The Political Voices of Women

How High Will Gas Prices Go? – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

I think the gas crisis is here to stay, and I don’t think drilling for more oil will ever be the answer. And for the life of me, I can not understand why we don’t already have automobiles that get excellent gas millage? If we did, high gas prices wouldn’t really matter so much.

What is more important – lower gas prices or cars that get better gas millage?

Congress Considering Bill that Could Raise Gas Prices…

Congress is considering a bill that may raise the cost of gasoline. The Heritage Foundation recently came out with a study examining the state-by-state affects of this proposed legislation. Nationally the bill could raise the cost of gasoline by 20% over the next 17 years!

On the surface, this seems like a strange move for Congress considering the current frustration over the high price of gasoline. Like everything, however, there are tradeoffs to consider. What is Congress attempting to achieve with this legislation? Lower carbon emissions (yes, the bill in question is S. 2191 the Global Climate Change legislation). Are you willing to pay an extra $300 a year for gasoline? Perhaps a better question is whether you are willing to force everyone to face this price? This is important to think about when considering this legislation (other concerns that the study looks at are job loss and other energy prices).

$8 a Gallon Gas?

Ben Lieberman of the Heritage Foundation writes that legislation pending in Congress – set for a vote next week- could raise gasoline prices to $8 a gallon. The bill is called the America’s Climate Security Act and is sponsored by Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn) and John Warner (R-Virginia).

In an effort to reduce global warming, it would place limits on the amount of gasoline and other fossil fuels Americans can use, writes Ben Lieberman. Europe has similar anti global-warming measures, he writes, and gasoline is $8 a gallon.

But he argues that even if Americans reduce driving because of the bill, China and India will continue to use more, offsetting U.S. gains. Read analysis here.

Should Congress delay the fight against global warming if it will mean drastically higher fuel prices and further jeapordize the U.S. economy?

Sally at Tree City Times…

Gas is now flirting with $4 a gallon ($3.99 a gallon, so figure, yeah, it’s already up to $4, so to speak) and the oil companies literally have us over a barrel. They know that we need gas to run our cars and oil to run – and produce – just about everything else, so Wall Street speculators can run up the price of oil as high as they want and not suffer the consequences, because they’re all filthy rich anyway and it really doesn’t pain them to fill up at such high prices. But for the rest of us, we’re all wondering how on earth we can manage to make it in this economy. I’ve literally been reduced to living paycheck to paycheck, with no ability to save any money whatsoever. And I’m hardly living beyond my means, either. Just paying monthly bills, filling my car with gas and buying groceries, in addition to paying for ridiculous health care costs, is leaving me scrambling to figure out how on earth I am going to survive on the $25,000 a year I currently make. There is literally no slack in the budget anymore. Nothing. Nada. Zilch. It costs me literally almost every dime I make a month just to survive on bare bones basics.

From Sean Vrbica at The Young Raging Bull – How to save money on gas prices…

• Change your driving behavior: 1) Accelerate more gradually (the harder you press the gas pedal, the more fuel gets consumed) 2) Anticipate stops (coasting then braking saves a lot of fuel instead of slamming on the brakes at the last second) 3) Drive slower on the highway (the more you push your car to the limit, the more gas it burns) 4) If you drive a manual, shift gears earlier (the higher your engine revs the more gas it burns so try shifting gears at a lower RPM). NOTE! I totally understand that changing your driving behavior isn’t much fun, but just keep your mind fixed on all the money you’ll save doing so (the above 4 tips, on average, increases fuel efficiency by about 10-15%!).

• Ensure your tires are properly inflated: Tires that are under- or over-inflated can change how your car handles (by adding drag and accelerating wear) and ultimately consumes fuel. According to the Alliance to Save Energy, tires improperly inflated reduce fuel efficiency by 3.3%. Thus, check out your owner’s manual or your driver’s side door panel to find out the proper inflation for your tires and check your tire pressure once every 3-4 weeks.

• Clean out your trunk: You can save quite a bit of gas if you just shed some of the weight from your car. Now I’m not suggesting you go out to your garage and rip the back seats out. But check out what’s in your trunk. Most of the supplies you needed during the winter are likely not needed during the spring/summer/fall. So clean it out!

• Change your air filter: A clogged and dirty air filter can significantly reduce your gas mileage, not to mention lower your car’s performance. It usually costs less than $20 and takes less than 10 minutes to install, but too many car owners forget to check the lungs of their car when trying to find ways to improve mileage.

• Forget the premium stuff: If you really want to save on gas prices, buy only regular unleaded gas, not the pricey premium stuff. Just because your Honda Civic is tricked out with high performance parts doesn’t mean it needs high performance fuel. NOTE! If you do drive a high performance vehicle (like a high-end Porsche, BMW, Ferrari etc) that requires you to pump only premium fuels, than by all means, disregard this tip.

• Drive with your windows closed: Driving with your windows open reduces fuel efficiency by 5-10% (depending on how fast you are traveling) because it creates excessive drag. Thus, close your windows, especially if you’re heading for high-speed roads.

Also See:

What Is The Real Reason Gas Prices Are So High?

Skyrocketing Gas Prices + Fear = Billions of Big Oil

Is Big Oil Going Green?

What Gas Crisis

American’s In Denial About Oil

How Gas Prices Got To Be Near $4 a Gallon

Oil Companies – How Green Are They? — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Are the oil companies going green? If by “green” we are talking about cold hard cash…The oil companies are very, very green. In fact, their cups runneth over with greenness. However, in this case, the oil companies (a.k.a. Big Oil) are spending a lot of money on commercials designed to convince you and me that they are investing in our environmental future. So, how green are they?

So what do you think? Are the oil companies really going green? Or, are they just playing green on tv?

Personally, I think they should be required to spend a certain percentage of their profits on green alternatives to oil…at the very least.

Skyrocketing Gas Prices + Fear = Billions for Big Oil – by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at Care2 Election Blog)

The last eight years have been a classic example of the tail wagging the dog. And even when the Bush administration (aka, the tail) is gone, the lessons will live on forever. Not only will our government continue to run like a well oiled propaganda machine, but the most powerful industries that we are forced to rely on, will have mastered the art of deception, manipulation, and cover-up. So, you probably want to know what this has to do with gas prices? Let me tell you…

Fear, fear, fear, fear, fear, fear. Fear has blinded us to the manipulation.

Crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis, crisis. A continuing crisis, after crisis, after crisis, fosters a perpetual state of fear. The gas crisis, the health care crisis, the crisis that is our economy, and the biggest crisis of all…the war.

We are living in a paradigm of fear. Actually, to be more accurate…We have been (very cleverly) locked into a paradigm of fear. The oil and gas industry is using our fear of higher gas prices, to lull us into complacency and into trusting them. Here is an ad they are currently running that illustrates what I am talking about.

This is from The Wonk Room…

The American Petroleum Institute (API), the trade organization for the oil and natural gas industry, has just begun running a feel-good commercial that argues “America’s future” lies in drilling out domestic reserves of oil and natural gas off our coasts, in our western lands, and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The “facts” in Big Oil’s ad are based on a thirty-six page API document entitled, “The Truth About Oil and Gasoline.” This “primer” was published last week, with numerous figures and charts on oil company profits and gas prices, but nary a single mention of climate change or greenhouse gas emissions. Here are the facts Big Oil left out:

Future With 45% More Oil And Gas Demand Involves 60% More Global Warming Emissions. The projection of “45% more by 2030″ gas and oil demand is drawn from the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) World Energy Outlook 2007 report. The API accurately describes the increase in global oil and gas demand in the IEA’s business-as-usual scenario, although United States demand is only projected to increase by less than 5%. However, API fails to mention the business-as-usual scenario also predicts energy-related carbon emissions would “increase by almost 60%” by 2030.

Business As Usual Spells Catastrophic Future. The IEA business-as-usual scenario would put the planet on a pathway to “temperature change at equilibrium of about 4.9 to 6.1 degrees C [8.9 to 11°F] compared to pre-industrial levels.” That’s five to seven times as much warming as we’ve already experienced, and would make catastrophic global change — including mass species extinction, crop devastation, and significant sea level rise — unavoidable.

Big Oil Ignores The ‘Secure’ Scenario. The IEA’s report includes a “450 Stabilisation Case,” in which greenhouse emissions are limited such that atmospheric concentrations stabilize at 450 parts per million of CO₂ equivalent — what the IPCC calculated is need to avoid catastrophic climate change. In this scenario, total global oil and gas demand only increases by 10 percent from current levels, not the 45 percent that API says the world will “require.”

The ad’s tag line, “Together, we can secure America’s future,” mimics the We Campaign climate activism spot that concludes: “Together, we can solve the climate crisis.” The path Big Oil envisions — even as warning signs increase — would instead destroy the future of America and the rest of the planet.

Also See:

What Is The Real Reason Gas Prices Are So High?

So, why is the oil and gas industry doing this? Because they can. And because our fear is putting billions and billions of $$$$ in their pockets.

Would John McCain Be Good For The Environment? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Does John McCain really care about the environment? Or, is it more McCain double-talk, masquerading as McCain straight-talk?

See what the press and the pundits are saying about McCain’s environmental policy. And let me know what you think in comments?

From Media Matters…

Summary: Reuters reported that Sen. John McCain would pledge “to take the lead in combating global climate change if elected president in a speech that set him apart from the policies of U.S. President George W. Bush.” However, in reporting on McCain’s environmental positions that his campaign believes will “win support from independents and centrist Democrats,” Reuters did not mention his voting record and did not include any criticism of McCain’s positions. By contrast, The Washington Post noted that “McCain’s lifetime League of Conservation Voters score is 24 percent, compared with 86 for Obama and 86 for Clinton.” — read full Media Matters article

Read more »

White House Lies and the EPA — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Yet another announcement of White House lies and manipulation, this time with the EPA. I’m shocked less at this announcement, but more about the public and media reaction to it (or lack of). Have we become numb to the Bush administration’s lies and propaganda? Are we all just immune to the deceptions of this administration? Or is it that we are just so tired of feeling helpless against our corrupt government, that we need to ignore these types of announcements to protect our sanity?

This is the announcement about the EPA that came in my email today…

Last week, the Union of Concerned Scientists released the results of its latest investigation into political interference in government science, this time at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The report reveals an agency under significant pressure: hundreds of EPA scientists report political interference in their work, significant barriers to communicating scientific results with the public, and concerns about the agency’s effectiveness.

The EPA has distorted and censored science to justify decisions on global warming, mercury emissions, smog pollution, oil drilling, fuel efficiency, and countless other issues that impact our everyday lives. What’s more, they have cut science out of the process when making critical decisions about our health, safety, and environment.

Here is some of what other bloggers are saying about this…

This is from Lots O’Thoughts…

This really should be a big story, but MSNBC is busy covering campaign strategy and FOX News is busy covering the candidates’ appearances on WWE.

UPDATE: In any other administration, this would be a huge scandal. So would the earlier New York Times story about “Message Force Multipliers.” Since when is it acceptable to doctor scientific information under the guise of an objective administrative organization? Since when is it acceptable to make false and misleading statements under the guise of seemingly objective retired generals? But above all, why do our journalists just not care anymore? Is it scandal-fatigue?

UPDATE II: Remember this?

This is from a post at The Pump Handle…

I’m sure none of our regular readers will be surprised to hear that 889 scientists (60% of the 1,586 who completed surveys) personally experienced at least one incident of political interference during the past five years, or that 516 scientists knew of “many or some” cases in which EPA political appointees inappropriately involved themselves in scientific decisions. The survey did turn up a few things that were less predictable, though – and the report is well worth reading in any case, because it’s an excellent compilation of what ought to be going wrong at EPA, where the problems are, and how to fix them.

One of the interesting findings was that many scientists point to the White House Office of Management and Budget as the chief problem. We’ve written before about how the Bush Administration is using the OMB to erect new hurdles for regulatory agencies, and apparently a lot of EPA scientists are running into the hurdles.

From The Daily Kos…

This is outrageous. About 1 in 5 scientists employed at the taxpayer funded agency responsible for protection of “human health and the environment” has personally experienced data manipulation to justify a regulatory outcome or change the meaning of scientific findings.

This is from Fact-esque…

So our Moron-in-Chief thinks he’s a scientist now? He doesn’t understand the scientific reasons for fire but he’s deciding how much poison cars can spew from their tailpipes?

Oh, right. He was an oil man. He knows, alright – knows how much new limits would cut into corporate profits. Therefore, limits are baaaaad.

Henry Waxman, who complained about Bush screwing with science for years when he was in the minority, has had enough. He’s scheduled a hearing for Grifo to lay out and explain her findings.

Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, sent a letter to Johnson yesterday telling him to prepare to answer questions about the survey findings at a hearing next month.

“These survey results suggest a pattern of ignoring and manipulating science in EPA’s decision making,” Waxman wrote.

Or maybe not so much EPA’s decision-making as Bush’s corpo-political re-imagining of what those decisions should have been to keep his rich friends happy.
So C+ George Bush is running the EPA now? Oy. No wonder we’re dying like flies.

What do you think about all of this? Have we become immune to the lies of the Bush Administration?

Also see related posts…

Is The EPA Protecting The Environment?
EPA Decision To Deny California Waiver
Is The Government Manipulating The Media?
Pentagon Propaganda

More Political Voices of Women…

We now have over 400 women political bloggers on our list, here are the H’s…

Health Populi — Jane is a frequent public speaker and writer on health policy, health economics, information and medical technology and scenario planning in health care.

Hear Speak No Evil

High Desert Reports

Hillary Is Our Choice – forum

Hillary is the Wo/man

HillRaiser 08

Hog House Blog

Hoyden About Town — We blog on life, laughs, science, progressive politics and foiling diabolical masterminds.

Hullabaloo

Skyrocketing Gas Prices. Bush Energy Big-Oil Policy. Solar Power, and Bio-Fuels. What Does Our Future Hold? — by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at The Care2 Election Blog)

Today’s political blog roundup is looking at energy policy – how we got here, and where we might be going. Keep in mind, this is only a very small sampling of what is out there, if you don’t believe me, just Google energy policy and see for yourself. I’ve started off with an except from an Associated Press article. I hope you will share your thoughts, ideas, and frustrations on this issue in comments.

From The Associated Press…

The public should pressure President Bush and his Republican allies in Congress to change energy policies that have led to record gasoline prices and intense economic pressures on working people, veteran Democratic Sen. Frank Lautenberg said Saturday.

“It’s long past time to change our national priorities,” the New Jersey senator said in the Democrats’ weekly radio address. “We know there’s little hope that President Bush will suddenly wake up and see the light. But unfortunately, his Republican allies in Congress continue to stand by his side, with the oil and energy companies for the status quo and against the American people.”

Lautenberg said Democrats are attempting to change the nation’s approach to energy but face stiff resistance from Bush and his allies.

From Down With Tyranny…

One of the very first things Cheney did after he and Bush stole the election in 2000 was to assemble a still secret conclave of oil and gas industry executives and tell them that in return for underwriting GOP electoral efforts they could write the Bush Regime energy policies. Which is what they did and which is precisely why I spent $53.75 yesterday to fill up the same car that used to cost me $20-something dollars to fill up. On December 16, 2003 the L.A. Times wrote that “the Sierra Club, an environmental group, and Judicial Watch, a conservative public interest group, sued Cheney, contending that as head of the energy task force he had violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, which generally requires open meetings whenever outsiders offer advice to high government officials. During the litigation, Cheney refused to turn over documents detailing who met with his energy task force, and he has argued that the Constitution forbids private lawyers from asking for the information.”

. . .

Mitch McConnell is the living, breathing, lisping embodiment of Republican hypocrisy. The GOP has one proposal to high gas prices: more tax cuts and subsidies for robber baron oil companies. Nicole over at Crooks & Liars nailed House Republicans today for the same bad faith demonstrated by McConnell. She posted a great video of “Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR) railing against the Republican special interests that prevent any real progress from being made on getting control over skyrocketing fuel prices and huge profits being realized by oil companies while consumers struggle with high fuel costs.” Watch:

Read more »

New EPA Clean Air Standards Show Why Consumer Action is so Critical…

Today the Care2 Election Blog has a timely guest post by Diane MacEachern, the founder and CEO of Big Green Purse, Diane is passionate about empowering women to use their marketplace clout to protect the environment. She is a best-selling author, successful entrepreneur, sought-after public speaker, and long-time conservationist, she has launched the only company in the U.S. dedicated specifically to transforming women’s environmental concerns into measurable improvements in our quality of life.

READ FULL POST AT THE CARE2 ELECTION BLOG

Empowered Women Make An Environmental Difference – by Catherine Morgan

Last week I had the pleasure of being part of a phone conference (turned podcast), with Diane MacEachern, the author of Big Green Purse. It was truly an informative and inspiring hour for me personally. I say that because, even though I recycle, and use re-usable shopping bags, I’ve never felt that I was doing “enough” to be a truly environmentally conscious woman. I thought that if I couldn’t be totally eco-perfect, I couldn’t really make a difference.

However, Diane has changed all that. She helped me realize that all women do have the power to make a significant environmental difference, and there is no need for total perfection. When we collectively make small changes, it has the potential for overwhelming impact. I came away from this conference with tons of ideas for simple things I can do to become more eco-friendly. And I’m now inspired and excited about implementing many of the changes Diane spoke about.

You can check out the podcast for yourself here…

Below is a list of all the bloggers who participated in this podcast…

Read more »

Environmental Blog Roundup — Posted by Catherine Morgan (cross-posted at the Care2 Election Blog)

I happened upon the League of Conservation Voters today, and I decided that this week’s political blog roundup will focus on the environment. Here are ten great blogs addressing some of the environmental issues in the news this week…

EPA Rejection of California

After more than two months, the Bush administration today finally articulated its legal case for rejecting California’s greenhouse gas standards for motor vehicles.

The argument is at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/ca-waiver.htm

It reads like something written up in the boardroom of General Motors or a law firm working for car companies. It even cites arguments made by the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers as justification for the decision!

It’s a phony argument designed to protect the auto industry. It’s typical of the Bush administration to dump out bad news like this on a Friday to minimize media coverage.

EPA Comes Clean on Climate

Today EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson finally explained his decision, announced last December, to deny California’s request for permission to implement its standards regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars. In a 48-page document, Johnson stated that EPA could not receive a “waiver” for its program under the Clean Air Act because the state does not have the kind of “compelling and extraordinary conditions” that make such a waiver appropriate.

But here is the kicker: Johnson concluded that California’s problems aren’t “compelling and extraordinary” because they’re no worse than the very bad problems the rest of the country faces as a result of climate change. Thus, in the course of denying California’s waiver, EPA managed to make explicit, for the first time, its view that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. Johnson’s discussion of greenhouse gases and climate change now obligates him to regulate these pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

Big Oil Can Afford To Forgo Tax Breaks, renewable energy can’t.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted to hold Big Oil accountable Wednesday when it passed H.R. 5351, the “Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2008,” which repeals nearly $18 billion in oil company subsidies over the next decade and dedicates the money to renewable energy and energy efficiency investments. Now the Senate must follow suit to help bring Americans relief at the pump and lay the groundwork for the type of clean energy investments we need to combat climate change.

Strike Three For McCain on Renewable Energy…

Yesterday the House passed a bill to continue and accelerate development of clean, renewable energy in America. Here’s what the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming had to say about the bill:

The legislation passed today will increase incentives for wind, solar and other renewable energy sources, close a major tax loophole for the largest gas guzzlers on the road, and repeal billions of dollars in taxpayer giveaways to the five most profitable oil companies at a time of record profits from $100 per barrel oil.

The oil industry giveaways amount to $17 billion over the next ten years, and repealing these subsidies frees up the revenue needed to pay for clean energy development. But because of this, the bill faces an uncertain future. In the Senate, the leading Republican on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Pete Domenici, said about the bill: “It seems kind of dumb to me.” And no surprise, the White House has promised a certain veto.

Republicans are arguing that repeal of the oil industry subsidies will lead to higher gas prices, reduced domestic production and increased reliance on foreign oil.

Good political sound bites all — for scaring voters — but none of them true. The domestic oil industry will not even notice that the tax subsidies have ceased.

From TPM Cafe Talk at Talking Points Memo…

I don’t know if you are aware of this or not, but neither Senator John
McCain nor Senator Barack Obama have made their campaigns carbon
neutral. What does this mean? This means that neither candidate is
investing any of the millions of dollars their campaigns have raised to
offset the pollution from their many plane and bus rides.

By purchasing carbon offsets, Obama and McCain would mitigate their
campaign’s greenhouse gas emissions by funding renewable energy
research. This could result in more American jobs, improved national
security, and a healthier planet.

Big Green Purse…

While our energy future is clearly a priority, it’s startling that none of the candidates’ environmental proposals consider citizens’ exposure to toxic substances, water pollution, or air pollution – the issues that connect human health and the environment. Where do any of the candidates stand on reauthorizing Superfund legislation to clean up toxic waste sites? Closing loopholes in the Clean Air and Clean Water Act to decrease threats to our health as well as that of wildlife? Quelling the rise in asthma rates, especially among kids? Initiating research to understand what appear to be the increasing links between environmental health and breast cancer, autism, and learning disabilities?

These issues aren’t on any candidate’s agenda – but they should be, especially given the importance of the women’s vote in the 2008 election. Women and children are disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation (e.g., women suffer more heart attacks than men in cities with poor air quality). The candidate who breaks away from the party line on energy to address the links between pollution and human health could muster a real advantage as the race tightens and voters look for ways to distinguish among their choices.

Where has all the money Gone

Guess how much money is needed to fix our crumbling water infrastructure? Now guess higher. The Environmental Protection Agency’s now estimates that we need over $202 billion to fix sewer and storm water systems to meet Clean Water Act goals. Guess how much money the President proposed in his budget for clean water. $555 million – talk about fuzzy math…

The decline in funding for clean water infrastructure is felt all over the country as we’ve documented on our Act for Healthy Rivers site with more and more sewage spilling from old pipes into our local streams and rivers. We need more money at the local, state, and federal levels and it must be better spent, as American Rivers president Rebecca Wodder pointed out recently in the San Francisco Chronicle:

We can stretch those [federal] dollars even further with smart storm water management techniques such as rain gardens, permeable surfaces and by protecting our wetlands.

Clean Water Violations Cost Home Depot…

Home Depot has agreed to pay a $1.3 million penalty and implement a nationwide compliance program to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Water Act. The settlement resolves alleged violations that were discovered at more than 30 construction sites in 28 states where new Home Depot stores were being built.

The settlement, joined by the state of Colorado, requires that Home Depot implement a comprehensive, corporate-wide program to prevent storm water pollution at each new store it builds nationwide.

A similar consent decree was reached with Wal-Mart in 2005 under which Wal-Mart established a comprehensive storm water compliance plan and paid a fine of more than $3 million.

“EPA requires construction sites to take simple, basic steps to prevent storm water pollution,” said Granta Nakayama, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

Also See:

Carbon Conscious Consumer

Chasing Clean Air

Will The EPA Protect Us From Pollution? — Posted by Catherine Morgan

More on the EPA and their unwillingness to allow California (and 16 other states), to implement better emissions laws. It seems the EPA is not very concerned with protecting us from pollution or global warming.

The Associated Press – The head of the Environmental Protection Agency refused to say Wednesday whether the White House sought to influence his decision denying California a waiver needed to implement a tailpipe emissions-reduction law.

Appearing before the U.S. Senate’s environment committee, EPA Administrator Stephen L. Johnson deflected repeated questions from Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., about any White House role in the controversial decision last December blocking California and at least 16 other states from implementing the reductions.

Johnson acknowledged having routine discussions about the issue with White House officials and others but refused to say if the White House gave him any input.

READ FULL POST AT THE Care2 Election Blog