Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
The Widening Gap In America’s Two Tiered Society
Emily Spence, Information Clearing House
If the U.S. populace somehow imagines that its members are viewed any differently than any other populations across the world that are used to produce maximal profits for the top economic class, there’s a rude awakening in store ahead. Further, most legislators simply do not care whether middle and lower class interests are or aren’t well served as long as they, themselves, can somehow make out well in the times ahead.
Besides, why should any Americans feel that they deserve to be treated more favorably by the transnational moneyed elites and their government backers than their counterparts across the rest of the world? As A. H. Bill reminds: “The richest 225 people in the world today control more wealth than the poorest 2.5 billion people. And… the three richest people in the world control more wealth than the poorest 48 nations.”
Occasionally someone making a staggering amount of money in a crooked sort of way might raise a few officials’ eyebrows or induce a mild reprimand. In addition, he might, occasionally, be singled out as the token fall guy so as to be made into a warning example as was Bernie Madoff. Most of the time, though, no action is usually undertaken to correct the situation when directors of major companies carry out activities that are, obviously, right on or over the edge of fraudulent practices.
As Barak Obama, perhaps hypocritically, chastened, “Under Republican and Democratic administrations, we failed to guard against practices that all too often rewarded financial manipulation instead of productive and sound business practices. We let the special interests put their thumbs on the economic scales.”…
(26 August 2009)
Thrifty Americans Threaten Recovery
Mark T. Mitchell, Front Porch Republic
Things are looking up. According to the “experts” the global economy appears to be stabilizing. For what it’s worth, the use of phrases like “economic Armageddon” are not being uttered with the frequency they were last fall. The world, which only months ago, was teetering on the brink of disaster is daring to utter a sigh of relief. The wise men, it seems, have saved us again. Soon everything will be back to normal. But we ought not uncork the champagne just yet. True, the Obama administration has injected an unfathomable number of dollars into the U.S. economy, but American citizens have yet to do their part. This from the Associated Press:
“The brightening outlook in Europe and Asia and the improvement in U.S. credit markets and indicators reflect heavy government stimulus spending. Many analysts question whether the top economies can sustain recoveries after stimulus measures and easy-credit policies have run their course—and in the absence of significant new consumer spending, especially among Americans.”
Yes, Americans have committed a dizzying amount of money to the recovery, leveraging their collective future and, what’s more, the futures of generations yet born. But there is more we can do. Nay. According to the experts, there is more we must do: Consumer spending must increase. To be sure, great numbers have flocked to the auto dealers to exchange their old cars for more energy efficient ones. But Americans, it seems, have thus far been reluctant to spend on items that, unlike the “cash-for-clunkers” affair, do not include a hefty tax incentive. It appears that Americans are trying to be more careful with their money. The threat of financial disaster has apparently produced a reluctance among Americans to consume with the same gusto as before…
(24 August 2009)
Why putting climate change on trial is a terrible idea
John Timmer, ars technica
Back in June, the US Chamber of Commerce, which represents business interests, filed a petition that asked the Environmental Protection Agency to revisit its decision, made in April, to treat greenhouse gasses as pollutants under the Clean Air Act. The CoC requested open public hearings that would reexamine all aspects of the decision, from the science of climate change and ocean acidification to the projected impacts on public health and agriculture. Although there was nothing unusual or unexpected about that, the request appears to have been widely ignored. That seems to have ended, as the Chamber’s real desire has become clear: it wants to subject climate science to a show trial.
You’d be forgiven for thinking that this language is exaggerated, but it’s sadly not. In discussions with the Los Angeles Times, Chamber representatives explicitly reference the Scopes trial, held in Tennessee, which created a media circus focused on the first of many US legal actions over the teaching of evolution.
One of the complaints is that the EPA’s decision is based in part on the IPCC’s reports, which it considers a secondary, potentially biased source. Apparently immune to irony, the Chamber references the same IPCC report where it reaches conclusions favorable to the Chamber.
The Scopes trial should provide ample historic precedent that a public trial like this neither clarifies the science nor unites the public. But disagreements over science fundamentally don’t lend themselves to resolution via public opinion, and the petition makes it clear that the Chamber itself is likely to mangle any attempts at clarity.
Separating policy from science
There are two aspects to the EPA’s decision, science- and policy-based, and the Chamber’s petition attacks them both. The potential to regulate greenhouse gasses as pollutants stretches back to the end of the Clinton administration, which left the issue to its successor. The Bush administration, while accepting the scientific indications that these substances can alter the climate, made policy decisions not to regulate them, taking a losing battle all the way to the Supreme Court, and then arguing that existing legislation was not up to the task. The Obama administration has chosen a different policy, choosing to use the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gasses…
(28 August 2009)
sent in by EB reader Linton Hale
