A victory in the courts, but will it stand?

While the big polluters, aka dirty coal, are having success in watering down the climate bill to near irrelevance with their bought and paid for senators, some progress has shown up in the courtroom in New York. As reported over at Climate Progress;

"A federal appeals court ruled Monday that states trying to combat global warming can sue six electric utilities to force them to cut the greenhouse gases emitted by their power plants in 20 states.

You can read the full ruling here. David Hawkins, director of the National Resources Defense Council’s climate programs, told Greenwire (subs. req’d) tonight,

Hawkins added, “The import of this ruling is that failure of Congress or EPA to act on GHG will not immunize emitters from legal action to compel reductions in emissions.”

Take that, delayers!

Again, a federal climate bill would be the best strategy for the country — and the world. But if Congress fails to act — and if fiddlers like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska block EPA action, then the only place left for recourse will be the courts."

The Climate Bill is an economic necessity

How does 20 million new jobs by 2030 sound?
How about a growth in GDP of 9 trillion dollars by 2030?
According to the National Association of Manufacturers that is what we will get from a commitment to the Waxman-Markey Climate bill. For all you "growth is god" capitalists out there this should be good news. If it is then contact your senators and tell them so. You can do it quite easily at the Care2 petition site.

Read more at Climate Progress.

A sure fire route to happiness; reduce dependence on consumer goods

No debt, lower carbon footprint, reduced pollution, and more time for enjoying life because I can spend less time working for someone else just to pay for all the stuff, 99% of which ends up in the landfill within 6 months, see the video below.

In the case of items I have decided to own I work towards the least energy use I can, I use a pre-owned laptop instead of a desktop computer, when I've owned and operated an automobile I have only owned used models that achieve good levels of efficiency (though I strive to do without whenever possible), I address efficiency in the houses I live in. Energy efficiency is the lowest of low hanging fruit.

As Amory Lovins has said " We've found a Saudi Arabia under Detroit." By implementing lightweight materials in autos we can save "8.5 million barrels of oil a day...and it's a whole lot easier to find that oil than under 10,000 feet of water". Here Mr. Lovins is referring to the much touted "new" technology of drilling in deep water. The light materials he is referring to are available now.

As reported by Joe Romm over at Climate Progress "The energy efficiency provisions in the House energy and climate bill (H.R. 2454) could save $750 per household by 2020 and $3,900 per household by 2030, according to an analysis by the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE). "

Not only do these provisions pick the lowest hanging fruit in the battle against needless consumption which causes climate change but they also create jobs, "An ACEEE news release notes that not only will efficiency reduce the costs to consumers and businesses of cutting carbon pollution:

ACEEE estimates that approximately 250,000 jobs will be created by the energy efficiency provisions in H.R. 2454 by 2020, with a total of 650,000 jobs generated by 2030."

It is just common sense, why pay for something you are just wasting?