The truth comes out...

So that guy who will probably go down in history as America's worst president was at Fort Benning, Georgia a few days ago, where he gave a uniquely honest glimpse into the true motivations for war in Iraq: the President implored us to "Imagine what would happen if these extremists who hate America gained control of energy reserves." Holy shit! We'd sure be in a lot of trouble then! You know, it's not exactly like we have control of energy reserves in Iraq now. And what's the problem? $55/barrel oil? Man, Bush is right, this war is totally worth the $505 billion we've spent already - for that kind of money, the government could have just given every American citizen almost $1700. $1700 can buy a lot of gas... but what do I know about public policy? The important thing to focus on now is achieving "stability" in Iraq, which is what everyone now claims to want, on both sides of the isle. Call me crazy, but wasn't Iraq pretty stable under Saddam? I mean, is this what it's come down to, American lawmakers basically wishing for the situation we destroyed in the first place?


In local news (that is, Washington state local), the Washington State Supreme Court has overturned Seattle City Light's ability to offset its carbon emissions by paying for environmental improvements outside of the utility. The three main programs SCL used to achieve carbon neutrality were: buying biodiesel for Seattle Metro buses; paying for upgrades to cruise ships docking in Seattle so the ships could plug into the grid instead of running diesel generators; and paying for pollution control technology in a Dupont chemical plant in Kentucky that releases freon into the atmosphere (freon is a potent greenhouse gas - much more so than CO2). While the Superior Court ruled that the program acted in the interest of ratepayers - which it does, because global warming is destroying the snowpack that gives SCL ratepayers dirt-cheap electricity - the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the program acted outside the scope of the utility's charter. This has delivered a major blow to the city of Seattle, which is attempting to meet what would be its requirements under the Kyoto Protocol, if the US were to ratify it (several other cities have followed suit, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago).

The worst part of this whole scenario, though, is the public reaction: some people think that you can't just "spend money" when you should be "cleaning up your act,"(forget the fact that the money SCL was spending directly benefitted the environment. Do these people even know what they're criticising?); other people don't like SCL and think that any ruling against it is a good one (very intelligent policy making); other people don't see how fighting global warming is in ratepayer interest (even though the Superior and Supreme courts seem to). This is a shame, because the SCL program was innovative and effective. I suppose between the media painting a picture of global warming as "we all die tomorrow" or "nothing will ever happen," it's no wonder people have inane ideas about policies to address the problem.

To read the full Seattle Post-Intelligencer article on the courts ruling, and to see what people are saying about it, go to http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/300406_citylight19.html