« Why Is Mark Penn's Company Funding Republicans? | Main | In which I self promote »
March 29, 2007
Global Warming Dead-Enders
by Nicholas Beaudrot of Electoral Math
In the contest to replace Tom DeLay as chief expounder of total nonsense, Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) is putting a lot of distance between himself and the pack. After needlessly haranguing Al Gore during his Senate hearings, he's now blocking—successfully—Gore's attempt to hold a concert on the National Mall. Oy.
Is there anyone we can convince to run against Inhofe? David Boren's not that old, Brad Carson did fairly well against Tom Coburn, and Brad Henry is enormously popular. Surely any one of those three could represent their state's petroleum interests without being quite so embarrassing to the World's Greatest Deliberative Body.
March 29, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Half the post seems to be missing (there is a "Read more" link, but the entire extra content is the letter "G").
Still, your (truncated?) post seems to make an excellent point.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Mar 29, 2007 12:37:04 PM
When you first start typing, Typepad gives focus to the "there's more" section, rather than the title. I just keep forgetting about that.
Posted by: Nicholas Beaudrot | Mar 29, 2007 12:44:46 PM
Isn't Wes Clark from Oklahoma? I know it's the only primary he won in 2004. I think he could run a fairly successful Jim Webb-style campaign. It certainly wouldn't be any trouble to get "Macaca" moments out of Inhofe.
Posted by: Serx | Mar 29, 2007 12:50:12 PM
Clark grew up in Arkansas, which I think is where he lives now.
Posted by: Haggai | Mar 29, 2007 1:40:25 PM
D'oh! Right you are. Well, we could always "Alan Keyes" him over there...
...ugh, I'm sorry I just put that name down in writing.
Posted by: Serx | Mar 29, 2007 2:21:32 PM
Inhofe remains entrenched among voters in Oklahoma, although his support is waning in his home town of Tulsa. Much of his support comes from energy (i.e., fossil fuel extraction, refining, distribution, and allied industry) and the Christian right.
Further, he has a staff of good-deeders who field complaints from constituents and fix individual problems. This fertilizes his grass roots base, many of whom are older persons in need of help with government agencies. These older persons in turn tout Inhofe to their peers and families. Inhofe simultaneously looks like a hero, and has another chance to bash government. Brilliant.
David Boren WAS that bad-- remember back to his facilitating some of the worst of the Reagan/Bush I excesses of executive secrecy while chairing the Senate Intelligence Committee. His son, Dan Boren, elected as Democratic Congressman representing Oklahoma's Second District (and heir to the legacies of both the late and wonderful Mike Synar and *eeek* Dr. Tom Coburn) has voted almost perfectly in synchrony with the Republican Congress. Most recently, young Boren voted against the House Iraq spending bill.
Clark did well in Oklahoma in 2004. I thing that he won the primary here, if my memory serves me well (better than Gonzo's or Doan's memory, but still...).
Our entire House and Senate delegation is an embarassment to the people who live here. Worse, it's a blight on good governance for the people of the United States.
Posted by: Ereshkigal | Mar 29, 2007 2:54:40 PM
Ah-- I forgot two things:
1. "Embarrassment" has two "r"s. Red-faced, I noticed my typo right after I published my comment. Sorry.
2. Inhofe has a lot of support group from agribusiness, especially the concentrated animal production industry. Oklahoma's corporate farming presence includes those industries who wish to avoid regulation under the EPA -- e.g., pig farming in the western part of the state and the chicken industry in Arkansas.
Other "farming" interests appreciate Inhofe's presence against consumer protection measures (such as labeling food containing cloned animal and/or plant material) and enforced regulation regarding agricultural practices with harmful environmental effects.
Posted by: Ereshkigal | Mar 29, 2007 3:05:11 PM
So Al Gore wants to hold a concerts on all seven continents on the same day. Imagine all the hundreds of thousands if not millions of people, littering the grounds of all theses different concert sites, using paper, plastic bottles and bags, glass, not to mention the billions of tons of carbon emissions their cars are spewing into the atmosphere to get them to these concerts. And what about the entertainment? All these rock stars flying all over the world, spewing millions of tons of carbon emissions into the air. Plus they have to get all their equipment and entourages there, imagine all the thousands or millions of tons of carbon emissions that will take.
And then there is Al Gore. I wonder if he will try to appear at each concert? How will he get to all of them? Probably in his GulfStream 5 jet. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon emissions that will take.
And to top it off, Al Gore's house in Nashville will be using twenty times the energy of the normal American house, and nobody will even be home.
All of this in one single day? Can the planet take it?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 3:51:19 PM
Toke, you still don't understand that Gore doesn't want to stop emissions; he wants to manage them at what he sees as reasonable levels. You're way too fixated on this Gore hypocrisy thing anyway. Better to address some substantive point.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 3:58:28 PM
Further, he has a staff of good-deeders who field complaints from constituents and fix individual problems. This fertilizes his grass roots base, many of whom are older persons in need of help with government agencies. These older persons in turn tout Inhofe to their peers and families.
Imagine that! A politician that is responsive to their electorate. You're just not used to seeing that. What you are used to seeing Hillary Clinton blow into New York for the sole purpose of running for president at a future date.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 4:00:00 PM
"Toke, you still don't understand that Gore doesn't want to stop emissions; he wants to manage them at what he sees as reasonable levels."
I believe he said he wanted a freeze in carbon emissions, then a reduction of 90% by 2050. I guess you didn't pay attention to his senate testimony.
Well, neither did he. He refuses to live by the standards he expects the rest of America to live by.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:03:57 PM
Actually Clinton is said to have very effective constituency services.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 4:04:08 PM
Toke, even you can appreciate the difference between 90% and 100%. Try something that matters.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 4:06:19 PM
Umm, Fred, I don't think that was a criticism; it reads to me like a partial explanation of Inhofe's electoral strength in his home state.
Also, while I don't know one way or another, I would guess that Clinton's large, well-funded office does an excellent job of constituent service. She may not be my preferred candidate, but she's no dummy.
Posted by: Warren Terra | Mar 29, 2007 4:08:11 PM
sanpete, what the fuck do you think would happen to the US economy if we reduced our carbon emissions by 90% and China and India and Al Gore and the rest of the world did what they are going to do (which is not listen to Al Gore)?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:10:05 PM
sanpete, if you want Al Gore to be the global warming spokesman, more power to you. But you will understand why no one will listen, right?
Why not make Michael Morre czar of health and fitness?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:17:06 PM
Gore's plan of carbon neutral by buying credits from others only shows that under his rules, only the wealthy can afford this offset. The credits have to come from somewhere which means that because of his wealth and his ability to buy them, others will do with less.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 4:21:14 PM
China seen topping U.S. carbon emissions in 2007
And that, my friends, is the best evidence I can offer you that this whole issue is purely political and that Gore and his followers are not serious. Any serious solution would, no doubt, include China and probably India as well since they are not far behind.
Of course, Gore has made untold millions from the Global Warming issue and elevated his stature to that of a rock star among his following, so not all is lost.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 4:30:37 PM
This is improvement. You each brought up a substantive issue. It would be near impossible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% with current technology. By 2050 I expect it to be more realistic. And I'm sure China will also be on board by then. No one envisions leaving China out.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 4:39:48 PM
"You each brought up a substantive issue. It would be near impossible to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 90% with current technology."
Really? Forty three years from now we will be able to reduce carbon emissions by 90%? With the probable doubling of our population by then? With our modern technology, do you think we now have the capability to reduce the carbon emissions by 90% compared to what we emitted in 1964(forty three years ago)?
sanpete, don't be an akaison, think before you write.
"And I'm sure China will also be on board by then. No one envisions leaving China out."
And what do you base that on?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 4:48:49 PM
Toke, technology is increasing at a much faster rate now than in 1964 and will keep increasing faster and faster. I can promise you, though, that if we can't do it, we won't.
Since I get my news from sources other than Fox, I often hear those calling for reductions in greenhouse gasses acknowledging that it's necessary to have the developing world on board in the future. They point out that as the technology allows energy to be produced efficiently by other means, it won't be such a burden on those countries, and could even save them money, as well as improving health.
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 5:00:26 PM
As of now, China is increasing their oil imports and building coal to oil plants. Do you think they are going to throw away the billions of dollars they are investing in fossil fuels?
In the 1960s, the US population was about one hundred and fifty million. Now it is three hundred million. And you think we will be able to reduce our carbon emissions? By 90%?
Think about it.
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 5:10:20 PM
First of all, getting the Chinese on board with anything is like herding cats and nothing has been said about India, a very, very big player both now and in the future.
None of this is a serious effort. When you get China ON BOARD, maybe someone will listen to you. Changing the temp .06 of ONE DEGREE by the year 2050 while creating hardships for the poor and placing the US at a serious disadvantage is not the kind of treaty I mind seeing shot shot down.
Posted by: Fred Jones | Mar 29, 2007 5:23:00 PM
Toke, we're also increasing our oil imports and building coal plants. China will join up when they get tired enough of asthma, cancer and so on, are facing international sanctions, and/or the newer energy sources are cheaper. The same things apply to India and the other countries.
How many computers were there in 1964, and what could they do?
Posted by: Sanpete | Mar 29, 2007 5:32:37 PM
"China will join up when they get tired enough of asthma, cancer and so on, are facing international sanctions, and/or the newer energy sources are cheaper."
China still has political prisoners and restricts speech. Do you think asthma will be an issue with them in fifty years? Maybe in a few hundred years. Do you think they are going to hurt their economy just cuz a there is more cancer or asthma among the pee-ons who can't vote? If a statesman or his relative got cancer or asthma and tried to do something, he'd end up in a gulag.
China is a permanant member of the security council. Do you think they will approve sanctions against themselves?
"How many computers were there in 1964, and what could they do?"
Not very many and not very much.
Can computers today reduce global warming? I personally have brought up ways computers could help Al Gore get his message out and reduce his carbon emissions, but I doubt Al Gore would implement any of those ideas. It is too much fun jetting around the world, carbon emissions be damned.
With all these new computers and their capability, has carbon emissions gone down since 1964?
Posted by: Captain Toke | Mar 29, 2007 5:49:38 PM
