As McCain cozies up with San Antonio’s evangelical warmonger John Hagee (a relationship likely not to catch a media blaze the way Obaman’s radical Rolodex has) other less altruistically motivated participants are busily trying to weed out the likely stock market winners each candidate represents.
Not surprisingly, McCain represents the nuclear option.
Jim Cramer on CNBC’s Mad Money pointed out that while the McCain energy plan is a solitary page on the campaign web site, nukes are a safe energy bet.
Originally reported on 24/7 Wall St:
McCain has been a pro-nuclear fan, and his main pick is Shaw Group (NYSE: SGR) as the builder and designer of nuclear facilities. His second pick was NRG Energy (NYSE: NRG) as the main nuclear power promoting utility in the U.S.
I find it humorous that Cramer picks solar companies for the Dems, even though David Crane, head of nuke-committed NRG, is Hillary’s bundler and Excelon, another possible nuke builder in the San Antonio area, is big on Obama.
Cramer went on to say that agriculture will do better under the Dems because of their lobbying base, but these, 24/7 points out, aren’t “green” companies. Someone should educate Cramer that nukes ain’t green either.
Meanwhile, with Democratic Party spiraling into a dance of the long knives in an attempt to finish this nomination process in hell beneath high water, the rest of us are still waiting for an honest debate on global warming, the most threatening reality that has come to define this century (and beyond) even more than pumped-up terror-related fears.
While I strongly oppose notions of geo-tinkering to slow climate change before every other effort has been made to reduce our spewing carbon into the atmosphere, Mike Tidwell’s article in this month’s Orion magazine offers another challenge for us to attack our patterns of mis-living by examining the rapid pace of climatic shift underway.
RECORD HEAT and wind and fire displace nearly one million Southern Californians. Record drought in Atlanta leaves the city with just a few more months of drinking water. Arctic ice shrinks by an area twice the size of Texas in one summer. And all over the world—including where you live—the local weather borders on unrecognizable. It’s way too hot, too dry, too wet, too weird wherever you go.
All of which means it’s time to face a fundamental truth: the majority of the world’s climate scientists have been totally wrong. They’ve failed us completely. Not concerning the basics of global warming. Of course the climate is changing. Of course humans are driving the process through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation. No, what the scientists have been wrong about—and I mean really, really wrong—is the speed at which it’s all occurring. Our climate system isn’t just “changing.” It’s not just “warming.” It’s snapping, violently, into a whole new regime right before our eyes. A fantastic spasm of altered weather patterns is crashing down upon our heads right now.
The only question left for America is this: can we snap along with the climate? Can we, as the world’s biggest polluter, create a grassroots political uprising that emerges as abruptly as a snap of the fingers? A movement that demands the clean-energy revolution in the time we have left to save ourselves? I think we can do it. I hope we can do it. Indeed, the recent political “snap” in Australia, where a devastating and unprecedented drought made climate change a central voting issue and so helped topple a Bush-like government of deniers, should give us encouragement.
But time is running out fast for a similar transformation here.
A CLIMATE SNAP? REALLY? It sounds so much like standard fear-mongering and ecohyperbole. But here’s proof: One of the most prestigious scientific bodies in the world, the group that just shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore for its climate work, predicted fourteen months ago that unchecked global warming could erase all of the Arctic Ocean’s summertime ice as early as 2070. Then, just two months later, in April 2007, a separate scientific panel released data indicating that the 2070 mark was way off, suggesting that ice-free conditions could come to the Arctic as early as the summer of 2030. And as if this acceleration weren’t enough, yet another prediction emerged in December 2007. Following the year’s appalling melt season, in which vast stretches of Arctic ice the size of Florida vanished almost weekly at times, a credible new estimate from the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, indicated there could be zero—zero—summer ice in the Arctic as early as 2013.
Five precious years. An eye-blink away.
So the Arctic doomsday prediction has gone from 2070 to 2013 in just eleven months of scientific reporting. This means far more than the likely extinction of polar bears from drowning and starvation. A world where the North Pole is just a watery dot in an unbroken expanse of dark ocean implies a planet that, well, is no longer planet Earth. It’s a world that is destined to be governed by radically different weather patterns. And it’s a world that’s arriving, basically, tomorrow, if the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School has it right.
How could this be happening to us? Why is this not dominating every minute of every presidential debate?
The fact that the defining reality of our century has been virtually absent from the popular debates is dead on. (The rationale for inclusion of flag lapel pin banter, is even murkier.)
All I’ve found in my search for presidential positioning (beyond what has come straight from the campaigns) was one debate back in January, hosted by the National Council for Science and the Environment.
Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate to attend. Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, all sent their seconds (or thirds).
TIdwell’s article goes on to talk about how we could save ourselves from the pace of global warming by releasing more sulfur dioxide into the skies and simulating a volcano eruption. Of course, we’d be trading on our health, with an uptick in acid rain and respiratory illness.
I posted a comment, saying that “we haven’t yet approached making a serious push toward cleaning up our carbon in the u.s., and yet i suspect we will see such debates and limited skirmishes on easing sulfur emissions, for instance, well before we have initiated a carbon tax on all property owners or instituted serious industrial reform. the reason? people are always more willing to let others clean up their messes with promised technological salves than simply change their lifestyles.
“I do expect and yearn for the greening of spiritual/philosophical systems as your article predicts, but it will be hard won. respect for the earth’s global systems via acknowledged human ignorance and restraint in the field could be our first step toward being absorbed into this new relationship.”
Best of all, I see spiritual transformation ahead. We simply cannot make the necessary changes without being changed ourselves. Of this I am sure. With every wind farm we build, with every zero-emission car we engineer, we will remember our motivation as surely as every Rosie the Riveter knew in the 1940s that each rivet was defeating fascism. A deep and explicit understanding of sustainability will dawn for the first time in modern human history, moving from energy to diet to land use to globalization.
We will know, finally, that to live in permanent peace and prosperity we must live in a particular way, adhering to a particular set of truths about ourselves and our planet. To borrow from the great architect William McDonough, we will finally become native to this world. We will have lived through the climate threat, evolved through it, and our new behavior will emanate from the very core of our humanity.
Artwork from the 16th International Children’s Painting Competition on the Environment. Top image was the first place winner, 12-year-old Charlie Sullivan from the United Kingdom. Bottom image from the 17th competition on environment and is regional winner 10-year-old Maria Kassabian from Abuja, Nigeria.