EPA's action Jackson on the "resolution of disapproval"

EPA Press Office

press@epa.gov

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 8, 2010

Administrator Jackson: Keep Moving America Forward Into Energy Independence

Addresses upcoming “resolution of disapproval” vote in remarks before small business owners

WASHINGTON – In remarks today at EPA’s 2010 Small Business Environmental Conference, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson outlined the impact of a so-called “resolution of disapproval” of the EPA’s endangerment finding in the Senate. Administrator Jackson discussed how this resolution would undermine EPA’s common-sense approach to addressing climate change, move America a “big step backward in the race for clean energy” and “double down on the energy and environmental policies that feed our oil addiction.”

Administrator Jackson noted that increasing our oil addiction “…at the very moment a massive spill – the largest environmental disaster in American history – is devastating families and businesses and destroying wetlands is contrary to our national interests.” Administrator Jackson also reminded these small businesses that EPA has finalized a rule specifically designed to protect them from regulation – focusing EPA’s efforts on the largest sources of greenhouse gas emissions, like power plants and oil refineries.

The administrator’s full remarks are below. Video of these remarks are available at http://www.epa.gov/administrator

Remarks of U.S. EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson

2010 Small Business Environmental Conference

June 8, 2010

(As prepared for delivery.)

I’m happy to have the chance to welcome you today. I want to use my time here to speak about a question before Congress this week – a question that involves small businesses and our clean energy economy. But let me begin by saying that in the last 18 months this administration has been working to strengthen the prospects for American small businesses.

We are facing the worst economic challenges of any generation since World War II. The recovery we envision is a recovery focused on Main Street – a recovery that provides economic security through good wages, affordable health care, and a strong, stable horizon for investing in new businesses, new ideas and new workers. We know that at the core of that recovery are American small businesses. That’s why these first months have been full of bold steps to help you prosper.

The needs of small business have also factored into the response in the Gulf. The worst environmental disaster in our nation’s history is also an economic catastrophe for the small business there – the fishers and shrimpers and restaurant owners who live off the resources of the water. There are billions of dollars and thousands of jobs at stake in travel, tourism, food and other industries. Because those industries make up the foundation of these economies, those effects can be expected to ripple outwards. President Obama has made clear to BP that the protection and compensation of small businesses is a priority. In a meeting I attended with the President last Friday, he said in no uncertain terms that the needs of the people and the businesses in that area come before the needs of BP shareholders.

When it comes to the environmental issues you are here to discuss, small businesses play a critical role as the drivers of innovation. Today we’re honoring innovative small businesses that are leading the way – like the Dull Homestead, a family farm in Brookville, Ohio. The first wind generator went up on the Homestead in 2004. Today there are six wind turbines, a fuel cell generator, geothermal and biomass heating, and other renewable energy technologies. That work earned the Dull Homestead the small business environmental stewardship award.

We also see innovative products like Greensulate from Ecovative Design in New York. Greensulate is a natural form of insulation made from locally-grown materials. They use rice hulls from the Midwest, or cotton burrs from the South – keeping costs and transportation emissions down. Unlike most insulation that gives off significant CO2 emissions during production, Greensulate is organically grown, not manufactured. And the idea began as a spark in the mind of an entrepreneur, an idea that moved from the drawing board to the market place with the help of a Small Business Innovation Research grant.

These are the kinds of innovations that have allowed us to grow our economy and protect our environment. In the last 30 years, emissions of six dangerous air pollutants that cause smog, acid rain, lead poisoning and more decreased 54 percent. At the same time, gross domestic product grew by 126 percent. That means we made huge reductions in air pollution at the same time that more cars went on the road, more power plants went on line and more buildings went up. That kind of progress only happens when innovations are encouraged to take shape and take hold – and our nation’s best innovators come from our small businesses.

So – at a time of extraordinary challenges, this administration and this EPA are working to ensure that the foundations you need to thrive are strong and protected. As the drivers of economic growth and technological innovation, we also want to ensure that you have the resources and the flexibility you need to invest in new directions. That is what “Expanding Partnerships to Meet the Changing Regulatory Landscape is All About.” Which brings me to the question before Congress this week.

In two days, the Senate is scheduled take a vote that will have a significant impact on our regulatory future. Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has proposed a resolution of disapproval of EPA’s endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. As you know, EPA followed both the science and the Supreme Court last year to issue a finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health and welfare. That was a historic decision. And it obligated our agency to find ways of reducing greenhouse gas pollution under the Clean Air Act.

Supporters of Senator Murkowski’s resolution, including the oil industry and their lobbyists, claim that the endangerment finding will force small businesses – restaurants, coffee shops and mom-and-pop stores – to comply with burdensome, potentially bankrupting regulations. I hope the small business owners in this room will be sure and write to the big oil companies to thank them for looking out for the little guys and taking up this noble cause. However, I have to say I agree with their concerns. I know that the local Starbucks and the backyard grill are no places to look for meaningful CO2 reductions. That is why – before we issued the endangerment finding – EPA went to work on a rule that protects small businesses. Under what we call the tailoring rule, small sources would be exempted from regulations for the next six years. That should be more than enough time for Congress to pass a law with permanent exemptions.

Senator Murkowski’s resolution would undermine that common sense approach. It would take away EPA’s ability to take action on climate change. And it would ignore and override scientific findings, allowing big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. Finally, it will result in exactly zero protections for small businesses.

What is will do is move America a big step backward in the race for clean energy. It will double down on the energy and environmental policies that feed our oil addiction. That addiction to oil pollutes the air we breathe. It sends billions of our dollars to foreign countries. And it leaves American small businesses and American drivers at the mercy of fuel price spikes, like the $4 a gallon prices we were paying not so long ago. The BP oil spill is a tragic reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction. It highlights just how important it is that we keep moving America forward, into energy independence.

For those reasons and more, we’ve taken significant steps forward. In addition to the tailoring rule, EPA joined President Obama, automakers, the Department of Transportation, governors from across the country and environmental advocates to craft an historic agreement. The clean cars program that we built will make American cars more fuel efficient than ever and cut oil consumption by billions of barrels. It will also mean new innovations.

American scientists can step up to produce new composite materials that make cars lighter, safer and more fuel efficient. Our inventors and entrepreneurs can take the lead in advanced battery technology for plug-in hybrids and electric cars. And manufacturers across the country can produce these new components – which they can then sell to automakers in the US and around the globe.

The Murkowski resolution would gut EPA’s authority in the clean cars program. Our dependence on oil would grow by 455 million barrels. That dependence rises to billions of barrels when you factor in the effect on a follow-on program that expands fuel efficiency to heavy-duty vehicles and extends beyond the 2016 model year. Undermining a program supported by our automakers and autoworkers, environmentalists and governors from across the country seems questionable at any time. But going back to a failed approach and deepening our oil addiction at the very moment a massive spill – the largest environmental disaster in American history – is devastating families and businesses and destroying wetlands is contrary to our national interests.

This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change, despite the Supreme Court’s 2007 decision that EPA must use the Clean Air Act to reduce the proven threat of greenhouse gases, and despite the fact that leaving this problem for our children to solve is an act of breathtaking negligence.

Supposedly these efforts have been put forward to protect jobs. In reality, they will have serious negative economic effects. The clean cars program could be put on indefinite hold, leaving American automakers once again facing a patchwork of state standards. Without a clear picture of greenhouse gas regulations, there will be little incentive to invest in clean energy jobs. America will fall further behind our international competitors in the race for clean energy innovation. Finally, the economic costs of unchecked climate change will be orders of magnitude higher for the next generation than it would be for us to take action today.

I can’t in good conscience support any measure that passes that burden on to my two sons, and to their children. I find it hard to believe that any parent could say to their child, “We’re going to wait to act.” It ignores the responsibility we have to move the country forward in a way that creates jobs, increases our security by breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and protects the air and water we rely on.

At no point in our history has any problem been solved by waiting another year to act or burying our heads in the sand. Our oil addiction is not going to go away unless we act. Now is not the time to go back. Rather than increasing our addiction, we need to keep moving America forward into a clean energy future. As we move forward, we’ll need the help of our small business community – our nation’s innovators and job creators. Your cooperation and coordination are vital to meeting both our economic and our environmental goals. I look forward to working with you. Thank you.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Layne Blanchard
June 8, 2010 3:20 pm

(if it works here) This must be that “race for clean energy”…..

Mkelley
June 8, 2010 3:20 pm

After these morons “fix” our “addiction to oil”, maybe they can do something about our addictions to food and shelter.

pesadilla
June 8, 2010 3:20 pm

“Senator Murkowski’s resolution would undermine that common sense approach. It would take away EPA’s ability to take action on climate change. And it would ignore and override scientific findings, allowing big oil companies, big refineries and others to continue to pollute without any oversight or consequence. Finally, it will result in exactly zero protections for small businesses”.
Sounds like a reasonable arguement, except for the fact that should Senator Murkowski’s resolution succeed, then small businesses would require zero protection (THE REQUIRED PROTECTION DISAPPEARS) and their customers would have a few more dollars in their pockets to spend. Failure of the resolution will be the thin end of the wedge and a will seriously damage the democratic process. This is in my opinion, A VERY GRAVE MATTER indeed, for all americans.
However, with a lot of luck and the endeavours of Senator Murkowski, sanity and democracy will prevail.
(I wouldn’t bet on it though)

George E. Smith
June 8, 2010 3:23 pm

“”” Jay Cech says:
June 8, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Once again, the administration mixes up the rhetoric between real pollutants (smog generating pollutants and lead) , energy security (importing oil) and climate change.
Don’t let them conflate the two issues!
Disconnect the two, and most people would go along with reducing toxic emissions (CO2 is not toxic to life at the concentrations we are dealing with-and good for plants) and detaching from foreign oil imports.
So, regulate lead, mercury from coal burning, and nitrous oxides etc, and put a big tax on IMPORTED oil. I’m all for that, Jay, but to really make an impact you have t6o do it right.
I suggest a tax of $1,000,000 per barrel of imported oil or oil equivalent in natural gas etc.
That should really make solar cells and wind turbines competitive and get us off our oil drunk quickly.
I can hardly wait to see all the solar farms spring out of the woodwork; freed from the neeed to compete with big oil.
I’m not sure who is going to be paying all the taxes that go to subsidize solar cells though; all the companies that do that now will of course be out of business with that price for oil.
That’s a really great idea you have there Jay.

JEM
June 8, 2010 3:31 pm

I want to see this woman under subpoena.
I want to see her and her minions testifying under oath.
There are several reasons that it makes sense to restore some checks-and-balances to our government and get the GOP back in control of at least one house of Congress, and this is one of the big ones.

jack morrow
June 8, 2010 3:33 pm

Until November we are helpless against this menace of stupidity.

Layne Blanchard
June 8, 2010 3:35 pm

okay, here’s an alternate of that race for clean energy…

Indy
June 8, 2010 3:41 pm

Eric Gisin says:
June 8, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Anyone who talks about “our oil addiction” does not belong in government, put them in the loony bin with the other radical greens.

Sorry, there IS an addiction to foreign oil that is devastating our economy and workforce. First there is the $450 BILLION we send ANNUALLY to nations that sponsor terrorism with our petrodollars. Then there is the enormous cost in materials, dollars and lives in defending these corrupt petroleum cartels. THAT is an addiction we simply cannot afford.
The looney bin should be filled with people unwilling to accept responsibility for their
petro-addicted actions.

geo
June 8, 2010 3:53 pm

Many of the key arguments in that speech are very troubling coming from the head of the EPA.

JimBob
June 8, 2010 3:53 pm

Al Gore’s Holy Hologram says:
“In the US, from the government to the citizens, the public transport network for most of the country seems to be seen as something that only poor or mental people should use. When the US gets serious about its public transport networks then I’ll take its ramblings about energy policy seriously. Everything until then is just talk and suicidal legislation.”
Public transportation isn’t the answer for large parts of the country. I live near Wichita, Kansas with a population of somewhere around 350,000. I can climb in my car and drive completely across town in the amount of time I’d have to wait at a bus stop. That’s if I’m in Wichita. There is no possible way to provide cost-effective public transportation between Wichita and the dozens of surrounding communities, many of which have populations of less than 5,000 people. Why would I wait for a train or bus in my small town, ride it to some hub somewhere in Wichita that is likely miles from where I want to go, then wait for a bus to slowly take me to my final destination? I can get anywhere I need to go in 30-45 minutes in my car.
I’ve been in places like New York City and Washington D.C. where public transportation makes good sense. It works in areas where the population density is very high and the average traveling distance is small. With the exception of a few major cities, the U.S. between the Appalachians and the Sierra Nevadas consists mostly of small rural towns. There is simply no way you could possibly develop a public transportation system that works on this type of structure. Even the larger cities are spread out over many, many square miles. You would need some type of hub-and-spoke system that almost guarantees that the travel time would be longer than driving yourself.
Nothing personal…I enjoy reading your posts but I hear this a lot and it’s a pet peeve of mine. Too many people assume the rest (the most?) of the U.S. is just like L.A. and New York.
The EPA’s position is a killer around here. Fuel prices are a big part of the family budget and the farmers/ranchers are going to get hit hard.

Richard Briscoe
June 8, 2010 3:53 pm

“At no point in our history has any problem been solved by waiting another year to act” Lisa Jackson
“Delay is preferable to error” Thomas Jefferson
I know who gets my vote.

June 8, 2010 3:54 pm

Jackson is being dangerously stupid. Is she being fed this drivel, or does she make it up herself? Her piece is propagandist hectoring – are US citizens not affronted to be taken for fools by this woman?
“EPA followed both the science and the Supreme Court last year to issue a finding that greenhouse gases pose a threat to our health”.
What? If SCIENCE has established that a few hundred ppm of CO2 is a health hazard, then that has no right to be called science.
“That addiction to oil pollutes the air we breathe.”
Burned properly, oil distillates produce mainly CO2 and water, which are essential to the biosphere. There may be all sorts of arguments as to which energy sources are in the national interest, but suggesting that substances essential to life are pollutants is absurd and disingenuous.
“This is happening despite the overwhelming science on the dangers of climate change”.
The evidence for a link between carbon dioxide and significant climate change is distinctly underwhelming. To believe such a tenuous link would be permissible as a mere opinion and matter of faith, but it should not be credited as scientific fact.
“the economic costs of unchecked climate change will be orders of magnitude higher for the next generation than it would be for us to take action today”
That’s a complete lie. Even assuming that there is a link between CO2 and a small degree of climate change, the amount that temperatures could be cut would be so tiny as to be immeasurable for trillions of expense today that the economic argument is utterly dead. This is really flogging a dead horse.
“The Murkowski resolution would gut EPA’s authority”. Well, that would seem to be a jolly good thing. The EPA is extremely dangerous with this character at the helm.

June 8, 2010 4:24 pm

The US may have started down a one way street.
There are more and more controls on energy in the US, fewer controls elsewhere. China is investing heavily in Canadian gas and oil companies, heavy oil upgraders and plans to build oil and gas pipelines from Alberta to the ports of Prince Rupert and Kitimat – something that was planned years ago but got abandoned in the recession of 1983. They are also investing in Africa and elsewhere.
Up to a couple of years ago, the Canadian government (encouraged by the US government) blocked the sale of blocks of the tar sands and energy companies to China. But then came Obama telling people not to look at dirty Canadian oil. Then the Chinese pointed out that they own a huge chunk of American debt (along with the Japanese).
Suddenly, there has been a rash of Chinese investment. And not just in Canada. China has been busy securing its fossil fuel energy supply while Europe and the US focus on less proven technologies.
Now, if the EPA ruling does get reversed, the US is going to have to develop the Bakken field and shale oil/gas projects as a lot of the oil and gas that was available to the US is now committed to others countries.
The US may find that during their short time in office, the Obama administration may have started the US down a road one way street.
Great masses of solar collectors in the Arizona desert and a wind turbine every kilometre on the tops of the Sierra Nevada’s and all the roads and power lines that go with them is beginning to look like a certain future that will be much harsher on the environment than fossil fuels (BP Gulf of Mexico disaster excluded.)
It likely does not matter that there is little or no link between AGW and CO2. The die has been cast.
Thank goodness I heat with wood and run my livestock fences on solar and use geothermal cause electricity prices have doubled in my area and will likely double again in a few years as we subsidize “alternative” energies.
Time to go feed my trout.

wilbert
June 8, 2010 4:30 pm

“Stephen Melinger says:
June 8, 2010 at 1:55 pm
We have plenty of wind and sunlight. We should be focusing on renewable energy instead of drilling for more oil.”…
and them renewable energies will be built with?? yep! Oil,chemicals,mines etc..is that not what Lisa is against?
Take a look at Norway 15000 wind mills and not one power has been shut down because wind energy is not a reliable power source.
Drilling for oil at 5000 feet under the sea is dangerous and stupid…. try to remember which agency imposed those rules on the oil companies despite all the danger warnings from the industry….that’s right the EPA.
The federal mandate to include oxygenates (MTBE or ethanol) in gasoline. Both of these additives add cost to gasoline without providing any benefit to the environment,the stated goal of mandating them in the first place. This substance is a known carcinogen and doesn’t belong in our gasoline and does not improve pollution,e in California. It doesn’t work and costs us more. Vice President Al Gore has been given authority over environmental policy by the Clinton White House for the past eight years. He has routinely approved the federal Environmental Protection Agency’s actions against much smaller mines that pollute the soil and waterways. He has appeared at press conferences and photo opportunities across the nation to praise the Clinton administration’s actions to close down and/or punish mining and industrial operations that pollute the environment.” An investigative report in The Wall Street Journal on June 29, 2000, page A26, confirms that Vice President Al Gore has received $500,000 in royalties over the last 25 years from a large polluting Zinc mine on his Tennessee homestead. The operating mine, literally in his backyard, is on the banks of the Caney Fork River which flows into the great Cumberland River. Independent tests of the soil on the riverbanks show “large quantities of Barium, Iron, and
Zinc, as well as smaller amounts Arsenic, Chromium, and Lead.” Other tests of the water and soil in June of this year by Environmental Science Corp. show high levels of the same metals plus traces of cyanide.” No Lisa J. to be seen.

Honest ABE
June 8, 2010 5:00 pm

Ever since first listening to this blowhard I’ve been annoyed at how she says, “EPA” and not “the EPA.” It strikes me as some sort of internal lingo meant to raise its users on some imaginary pedestal, but I personally think it sounds both uneducated and elitist – an impressive combination.

JPeden
June 8, 2010 5:04 pm

The BP oil spill is a tragic reminder of the hazards of our oil addiction.
Naw, in the form of her own vivid proof , Lisa Jackson instead only reminds us once again that “a mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

Quinn the Eskimo
June 8, 2010 5:04 pm

EPA’s GHG policy is expressed in four sequential rules:
1. The GHG Endangerment Finding;
2. The Johnson Memo Reconsideration Rule (a/k/a the “Timing Rule”);
3. The Light Duty Vehicle Rule (a/k/a the “Tailpipe Rule”); and
4. The “Tailoring Rule.”
The root of it all is the Endangerment Finding, which says CO2 causes global warming that endangers human health and welfare. It is largely based on the IPCC’ reporting on that subject, but also relies on other reports which are themselves derivative of IPCC reporting.
Many of the IPCC errors exposed in Climategate and the follow-on scandals are embedded in the Endangerment Finding. EPA has IPCC omelette on its face, a fact that has been too little noted here on the Internets.
All four rules are being appealed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. There were a large number of appeals of the Endangerment Finding alone, and they have all been consolidated. In these Endangerment Finding cases there are vigorous attacks on the substantive science of the IPCC as adopted by EPA, as well as on the scientific process used by EPA – whether EPA can legally rely on IPCC reporting. EPA says nothing to see here, move along.
The Tailoring Rule purports to rewrite the Clean Air Act by raising the statutory threshold for regulating emissions of pollutants from 250 tons per year to 100,000 tons per year for CO2.
But it is illegal and unconstitutional for the executive branch to rewrite a statute in such stark fashion. That requires new legislation that passes both houses and is signed by the President.
The rationale for rewriting the statute in this manner is that if they didn’t it would bring absurd results in that the number of CO2 emitters required to apply for permits under the statute as written would go from thousands to millions and be impossible to administer. Which is a clue about whether CO2 was intended to be regulated under the Clean Air Act.
But instead of concluding that attempting to regulate CO2 under the Clean Air Act is illegal and stupid, their answer to is to unconstitutionally rewrite the statute.
Statutes and constitutions can be so pesky!
The whole exercise will have no effect whatsoever on global CO2 concentrations, or on global warming, even if you accept the causal premise.
And it would be very economically destructive.
What’s not to like?
This is the Insane Clown Posse on PCP and Tequila!
If the Murkowski resolution of disapproval were adopted, it would bring the EPA side of this to a screeching halt, and Restore Balance To The Force.

June 8, 2010 5:12 pm

Crap weasels want to install cap and ration and destroy America.
Tyranny is marching in America.

bruce
June 8, 2010 5:15 pm

“we have wind and sunlight”
not in the Seattle area.
what happens when the sun has set AND the wind isn’t blowing? besides the fact the footprint pretty much tramples on your yard and landscapes if you want to get anywhere near comparable generation levels. Maybe nuclear, that makes sense.
Wait, it might work if we all agree we want to live in a sixties era commune.

Matt
June 8, 2010 5:15 pm

Indy says:
June 8, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Sorry, there IS an addiction to foreign oil that is devastating our economy and workforce.
This statement is wrong in many ways.
First is the premise of the sentence. The need for oil is not an addiction, but rather a necessity of commerce both domestically and globally. the US and the Worlds economy is built on the availibility and use of oil. It has been a very economical, transportable, source of energy that can be used in a multitude of engines to provide transportation of both people and goods, safely and economically.
If we allow the premise of the sentence to stand, then the second error is the distinction about the “addiction” being to foreign oil. The reason we import so much of our oil, and mostly from Canada I might add, is because the EPA, DEQ, Sierra Club, Earth First etc, environmental groups have restricted our accessing our own domestic oil fields. There is of course more complex economic issues at play here, but if we can’t get it from our own backyard, then we have to get it some where else.
The rest of your commets about terrorism etc have been covered by extension, no need to elaborate.
As for Petro-addicted actions, unless you are refering to pyro-maniacs who light fires using oil refined products, then be careful of throwing rocks while living in your glass house.

June 8, 2010 5:30 pm

tallbloke June 8, 2010 at 1:09 pm :
So what has the economics of energy production got to do with the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency anyway?

… the resulting product of ever-increasing, all-encompassing ‘mission’ to protect us (the citizens of the US) , A/K/A “mission creep” ( bureaucratic over-reach, fulfills the psychological “need to be needed”). I would broach the subject of Jackson being a “nest sitter” (as it applies to her ‘Raison d’être’ vis-a-vis the EPA and a protective overlord/’mommy’ syndrome and all) but I shall refrain from going further.
.

Judd
June 8, 2010 6:32 pm

“Administrator Jackson noted that increasing our oil addiction ‘. . . at the very moment of a massive spill -the largest environmental disaster in American history- is devastating. . .’ ”
I’m flabbergasted that she has the ‘audacity’ to reference this disaster. As noted over at Climate Audit the EPA is legally bound to maintain readiness for just such a disaster. The ‘National Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan Act’ was signed into law in 1994 & the EPA has a manual describing the plan & the coordinated actions to be undertaken to contain, clean up, & mitigate damage from a spill. The EPA is to be the chair & the Coast Guard the co-chair.
Here anything from the EPA bout this? Any effort? The only statements come from the CG but the EPA is the chair.
Lisa, may I recommend you learn how to protect the planet from a real time occuring disaster (as your EPA is legislatively required to do) instead of issuing edicts (which I’m not certain you’re legislatively entitled to do) to protect the planet from highly speculative future disasters. At crunch time, wow how u & your boss failed.

old construction worker
June 8, 2010 6:35 pm

Since we are trying to become independent from foreign oil, oh why would we want to become dependent on foreign carbon credits? Please explain, administrator Jackson.

Pete Hayes
June 8, 2010 6:36 pm

jack morrow says:
June 8, 2010 at 3:33 pm
“Until November we are helpless against this menace of stupidity.”
You are lucky to have the chance of change! The UK simply swapped one lot of idiot M.P.s for another lot of idiot M.P.s, all of which have the scientific bent of an amoeba!
(My apologies to any WUWT amoeba reading this).

Dave F
June 8, 2010 6:42 pm

You know, I see much from the CAGW side about breaking our dependence on foreign oil, and alternative energy sources, but I see precious little in the way of feasible alternatives. Nuclear would do, but for some reason saving the Earth is not worth it…