We believe in nothing!

It would be incorrect and unfair to say that Washingtonians are all horrible, amoral, principle-less little pricks who live only for the thrill they get when some no-name congressman from wherever-the-hell Middle America remembers their name. However.

Being the preeminent power of our day, it should come as no surprise that the imperial capital on a swamp would attract an unusually large number of groveling, almost pitiable worshippers of power and authority; not the kids who used to suck up to the teacher and remind them when they forgot to assign the homework, but the kids who now fetch those other kids' coffee, always remembering to tell them how good they look on a Big Day. While those that argue there's a dime's worth of difference between the major political parties and that voting ain't worth a nickel are often cast as the cynics (*ahem*cough*clearing throat*), the real nihilists, I would argue, are the anonymous flacks and hacks of Washington who day in and day out serve whoever it is they think can provide them with the most power, money and, laughably, prestige -- people like Deryck Spooner, the likes of whom literally believe in nothing.

Who, you ask? According to a story in Greenwire about the American Petroleum Institute's many new hires, Spooner -- "who ran the Nature Conservancy's push to spur legislative action on climate change" -- was "nabbed" in something of a coup earlier this year by the well-funded trade group for U.S. oil and gas companies. "Spooner now heads API's grass-roots activism arm."

Putting aside the faults of The Nature Conservancy and the merits of the climate legislation it seeks, Spooner's move is still pretty jarring, even by a-flack-in-DC standards. Not only is he now spinning for one of the leading opponents of capping or taxing carbon emissions, a basic feature of most proposals to address global warming, but he heads the very "grass-roots activism arm" of API -- when's the last time you met a "grassroots" oil activist? -- that last year organized "citizen" rallies against the sort of climate legislation that he spent months, years, working to enact. It ain't pretty, and it's certainly not proud, but that's sorta kinda Washington.

(Cross-posted at AlterNet)

Bombing Iran won't be good for the polar bear either

After Hurricane Katrina, many on the Democratic side of the aisle blasted the Bush administration's response in part by arguing National Guard troops should have been available to clean up after a disaster here at home contributing to one overseas in Iraq. Now, though, after what some are calling the Obama administration's Katrina, the liberal veterans group VoteVets.org has inverted that argument, taking to the airwaves with a new $1.5 million ad campaign that features a Louisiana guardsman bemoaning the fact that he signed up to serve in order "to help protect America from our enemies, like in the Persian Gulf, not to clean up an oil company's mess here in the Gulf of Mexico."

As if the I'd-rather-be-killing-Middle-Easterners message wasn't explicit enough, the ad includes a scary photo of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the star of an earlier VoteVets campaign that resurrected the evidence-less claim that Iran has essentially been behind every IED attack that has killed an American solider, nevermind that most insurgents soldiers have been killed by Sunni groups and that most foreign fighters come not from Shiite Iran but Sunni Saudi Arabia. Granted, it would be nice if the National Guard didn't have to clean up an oil company's mess, there's no disputing that, but wouldn't it be nicer if, instead of needing them "protect" us in the Persian Gulf, we didn't need them to do anything at all? But then, understanding who is the enemy du jour and that hyping foreign threats is the first thing they teach in American Political Advertising 101, major progressive groups have chosen to make Iran and Mr. Ahmadinejad the go-to foreign demons -- alongside the recent and mildly ironic addition of BP -- in their public appeals for climate legislation and "energy independence."

Operation Free, for instance, a coalition of liberal veteran groups, claims the Senate proposal from John Kerry (D-MA) and Joe Lieberman (I-CT) "could cut Iran's oil profits by up to $100 million every day." The Center for American Progress likewise cites the figure to argue for climate legislation as a way to hurt Iran, whose "economic and political strength" poses "a threat to the national security of the United States and the world"; the Natural Resources Defense Council has done the same, as has Senator Kerry.

Like the Obama administration's claims about an Iranian nuclear weapons program, though, the oft-cited $100 million figure isn't based on actual evidence. As the Center for American Progress' Brad Johnson belatedly explains, the number assumes not just the passage of domestic climate legislation, but the implementation of "a global carbon policy system that brings total emissions down" -- in other words, something that will not happen anytime soon if ever. The number also happens to be based on a three year old MIT study that didn't actually look at the Kerry-Lieberman proposal.

Asked to reconcile those facts with his group's use of the number, an Operation Free spokesman pointed me to the "could" portion of their claim; that is, a Senate climate bill "could cut Iran's oil profits by up to $100 million." To put it another way, saying I could be the next Miss America if I just toned my abs a bit is not at all the same as saying I would be -- though there's still a chance, however improbable and infinitesimally small -- understand?

At a time when we already have the Obama administration expanding covert military action against Iran, is it too much to ask that environmental groups not fan the flames that could ignite another conflict in the Middle East with debunked or unfounded claims, all on behalf of a bill of dubious environmental merit? If you want to advocate for the Senate climate bill, god help you, stick to the harrowing images of stranded polar bears and leave the poor Persians alone.

About that climate bill . . .

What's shaping up to be one of the worst environmental disasters in decades – a disaster caused as a direct consequence of the U.S.'s dependence on fossil fuels – would seem to make it that much easier for Sens. John Kerry (D-MA) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) to sell their fellow lawmakers on the merits of the “American Power Act,” their chest-thumpingly titled energy and climate proposal that was unveiled earlier this month. However, the worsening oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is actually widely seen as diminishing that bill's chances of passage, which, though seemingly counter-intuitive at first, actually just speaks to the extent to which the bill -- and the government writ large -- is beholden to the very corporate interests it claims to be taking on. Indeed, as an analysis from GOP consulting firm ClearView Energy Partners notes, the proposal “appears far closer than any of its predecessors to a climate bill that corporate stakeholders might actually want to pass.”

For starters, take the Kerry-Lieberman proposal’s subsidies for “clean coal,” a P.R. term that refers to capturing a coal plant's carbon emissions and storing them under ground -- though nobody’s actually doing that at the moment -- while passing legal liability for any problems onto to taxpayers. Despite being the leading contributor to climate change -- proponents of the bill would say because -- coal companies stand to reap tens of billions of dollars over the next few decades in direct subsidies for what is the climate policy-equivalent of cleaning the floors by sweeping dirt under a rug – except sweeping dirt under a rug is technically and commercially feasible. Then there's the fact that, as the Center for Progressive Reform points out, the bill would allow polluters to continue polluting by way of dubious carbon offsets, with the emissions purportedly reduced by the offsets “considered 'additional' even if the activity would receive payment or compensation for another environmental benefit.”

The Kerry-Lieberman proposal might be just enough to assuage liberal guilt, what with its vaunted cap that, assuming offsets are real (they’re not), would reduce U.S. emissions 4 percent from 1990 levels by 2020. But, like that week you rode your bike to work after watching An Inconvenient Truth, it doesn't seem likely to do much in the way of halting that whole catastrophic climate change thing -- a weighty burden, to be sure, with countries like China and India also unwilling to commit to hard limits on their emissions. And then there’s the provisions that would allow for an expansion in offshore oil drilling, dangling more than a third of a new project’s revenue in front of borderline-bankrupt states. Sigh.

Yet despite the reality of the Kerry-Lieberman bill, many major environmental groups -- Environmental Defense Fund (of course), the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) -- are echoing the rhetoric of its promoters, pointing out the flaws of the leading Senate climate proposal only when directly provoked. Speaking at the National Press Club last week, officials with the LCV and NRDC even cited the worsening Gulf spill to argue for Senate “action” on climate legislation (knowing full well what that might look like), with a new ad featuring actor Robert Redford citing the disaster to implore President Obama “to lead America toward a clean energy future.” Beyond focus group-tested talking points, though, the group’s public appeals are vague on what exactly they believe would constitute a sufficiently clean energy and climate policy.

At the Press Club event, I asked LCV President Gene Karpinski to reconcile his organization's call for action on climate legislation in the wake of the Gulf disaster with the fact that the leading climate proposal in the Senate would actually expand offshore drilling and, as Kerry noted at the bill's unveiling, has been praised by “Shell Oil Company, ConocoPhillips [and] British Petroleum.”

“We have not embraced the bill per se,” Karpinski told me, “but we have said now's the time to act. Now's the time to get the job done.” He suggested the Senate could “pass an even stronger bill” than the one endorsed by the House last year, which is a nice sentiment, I guess, but news to anyone passingly familiar with the operations of the august upper chamber. Still, “that's the goal, that's the challenge,” Karpinski said, adding that “the ultimate success of the president's response to the oil spill is whether we can in fact pass comprehensive legislation this year.” (I think if you asked a Louisiana fisherman they may have a slightly different definition of “success”.)

In essence, major environmental groups like LCV and NRDC may not be fond of expanded offshore drilling, but they're unwilling to explicitly oppose any climate bill that would enable such an expansion. Notably, neither Karpinski nor the head of any other major, “mainstream” environmental groups -- excepting the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth -- has declared its opposition to a climate bill that allows for more offshore drilling. Instead, they prefer vague appeals to the need for “action” on climate change – joined in the call by major energy companies acting through the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, of which NRDC is a founding member – while giving politicians free reign to craft the details. Ultimately, almost any legislation introduced under the auspices of addressing global warming will receive their backing, justified by that familiar incrementalist refrain: it's a step in the right direction!

In the meantime, the proposal isn’t going anywhere at the moment, in no small part due to the incongruity of claiming to save the environment with a bill even BP could love. That said, given that merely “addressing” climate change is conflated with tackling the issue, it's no wonder then that we're left with the absurdity of environmentalists citing the need to take on “Big Oil” by arguing for the passage of a bill . . . endorsed by Big Oil. After all, environmentalists, when politicians know they can take your support for granted, it should come as no great surprise when all the “compromises” come at your expense. But it's not all negative: should there be another offshore drilling-related eco-disaster, at least LCV and NRDC will have plenty of horrifying images to choose from for their next fundraising appeal.

If you want to save the planet, plant a tree. Cut your carbon footprint. Protest a coal plant. Or an oil company. Just don’t wait around expecting a politician or the government – or a major environmental group – to do it for you.

See Also: Why you shouldn't count on a climate treaty, either.

Thinking of empire on Earth Day

Today's Earth Day, which means a lot of politicians are giving very nice speeches about all the great things they are doing to protect the environment and save the polar bear. One thing they and the leading environmental groups won't be talking about? The U.S. empire's contribution to global warming, as I noted in this piece detailing how all of the Pentagon's overseas activities – including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – enjoy an exemption under the Kyoto Protocol that is likely to extend to any new future climate treaty:

Climate change has been branded a threat to national security, but a future global treaty addressing the issue is likely to exempt from regulation most of the greenhouse gases associated with overseas military activities and the world’s largest polluter—the U.S. armed forces—a fact some environmentalists are arguing will significantly undercut the effectiveness of such an agreement. The issue is potentially troubling for proponents of a treaty as it suggests that even as the Obama administration and leading Democrats push emission controls based on the perceived security threat posed by global warming, they are unwilling to address a leading contributor to the problem.

The preliminary climate change agreement announced in Copenhagen leaves unresolved many key questions, but there’s a broad consensus overseas military operations will continue to enjoy a major exemption under any eventual comprehensive, legally binding treaty. Indeed, both foreign diplomats and officials with most major environmental groups have been reticent to broach the subject for fear of alienating the U.S. government, which accounts for nearly half of global military spending.

-----

“It can be a bit of a delicate subject,” says a former senior Defense Department official who was deeply involved in the debate over the Kyoto Protocol. “We’re the largest military in the world and we’re going to be the most penalized if military emissions are counted, so that has to be considered.”

Read the rest.

Is Obama really eliminating fossil fuel subsidies?

The short answer: no, hell no, as I describe in a recent piece for my day job (expensive subscription required):

White House officials are claiming the Obama administration’s proposed 2011 budget eliminates subsidies for fossil fuels, saving taxpayers $40 billion over the next decade. But that projected savings is dwarfed by the amount the U.S. government spends protecting oil supplies and trade routes in the Persian Gulf, an estimated $27 billion-$138 billion annual subsidy to the oil industry that experts say increases global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions.

At the same time, the Obama administration is proposing more than $1 billion in new funding for fossil fuel research and development, including $668 million for the Department of Energy’s “Clean Coal Power Initiative,” which aims to develop and commercialize new environmental technologies for the coal industry—suggesting what constitutes a fossil fuel “subsidy” is more a political decision than a policy one.

War and climate change

My latest piece on an environmental issue that, as I found out, few seem willing to talk about:

Climate change has been branded a threat to national security, but a future global treaty addressing the issue is likely to exempt from regulation most of the greenhouse gases associated with overseas military activities and the world’s largest polluter—the U.S. armed forces—a fact some environmentalists are arguing will significantly undercut the effectiveness of such an agreement. The issue is potentially troubling for proponents of a treaty as it suggests that even as the Obama administration and leading Democrats push emission controls based on the perceived security threat posed by global warming, they are unwilling to address a leading contributor to the problem.

The preliminary climate change agreement announced in Copenhagen leaves unresolved many key questions, but there’s a broad consensus overseas military operations will continue to enjoy a major exemption under any eventual comprehensive, legally binding treaty. Indeed, both foreign diplomats and officials with most major environmental groups have been reticent to broach the subject for fear of alienating the U.S. government, which accounts for nearly half of global military spending.

-----

“It can be a bit of a delicate subject,” says a former senior Defense Department official who was deeply involved in the debate over the Kyoto Protocol. “We’re the largest military in the world and we’re going to be the most penalized if military emissions are counted, so that has to be considered.”

Read the rest.

UPDATE (1/9): From the comments over at Jon Schwarz's A Tiny Revolution:

An illegal war bound by law to be eco-friendly. The obvious irony aside, it wouldn't feel that right to me if it happened (in some alternate universe, where it actually could). While less emissions is always good, I find the imagery of a spectacled ecologist high fiving generals for butchering the local resistance in an environmentally friendly manner too disturbing. (Military sprays acid instead of bombs to cause less burning buildings! World applauds!)

Someone buy John Shadegg a dictionary

At a press conference I attended today where Republicans accused the EPA of covering up the views of a "career scientist" who questioned the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to climate change, I noted during the question-and-answer period that I had talked to said "scientist" earlier in the day and that he had confirmed to me that he had absolutely no background in climate science. Rather, he was an economist with an undergrad degree in physics.

In response, Arizona Republican John Shadegg congratulated me for demonstrating great "entrepreneurship" by seeking out the EPA employee in question. As I muttered to a reporter sitting next to me, "I don't think that word means what he thinks it does . . ."

Straight talk from Down Under

On Monday, I attended a small briefing for the press held at the Washington office of the United Steelworkers Union to discuss organized labor's view of policies to address climate change. At the briefing was Paul Howes, head of the Australian Worker's Union, who was in the country to lobby for the U.S. government to take the lead on reaching an international agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

When I asked Howes why he felt only the United States had the influence to push for a global climate deal, he responded in a fashion that I'm sure would offend all Good, Respectable critics of the Iraq war (those who initially supported the invasion but now say it was "mismanaged" -- in other words, the war critics you see on television):

When the United States shows leadership the rest of the world will follow . . . I mean, look, half the world got involved in an illegal, immoral war just simply because a request was put out – this is what happens.

Earlier in the briefing, Howes also described the global scope of U.S. power in a way that serves as a useful reminder that Washington, DC, is not merely the capital of the United States, but the capital of a world empire:

The ever-looming presence of the United States is felt throughout every corner of the world, and on other issues the U .S. government is never afraid to use whatever force necessary to get its agenda through on issues that it sees of being importance to it.

I should also note that at 26, Howes is just a few years older than me yet is married, has two children, and heads a 135,000 member union. In contrast, I have a blog read primarily by people mistakenly arriving here after Googling for celebrity upskirt pics (there -- I just doubled my traffic!).

That certainly puts things in perspective...

I guess this explains U.S. elections...

H.L. Mencken once remarked that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. That statement might be considered a bit harsh, but a press release I received in my inbox the other day has me thinking that maybe Mencken wasn't harsh enough.

As more people have become concerned about the potential negative impacts of climate change, interest in things such as hybrid cars and energy efficiency has grown accordingly. However, if a set of efficiency tips I received from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers is any indication, getting the majority of Americans to use energy more efficiently in their daily lives may be an insurmountable task.

The Association's press release begins by noting that "Replacing an eight year old refrigerator, dishwasher and clothes washer with new appliances of average efficiency will save consumers about $95.00 per year in energy bills." Fair enough. But then, perhaps with Mencken's quote in mind, the release notes:

If you are replacing your refrigerator, do not use the old refrigerator as a second refrigerator. This will not yield energy savings.

Lord. Have. Mercy. If people really need to be told that running two refrigerators will use more energy than running just one, then you might as well say good bye to the polar bear now and stock up on that beach front property in Ohio while prices are still reasonable.