with almost unimaginable severity are the early tantrums of an angry planet. The second is that this season’s extreme weather is an aberration that will return to “normal”. So either climate change has arrived ahead of schedule, or this year’s disasters are a preview of the predicted consequences of global warming, a taste of things to come. Take your pick, either way, there’s urgent need for action.

The US Senate Republicans are trashing hopes for a booming home-grown solar energy sector. Oh, but that’s not news.

And neither is the fact that nearly all Americans – across all parties – believe that a solar energy industry is vital to the United States. Ninety-eight percent of Independents. Ninety-seven percent of Democrats. And ninety-one percent of Republicans.

The survey findings were released by the SCHOTT Solar BarometerTM yesterday and were conducted by the independent polling firm, Kelton Research.

When asked which energy source they would support if they were president, 41 percent picked solar. Three percent chose coal. Together, solar and wind together were favored nearly 20 times more than America’s dirtiest fuel.

Best nugget of all?