Green and long green Archives

April 20, 2006


Charlie Komanoff, an old comrade-in-arms of mine, calls our attention to a particularly unsavory example of self-serving backroom dealing by everybody's favorite scandalous old uncle, Ted Kennedy.

There's a proposal to build a windmill farm for electric power generation in Nantucket Sound -- a measure so obviously intelligent and environmentally sound that even the Green Party can't help supporting it.

Unfortunately, Nantucket Sound is a body of water almost entirely sourrounded by millionaires. Needless to say, these folks don't want their view of their neighbors' giant fume-spewing power yachts -- all that blue smoke, so pretty -- impaired by windmills. There is a fundamental leisure-class theorem which holds that anything utilitarian, however benign, must never be obtruded on a millionaire's notice; the aesthetic, by definition, must be pure consumption, and if it consumes large amounts of land or oil and generates abundant pollution, well, so much the better.

Among these wealthy Nantucket Sound consumer-aestheticians are the Kennedy family, and in particular, Uncle Ted and his somewhat rodentine nephew Robert Kennedy Jr. -- yes, the late McCarthy Bob's son. Bobby Jr. is a macher with the Natural Resources Defense Council, a prominent enviro group.

The Kennedys have been fighting this windmill project tooth and nail. Here's the latest:

A provision written specifically to stop the proposed Cape Wind project slated for offshore Nantucket Sound in Massachusetts was tucked into a bill that was voted out of committee on Thursday, April 6. No hearings had been held on the provision. The bill containing the provision still must be approved by the full House and Senate, which will be on spring recess over the next two weeks.

The action came when members of a House-Senate conference committee approved a final compromise version of an $8.7 billion Coast Guard authorization bill containing language allowing the Governor of Massachusetts the unrestricted power to veto the project. Current Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R) is on the record opposing the Cape Wind project.

Leading the effort to stop the Cape Wind project by adding the veto provision to the bill were Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens (R) and Alaska Rep. Don Young (R), senior Congressional negotiators on the bill. In addition, "Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) spoke to Sen. Stevens in support of this provision," said Kennedy spokesperson Melissa Wagoner, who was quoted in an April 7 story by the Associated Press.

The Greens observe:
Among the wind farm's opponents are wealthy Cape Cod homeowners, including Mass. Sen. Ted Kennedy, his nephew Robert Kennedy, Jr., and the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, whose first president was CEO of Phelps-Dodge, a mining corporation that placed first on the EPA list of toxic emitters in Arizona and New Mexico. Other opponents include Senators John Warner and Lamar Alexander, whose families also own waterfront property on the Cape.
So we have Stevens, Young, Warner, Alexander, Romney -- all black-hats, of course -- and right there, cheek-to-cheek with them, Kennedy Maximus and Kennedy Minimus, who are not only white-hat Democrats but Kennedys [crosses self quickly three times].

There's some pretty wonderful other black-hats in there with the Kennedy boyz. Greenpeace ran down some 411 on a few of these:

A few weeks after the Cape Wind proposal was announced in 2001, Wayne Kurker, the owner of Hyannis Marina, started the [anti-windmill] Alliance. The stated purpose of the Alliance was, and is, to stop Cape Wind and to prevent wind turbines from being located in Nantucket Sound. Mr. Kurker has been on the receiving end of criticism from members of the community over the years about his marina expansion plans and over his marina buildings giving the Hyannis Inner Harbor an industrial look. Months after forming the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound, Mr. Kurker was advocating for high-speed cigarette boat racing to occur in Nantucket Sound.

As the Alliance grew in 2002 from an active fundraising campaign, it obtained an office, hired several full-time staff and announced the selection of a CEO, Douglas Yearley. Mr. Yearley had retired to a large home overlooking Nantucket Sound after a long career at Phelps Dodge, an international copper and uranium mining company that under his watch as CEO was rated as the biggest polluter in Arizona by the Environmental Protection Agency. Mr. Yearley's tenure at Phelps Dodge was also recognized by Mother Jones Magazine ( ) in their 1995 article, “10 Little Piggies. Forget welfare moms and the unemployed. No one feeds at the public trough like these ten.”

In 2005 the Cape Cod Times ( reported that the Alliance had selected Bill Koch as their new Co-Chairman, a part-time Cape resident who owns a multi-million dollar property in Osterville overlooking Nantucket Sound.... A billionaire who made much of his fortune in the coal and oil industries, Mr. Koch spoke about Cape Wind in a recent interview, ''So what? I'm interested in my view and the value of my property on the Cape,'' he said.... ''I freely admit I don't want to look at (the turbines).''

Although Mr. Koch began his energy business in Massachusetts, he moved his company to Florida for tax reasons. As reported in a St. Petersburg 2003 article entitled, “Big boys profit on mom-and-pops tax break, Many of Florida's largest private companies use tax exemptions created for small businesses, bypassing any corporate income tax”.

It seems Mr. Koch doesn't seem to object to energy projects in somebody else's back yard (

To paraphrase Mike Nichols and Elaine May's quip about Hyde Park -- Ahh, Cape Cod. Black hats and white hats working hand in hand to fuck the planet.

April 25, 2006

No green, no peace

Greenpeace writes:
Greenpeace has produced a TV ad revealing Sen. Ted Kennedy as the enviro-hypocrite he is. Despite repeating in a recent interview that he is all for renewable energy development, Kennedy continues to oppose the Cape Wind project, which would be the first offshore wind farm in the country. Sen. Stevens of Alaska said it was at the request of Kennedy that he insert the sneaky amendment to the Coast Guard bill that would effectively kill Cape Wind.

With the vote coming any day, Greenpeace will run the ad in a few states as part of an effort to push key Senators to remove the dirty Cape Wind amendment. After countless pledges and a new energy bill, it's time Congress walks the walk on renewable energy.

If memory serves, Greenpeace was the first enviro outfit to come out in favor of this wind project, back when all the others were still dithering.

September 19, 2006

The green machine

Is the electorate unconciously yearning for a man on a green donkey?

Al Gore must think so behold his Greening of America plan.

Hey, I'm no mean green dancing extreme, but if I was a pragmatic vote-seeking vacuum like big Al, I might figure this is one popular crusade the trans-nats might get on board.

A dove to empire?

Single payer medical?

Class warrior?
Double nope.

Deficit daddy?

Mistah green bloomer?
Yeah, baby, yeah!

November 14, 2006

Big Green: Lower your expectations
Environmentalists, Though Winners in the Election, Warn Against Expecting Vast Changes

WASHINGTON, Nov. 13 — Last week’s election whipsawed the Congressional committees that are crucial battlegrounds for environmental and energy legislation. But even many environmentalists believe that an ambitious new agenda is unlikely....

“I think you’d have to go back to the Enlightenment to find such a big change in worldviews,” Ken Cook, the president of the Environmental Working Group, a research organization, told reporters on Monday.

But despite the committee changes, some lobbyists are trying to dampen expectations that a major environmental agenda can speed through Congress.

...[T]hey say that trying to get the new Congress to embrace initiatives like tougher automobile fuel-economy standards and requirements that industry pay more for Superfund cleanups could mean that little, if anything, will be accomplished.

Melinda Pierce, a senior lobbyist with the Sierra Club, said in an interview, “The environmental community has to recognize how difficult it’s going to be to advance an environmental agenda with such narrowly held majorities.”

Senator Jeff Bingaman, Democrat of New Mexico and the presumptive new chairman of the Energy Committee, said in an interview: “I think there’s a danger of trying to overreach. The close divide between Democrats and Republicans ensures we can’t pass anything unless we get some Republican support.”

...The views held by Representative John D. Dingell, Democrat of Michigan, show the difficulty in finding support for a broad agenda. Mr. Dingell supports the control and cleanup of toxic substances but has never embraced automobile fuel-efficiency standards.

Not even sworn in yet, and already making excuses! And of course the Sierra Club is right in there with 'em, covering their unlovely, bought-and-paid-for asses with a preemptive exculpation.

Nevertheless, this is the biggest event since "the Enlightenment." A perfect illustration of dissociated Democratic thinking: voting for Democrats is supremely important, but don't expect anything of them once they're elected.

March 24, 2009

Goo-goo clusters

Just read a piece over at Counterpunch on the state of the non-profit social-change subsector of our American class struggle.

Point of attack? Bad-spirited nonprofit orgs -- the spotlight-hogging, power-grabbing, unscrupulous grant-hound outfits.

The Counterpunch writer, Chris Irwin, calls them "someprofits" and he develops a nice Jeremiah-like head of steam describing their iniquities:

They are the ones always 5 years late on the true populist grassroots campaigns. Someprofits become so oriented in following the campaigns that are being funded they miss the ones that will be and always come to campaigns late in the game to start a non stop campaign to seize control of what they do not understand.

Someprofits come into campaigns late in the game and then drift towards centralizing control. They call them “steering committess” where they form “coalitions” that always seems to boil down to fewer people making decisions.

Someprofits think that since they are getting paid to organize—that they must be professionals and really good at it. This expert head cripples in that the very nature of conflict is that no two are the same. It also makes them arrogant and gives them a sense of entitlement when they seize, and then drive right deep into the dirt—the campaigns.

Wow -- some bad dudes, eh?

After all this, the enraged Irwin suggests how a real progressive non-profit outfit oughta be missioning itself: not "to fund themselves -- but to provide resources and tools for the betterment of our world." Now you can't find much in that to quibble over.

Irwin kinda stumbles at the finish line, unfortunately. Those that know need to name names -- which Irwin doesn't do. (I bet he's got the Sierra Club in mind, though.) The dark side orgs need to be outed and vilified by name. There's no room for love-thine-enemy cure-the-patient shit in this scrap. And his peroration is downright social-workerish:

If a someprofit was an adult you would confront them with their behavior and offer clear consequences if they do not modify their antisocial behavior.... we as a community need to confront these someprofits with their behavior because how many of them are acting is damaging, inappropriate and just plain bad manners.
"Damaging"? "Inappropriate"? That hardly gets it done -- and to sling at 'em their "bad manners" kinda frames the misbegotten googoo aspect of the diatribe.


Posts along these lines are comparatively rare in the larger left indy media, so I salute it despite the fizzle factor.

May 26, 2009

Cap'n Trade to the rescue

Cap-and-trade is a nice model for price mechanisms driven by social policy.

Unlike a tax, which slaps on a price increase, a cap and trade arrives at the price increase -- but that's ahhh theory -- then there's the details.

Here's Matt Yglesias, snub-gun journalist, on carbon emission markets:

"Capping the amount of allowable carbon dioxide emissions creates a new source of wealth in the economy — permission to emit carbon dioxide.

This, in turn, raises a question about how to allocate that resource. One suggestion, popular with industry and its tame dogs in congress, is to allocate it to industry. Give the permits away, and let companies either use them themselves or sell them to others.

Another suggestion, more popular with environmentalists and economists, is to auction the permits and then use the funds thereby raised to accomplish something useful....

They have the same macroeconomic impact, and presumably the same ecological impact. But the cap-and-rebate proposal results in gains for the bottom 40 percent of households, a tiny loss for the median quintile, and small losses for the top 40 percent.

The cap-and-giveaway proposal results in large losses for the bottom 80 percent of the population and a large gain for the top 20 percent.

Matt clangs the little-guy bell. Note that such a broad spectrum of tit-twist distributions are also lurking in the upcoming grand drafting of our public-option health insurance program.

Pinkos better get up to speed on this region of applied public economics, and start calling the balls and strikes accurately. Just unleashing the dogmas of class war to bark, bay, and howl benightedly at the rising of the congressional harvest moon is no good. Much more comes from understanding this shit from the inside out than screaming for the ultimo option that isn't an option.

Yes, in theory there is a Pigou tax that can do anything cap and trade can do -- like the carbon tax advocated by Father Smiff's pal Charles Komanoff.

And yes, single payer is a final solution devoutly to be sought.

But but but -- and the irony here gives me a tingle -- all you decentralizin' Eric Blair types get a wedgy over -- THE STATE.

To Josephine Average Wage Schmuckette, nothing, nothing more accurately operates as the lightning bolt of the state than a tax slap or a mandate. On this green stuff, and health stuff both, a few shrewd market mechanism designs (as in cap and trade on carbon emissions, and a fightin' pub op in the health sector) is a path to decentralization and lower-archy.

Interested? If so, here's a nice Ivy League site for your reading pleasure.

Rodan attacks!

Rodan attacks!!!

Or maybe it should be "Larval Mothra Attacks" -- that's him over on the right, I believe.

Comrade Owen has recently been taking, if I understand him, a devil's advocate position: first about public-option health care (as opposed to single-payer), and most recently about cap-and-trade for CO2 emissions.

Owen allows as how these approaches are not be as desirable as single-payer and (maybe) a carbon tax respectively, but maybe there's something to be said for 'em. Here he is on the subject of single-payer vs. public-option:

One big slice, straight through the neck -- Conyers' uncle payer plan (HR 676); or the slow bleed to death -- Stark's free-to-choose Medicare bill?

.... Is there a serious difference here? I doubt there is, in the long run -- given a choice, a la Stark, the citizenry will gradually opt for uncle's medicare system, obviously.

So why, besides the art of the impossibly superior, prefer Conyers' plan?

Here's the analogous argument for Cap'n Trade:
Yes, in theory there is a Pigou tax that can do anything cap and trade can do -- like the carbon tax advocated by Father Smiff's pal Charles Komanoff.

And yes, single payer is a final solution devoutly to be sought.

But [o]n this green stuff, and health stuff both, a few shrewd market mechanism designs (as in cap and trade on carbon emissions, and a fightin' pub op in the health sector) is a path to decentralization and lower-archy.

Now I have a problem with this line of argument.

Owen knows a good deal more than I do about this sort of thing, and even if I thought he was wrong, I'd be hard-pressed to argue the point. But the problem doesn't arise: as a technical matter I don't doubt that he is right. A "fighting" public-option -- and a "shrewd" cap and trade program -- would no doubt be better than what we have now, at the very least, and might lead to systemic change further on (though the certainty of that seems less clear).

The qualifications -- "fighting" and "shrewd" -- are quite important, however.

It's pretty clear that single-payer isn't on the table; and if a carbon tax hasn't been ruled out, it's only because nobody who matters has ever considered it. And why? Because -- of course -- corporate America doesn't want either of these things, and corporate America -- unlike the enviro wonkery and the academic wonkery -- deploys the big battalions.

But what reason is there to believe, then, that they would stand for a "fighting" public option, or a "shrewd" cap and trade, either? What reason is there to think that we won't get Hillary Rediviva, with no-fight Romneycare sauce, by way of health care reform; and by way of emissions reduction, yet another flood of new kinds of securities to trade -- with shrewdness to be seen only in the parasites and cormorants who will make their living swapping these grubby bits of paper, made into valuable property by Uncle's fiat?

So I wonder why -- apart from professional pride -- Owen is spending his time fighting this corner.

He writes:

Pinkos better get up to speed on this region of applied public economics, and start calling the balls and strikes accurately. Just unleashing the dogmas of class war to bark, bay, and howl benightedly at the rising of the congressional harvest moon is no good.
Nobody can quarrel with that. Understanding the nuts and bolts is a good thing.

But folks like us have very little influence on events. This fact has some implications. Since we don't have to be "responsible" -- responsible, that is for the misery that the responsables in Washington are certainly going to cause -- we also don't have to be realistic. In fact, it would be a ridiculous affectation for us to be realistic. Who, after all, do we think we are? Congressional aides? What on earth is the downside for us to be maximalists, incorrigibles, millennarians? Is anything we do going to forfeit the good in favor of the unattainable best?

Still, I share Owen's pain, or some of it, anyway. Too much Left scenography introduces a tired old cast of pasteboard personifications onto the stage -- the Bourgeoisie, the Working Class, the Sellout Politicians and their pets, the Running Dogs. If Owen's goal is to sketch in some more detail and bring a breath of life to this stale discourse, then one can only applaud.

July 14, 2009

Battle of the Brights

* * * * *

You gotta feel sorry for Democratic Party apologist Joseph Romm, shown at left looking like Philip Roth's nerdy younger brother. In a recent Huffington Post item, Romm has dutifully put himself in the awkward position of suggesting that James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute, is a science denier.

Here’s the backstory:

Hansen — who, as Romm acknowledges, is a distinguished guy and knows a thing or two about climate science — recently posted, also at the HuffPo, a blistering expose of the utterly “counterfeit” and meaningless Waxman-Markey bill, which, as Hansen says, “locks in fossil fuel business-as-usual and garlands it with a Ponzi-like cap-and-trade scheme.” Hansen correctly observes that this non-solution scuttled any hope for a “consensus” on carbon emissions reduction between the rich countries of the world and those who are still trying to get rich: “The [G-8] delegates from other [developing] nations ... read the [Waxman-Markey] bill and deduce[d] that it’s no more fit to rescue our climate than the V-2 rocket was to land a man on the moon.”

Poor Joe promptly ground out a turgid 2800-word response to Hansen’s post — almost three words for Hansen’s every one. Joe’s line of argument — unlike Hansen’s — is not very clear, but it seems to turn on two main postulates: first, that Hansen understands science but doesn’t get politics; and second, that Hansen’s post has been reproduced on various “climate denial” flat-earth sites. The implication is that Hansen — after twenty years of work enlisting thousands of other climate scientists to the cause — has gone off the rails and become a flat-earther himself.

Now Joe knows some science too, and he can think and write cogently when he wants to. How, then, to explain his weird muddled childish response to Hansen’s straightforward critique?

The sad answer probably is that Joe works for an outfit called the Center for American Progress (CAP), which is what they call in Washington a “think tank” — and fair enough; such thinking as gets done in Washington is done in such places.

Washington think-tanks come in two hard-to-distinguish flavors: Republican and Democrat. CAP is a Democratic-flavored think tank. Waxman-Markey is the feeble brainchild of the new Democratic congressional majority.

Joe, being a professional Democrat, is also a “realist.” So since this messy abortion of a bill is the best his dawgs in Congress can do, we should all get down with it, or he will call us terrible names, like the French knights in the Monty Python movie — Politically unsophisticated! Unrealistic! Flat-earther! Now go away, or I shall taunt you a second time!

The scattershot incoherence of Joe’s essay betrays his bad conscience. He knows that Waxman-Markey is a joke. Hell, not four months ago, in a talk at the American Museum of Natural History, he proudly rolled out his own phrase, ripoffsets, to disparage those spongy “somewhere else reductions” that are central in Waxman-Markey’s “hide the ball” ethos.

Joe now says he came to understand offsets “after much research and discussion with leading experts.” But how to explain his positively nutty statement that “One of the biggest pluses of a cap-and-trade over a tax is that participants tend to think that the cost of meeting the targets — and hence the cost of the permits — will be much higher than they actually turn out to be. So they do more than is necessary.”?

The answer, of course, is that as a team player, Joe has to defend Waxman-Markey, no matter what a ripoff it is, and no matter that he himself knows better. Since the bill itself makes no sense in the context of its supposed goals, Joe can't make any sense either. Incoherence is contagious.

It's a dirty job, but somebody’s got to do it – or rather, somebody can always be found to do it.

December 27, 2009

A fellow of infinite jest

"Progressive circles [are] 99 per cent inhabited by True Believers in anthropogenic global warming"
That hyperbolic Dr Benway-like spurn comes from this weekend's painted screed of Alex C., and he's at his best, I think. The catamount of Whoville, the panther of mauve paddy-land is always at his best standing straight and tall and throwing bolders down at the rest of us progressives -- albeit, in this case, blindly, like Polyphemus. But he never loses his suave, dare I say Edwardian, panache.

Alex is attacking those crafty corporate submariners, silent-running right past all of us green pwog gulls in what's got to be the biggest hoax since that bright spring Sunday morning in Jerusalem.

I know, I know, why oh why must he take such a crazy out-there position as this madly pwog-defying stance over (my God!) climate change? Of all apple-pie left "issues" -- why that one?

I'll tell you why: it's his scorpion moment, his chance to self-destructively sting, and sting savagely, the great docile green amphibian creature on whose back he regularly rides, that "99%" of us rads.

"The CRU emails graphically undermine the claim of the Warmers – always absurd to those who have studied the debate in any detail – that they commanded the moral high ground. It has been a standard ploy of the Warmers to revile the skeptics as intellectual whores of the energy industry, swaddled in munificent grants and with large personal stakes in discrediting AGW. Actually, the precise opposite is true. Billions in funding and research grants sluice into the big climate modeling enterprises. There’s now a vast archipelago of research departments and “institutes of climate change” across academia, with a huge vested interest in defending the AGW model. It’s where the money is. Scepticism, particularly for a young climatologist or atmospheric physicist, can be a career breaker."
Can you imagine anything more delightfully topsy-turvy? I can't. The guy is a treasure, a pinko Yorick still wearing his lips. For that, let us be thankful.

January 6, 2010

Even the Sierra Club...

... the nation's most sedate and compliant environmental organization, is shocked:

Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it would sign off on a Clean Water Act permit for Patriot Coal Corp.'s Hobet 45 mountaintop removal coal mine in Lincoln County, West Virginia.

"The Obama administration rings in the new year by allowing coal companies to bury more miles of streams," said Joan Mulhern, senior legislative counsel for Earthjustice. "There is no excuse for approving this permit when the science is clear that mountaintop removal coal mining permanently destroys streams. The administration claims to be making progress on mountaintop removal, but in reality they are still following the flawed policies put in place by the Bush administration.

Needless to say, that rather trenchant second paragraph was buried at the end of the Sierrans' communique. One also gets a slightly sour laugh at the implication that George Bush is responsible for mountaintop-removal mining, which has been going on for decades and enjoyed a huge expansion during the Clinton years.

May 1, 2010

Spill, baby, spill

When our Exalted Boy Emperor and Nobel Peace Laureate, George W. Obama, caved in to the “Drill, Baby, Drill” crowd and proposed the opening of large areas of the Atlantic and Alaksan coasts and the Gulf Of Mexico for oil drilling, you could’ve knocked over your average Liberal or Pwogwessive with a feather. They were shocked — shocked — to hear that The One was proposing to allow offshore oil drilling with a plan very nearly identical to that Evil Rethuglican, George W. Bush.

The really sad part is, of course, that your average Liberal or Pwogwessive will still — like your classic abused spouse — feel as if they’ve got noplace else to go and, as per usual, trudge off to the polls to pull a lever for the Democrats later this year, and in ‘12 and, also as per usual, once again feign shock and surprise when they come in for more abuse and betrayal from George W. Obama and the Democrats.

September 7, 2010

A Cynical Ploy

In a move Democrats characterized as a cynical ploy, designed to siphon votes from Democrats, who are entitled to them, a Republican operative put homeless people on the Green Party ticket in the Arizona elections. "They're human beings," noted the bewildered operative. "They're really human..."

In a move Republicans characterized as a cynical ploy, the Democratic Party announced it would adopt the Green Party platform in order to counter the Republicans' cynical ploy. "We're entitled to those votes, and we'll have them, even if it entails adopting principles*."

In a move the Democratic and Republican parties characterized as a cynical ploy, the Green Party announced that it continues to welcome anyone who supports their platform, provided they actually support it. "We're entitled to a welcome," huffed a Democratic spokesman. "Exactly," added a Republican. "Be my brother. Or I'll kill you."

*Not really, no.

May 9, 2011

Following the carbon trail

Here's one for you green lefties, and it links to one of my main OCD targets: the GNSFT (Great North/South Forex Tilt).

A recent study by some striving clean mind and body type found some nice numbers using a little bookkeeping trick called "consumption-side carbon accounting", which works like this: if a widget is manufactured in say China and then shipped to the US – where it is “consumed” – the carbon embodied in the widget goes not on China’s books, as per the usual practice, but on America’s.

Apply that to trade figures, and well, guess what: "since 1990 – the Kyoto Protocol’s baseline year – 75% of the growth in the North’s consumption-based emissions took place in China."

Production where it's dirtiest is often also where it's cheapest, and cross border arbitrage by the multinationals results in just this sort of poison trail stretching from dirtiest smokiest inner Hanistan to the plain-of-aspect, low-priced products on the shelves of Walmart.

The smiley guy needs a border cost barrier to o'erleap here -- one that would put a serious block on his household trinket trove, culled planet-wide and now on sale at a store near you.

We the sovereign self-determining job-holding citizen majority need to slap an emergency planet-protecting Pigou-type green fee(*) on every product or service that passes into these free and equal states, just to off set any dirty difference between their production process and a domestic equivalent.

This oughta be job one now, I should least for green geists who want to link up their sacred cause with the venal sprawlquest country livin' economic interests of the broader Homer K Simpson jobster masses.


(*) With direct social dividending of all proceeds...of course of course of course.

August 2, 2012

Hug a tree, take a nap

McKibenn's latest has drawn enough comment, but it makes a great launch pad for pointing out that the best way to save the trees, the oceans and the rest of this good green (and not so green) little planet is through a shorter work week. Yes, this smacks of reformism and comes with all the downsides, etc. Nevertheless, leisure that isn't rooted in disemployment is a superb way to reduce industrial emissions. Pair the 20 hour work week with the dear old basic income for best results.

About Green and long green

This page contains an archive of all entries posted to Stop Me Before I Vote Again in the Green and long green category. They are listed from oldest to newest.

God squad is the previous category.

Haiti, poor Haiti is the next category.

Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

Creative Commons License
This weblog is licensed under a Creative Commons License.
Powered by
Movable Type 3.31