The recent Japan tragedy brings into sharp focus the ongoing debate concerning nuclear power.  

The loss of life and vast property destruction to a global economic power brings into focus with increased acuity the longstanding debate over nuclear power and the right's insistence that concerns about its inherent danger is a non-existent canard being promulgated by the lunacies of a panic stricken left.

Concerns about the potential danger of nuclear power are met with the same measure of ridicule as trepidations about climate change.  All too often points raised by scientific sources are trivialized by talk show noise and false bravado.  It is given traction by the ranks of listeners who derive comforting assurance by such verbal broadsides.

Rush Limbaugh has been a voluble and persistent source of comments to a sea of faithful listeners eager to devour such appetizing morsels.  In the cases of such disturbing instances of global tragedies occurring through climate and nuclear dangers, comfort via an "ignorance is bliss" scenario can be more understandable than other subjects in the Limbaugh lexicon.

We... ... as in humans. And no, not all humans, but many millions of humans - particularly those with the fewest resources who live in the world's most vulnerable conditions - are at risk of absolute destruction.

All because of the long-term effects of global warming.

A little overdramatic? Maybe for you, but not for them.

We've known about the greenhouse effect and human-induced global warming for decades, yet we've done nearly nothing to stifle its progress.

The global warming 'skeptics' - aka: the greedy, the misinformed, and the willfully ignorant among us who find some reward in questioning scientific consensus or fantasizing about environmental conspiracies - are a large part of the problem. But so are the rest of us. We are the adults who rightfully talk down to these people. We know and accept the reality of the situation and the daunting prognosis that shadows it. We know the threat posed and even the steps necessary to mitigate and eventually halt the warming process.

Yet we do nothing as a society. We still drive our SUVs, buy cheap crap from China, leave lights on all over the house, and drink water out of plastic throw-aways.

Glaciers recede, the Arctic melts, deserts grow, oceans acidify, weather patters go haywire and storms intensify.

Political will for action is cowed by constant campaigns and elections and by electorates more concerned about the heft of their pocket right now than the likely condition of the world in which their grandchildren will be raised.

But why?

Last night I was part of a conference call/town hall meeting event with Repower America which included remarks by it's Chariman, former Vice President Al Gore.

As Rush Limbaugh continues sallying forth and the ardent Tea Baggers make noise, the key to the whole approach, in the manner of propagandists, as evidenced by the Joseph Goebbels technique, is that there is no accountability.

Toss accountability out of the mix and you have a propagandist's dream.  Say anything you want and when demands are made to verify you either switch to another topic or just yell a little louder and make your accusations  more vehemently.

Limbaugh, with or without a fix of Oxycontin, generally uses the latter approach.  He persists with his fervent accusations and name calling, never bothering to respond to those challenging him.

Notice what happened when he dared attempt a studio audience approach.  One of the hottest You Tube selections was of Limbaugh being shouted down by Act Up members who ultimately called him a liar.

It is not enough for Rush Limbaugh to continue his steady torrent of outrageous, over the top statements in the realm of American domestic politics.  He remains adamant about entering the world arena in the vital area of climate change.

Last week Limbaugh, in addition to taking various swipes at President Obama, returned to what has been a favorite topic of his for years, the subject of global warming.  

Once more Limbaugh emphatically proclaimed that the issue involves charlatanism and not science, and is something being whipped up by zealots determined to instill panic in the world community and advance their own selfish agenda.

His steady revelations about global warning being a hoax is reminiscent of what occurred during the 1992 Rio conference.  While scientists and political leaders of the world community were meeting on a subject they deemed critical for survival of the planet another conference was being held in Nevada debunking what was occurring in Brazil.

First to the dictionary ...

 

  twit  

    To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults.

    n.
    1. The act or an instance of twitting.
    2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.
    3. Slang A foolishly annoying person.

Then, to The Twit ... (obviously, choose which meaning has most meaning for you ...)

Senator Clair McCaskill (D-MO) loves twitter. On more than one occasion and re more than one issue, Claire's Twitter comments have raised eyebrows for their "embarrassing mistakes or faults". And, on more than one occasion, people have used Twitter to twit Claire about her statements.

Amid all the discussions about potential paths forward in terms climate legislation, there is basic agreement about the need to 'put a price on carbon' to incentivize reducing carbon intensity (and usage ... or, actually, dumping into the atmosphere) throughout the economy.

Should we pursue a Carbon Cap (or A CAT, a Cap, Auction, and Trade) or some form of Carbon Tax (or fee)?

And, then the debate turns to "what to do with the resources".  For many, the best answer seems to be some form of Cap & Dividend program.  The idea of sending money "back" to people has great appeal, for many reasons but what about looking behind the curtain. Does it continue to make as much sense?

Four years ago California enacted a law requiring automakers to reduce average fleet greenhouse emissions by 30 percent in a decade.  Within a week of being sworn in, President Obama delivered a signal by taking a step closer to backing tighter standards, a move earlier resisted by the Bush administration.

In a February 4 article the BBC's Rajesh Marchandani analyzed whether the technology required is feasible and if drivers would pay it.  

California, the nation's largest state in terms of population, has more cars than any other and authorities believe that they are a major contributory factor to global warming and should be targeted in an effort to cut greenhouse gases.

According to Marchandani, "Part of its (California's) plan includes tough new fuel efficiency goals -- new cars would have to average 42 miles per gallon, more than twice what most vehicles on America's roads manage."

"Change it or lose it" is the operative phrase regarding planet earth.  If dramatic changes are not made to combat the severe impact on global warming international authority is in broad agreement that the response will be calamitous.

Bob Herbert of the New York Times in a luminously scathing critique of the Bush years on appropriately the last day of 2008, the final year of Bush's shameful custodianship, that it is not enough to let him pass quietly from the Washington scene.  Herbert stated that loud demonstrations outside the White House replete with bullhorns would be appropriate.

Bush and Cheney have marched in unfailing lockstep with the most reactionary elements of a ruthless corporate establishment bolstered by an unrelenting New World Order and full speed profits ahead and damn the consequences entities such as Halliburton, the Carlyle Group and Kissinger and Associates.

Not only has war been perpetrated on a tissue of lies predicated on non-existent weapons of mass destruction; not only has torture been meted out with crass and destructive indifference at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, replete with waterboarding; the savagery of a global profit motive bereft of conscience has challenged survival of the planet.

Friday, newly minted Senator-Elect Energy Smart Jeff Merkley (D-OR) took the time to reach out to the netroots with a blogger conference call.  "The Netroots were critical to my election ... It is 40 years since an incumbent lost in Oregon and only the second time in 100 years that a Republican incumbent lost ... the Netroots put the campaign over the top."  

But, more important than any plaudits for bloggers ("Netroots Nation was one of the best things that I did during the campaign.") and promises to remain engage for the future, was Merkley's evaluation as to the election's mandate and visions for moving forward.

We have a very strong mandate for a progressive agenda. We have had two cycles in a row with winning six [at least] seats in the Senate.

Bush claimed a mandate when he didn't even win the popular vote.

We absolutely have a mandate and we should not be shy in anyway in claiming it.

If not now, when?  Our people need us, our planet needs us ...

John McCain opposes "earmarks", pet projects traditionally labeled "pork barrel".  These money grabbing requests for primarily local interest often serve as convenient re-election guarantees by local voters whose economic appetites have been satisfied, courtesy of government handouts.

The irony of Sarah Palin preaching about changing the way Washington works reaches new heights of political absurdity.  But that didn't stop the faithful Republican flock from standing up and cheering their new found celebrity heroine.

The Seattle Times September 3 front page headline revealed Palin's own "earmark" track record in big block bold print:

PALIN HEARILY ENDORSED EARMARKS

John McCain's speech and policy constructs on Global Warming have gotten a bit of attention from the Energy Smart blogging world. The following are few of the worthwhile discussions to date.

Wonkroom's McCain Wants it Both Ways on Global Warming: Ends up attacking his own plan highlights the contradictions inherent in John McCain's messaging, trying to create an appearance that he represents a middle way between Global Warming deniers and a strawman of those pursuing "crippling regulation".  What is a McCain example of crippling regulation?  Increasing energy efficiency in building codes. Message John:  this is profitable path toward change.  That radically liberal group, the business consulting firm McKinsey and Company, "has found that mandatory energy efficiency standards, far from being crippling, overcome present market failures and policy distortions and can drive massive return on investment. Is McCain calling McKinsey "extreme"?"

The Physicians for Social Responsibility have stepped with a strong statement about the Lieberman-Warner Climate inSecurity Act's inadequacies and requirements for strengthening it.

In June the U.S. Senate will begin debate on legislation to address global warming.  The Climate Security Act, S. 3036, fails to meet the scientific targets that will be necessary to avoid the worst affects of climate change.

Absolutely,the Coal Subsidy Act fails to meet any reasonable definition of scientific targets, despite Barbara Boxer's misleading claim that this follows scientific advice.

Black holes collapse on themselves, with a such a density that they change the path of light with no light escaping them.  In coming days, the Global Warming disinformation organization, the Heartland Institute ("the leading propaganda mill sowing confusion about climate science"), will convene a Global Warming skeptic/delayer/denier coven with the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change.  RealClimate asked a great question:

What if you held a conference, and no (real) scientists came?

For anyone concerned about a polite (an overly polite) shredding of a front organization's event, take the time to read it.  

What a heady time it was!  The Reagan Revolution had begun with his election in 1980 and there was one hugely symbolic, meaningful act that the new regime was delighted to perform to show that the old regime had gone and a new philosophy had emerged.

The newly arrived Reagan team could hardly wait to have functionaries climb onto the White House roof and remove all those absurd solar energy collectors that the man they considered the big bad wolf of pessimists, President Jimmy Carter, had installed, warning all the while about energy depletion and the severed consequences that this held not only for America but the entire planet.

While the era of Doctor Feelgood Reagan had begun the new team and followers had almost as much fun poking fun at Reagan's successor as California's governor, Jerry Brown, as they did Carter.  

Brown was designated "Governor Moonbeam" since those ideas he was advocating had, like Carter's, an "Uncle Scrooge" implication.  Brown warned of an ecological disaster if America did not face the challenge of runaway energy consumption.  How absurd, the critics laughed, the guy was in the wrong century and sounded like Thomas Malthus reinvented.