People are using the word “astroturfing” a lot lately, but this video makes it clear that the people working for the lobbyists trying to block cap and trade legislation stooped to a level even lower than that.
httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1tjsnlETBf0
Angry? Share the video with your friends!
I promised earlier today in my quick review of the flawed study from the National Association of Manufacturers that a full analysis was on the way. Here it is [PDF].
The analyis concludes, as I said this morning that “assumptions matter — and unrealistic assumptions make for outlandish results.”
The National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital Formation today continued their campaign of public deception against the American Clean Energy and Security Act with the release of an analysis that purports to show manufacturing declines and job losses if the bill passes.
Problem is, NAM’s numbers are about as trustworthy as the forged letters sent by their allies to members of Congress, which faked opposition to the ACES bill from local community groups. They are no more real that the Birthers’ imaginary Kenyan birth certificate for President Obama, which names a laundry detergent as the registrar. (Really.)
As you know, NAM has a long history of opposing virtually every major environmental law, often using similar bad arguments with flawed data. NAM/ACCF’s study from last year was seriously flawed – it claimed to look at that year’s Lieberman-Warner bill, but it ignored important provisions of the legislation and imposed artificial constraints on the economy’s ability to reduce emissions.
The analysis presumed there would be no banking of emission allowances and only limited use of offsets. The study also artificially constrained the use of renewable energy and carbon capture and storage.
In short, they applied make-believe assumptions to a make-believe bill, and they are doing it again:
These are but two questionable assumptions from the very few that NAM and ACCF disclosed – from a model with a huge array of inputs. No one will ever know exactly how they reached their numbers, because important details about their analysis and underlying assumptions remain in a black box.
We’ll have a more detailed rebuttal to NAM/ACCF’s claims for you later today.
In the meantime, here’s what we already know from independent, transparent analysis:
Why should you go to a Congressional town hall meeting and stand up for strong action on clean energy?
Because, according to the Wall Street Journal, the American Petroleum Institute, the lobbying group for Big Oil, is organizing their troops to pack town hall meetings.
Apparently, they admired the work of the anti-health insurance reform protesters, so they’re spending some of their billions in profits to make congressmen believe Americans don’t want clean energy. As we wrote earlier, most Americans DO support clean energy. But that won’t matter if our elected officials don’t hear from our side, too.
So please see where your representatives are holding a town hall meeting, and go stand up for clean energy.
If there isn’t a town hall in your area, you can still weigh in. Call your Senator’s office and tell them how you feel.
Whichever way you speak up, the point is the same — Big Oil is trying to manufacture a picture of Americans that just isn’t true. And we don’t have to let them.
Looks like the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) is one of the most popular kids on the Capitol Hill campus.
In spite of months fear-mongering and outright lying by opponents, a new poll says 71 percent of likely voters favor the bill.
The Zogby poll sampled people across the country and found:
Says Zogby analyst Sam Rodgers:
Clearly, voters strongly favor the ideas outlined in the bill. Support for action on clean energy and energy efficiency was strong coming out of the election, and it is still strong today.
The moral of the story: Next time you read one of those opposition pieces about how support for ACES is eroding — don’t believe it. Americans see the potential in clean energy.
Sometimes, national security is not just a matter of having a larger army, or superior weapons, or better intelligence. It also means preserving political stability around the world, and spreading economic prosperity as widely as possible.
Instability encourages ideological extremism, and poverty provides a steady supply of terrorist recruits, which can directly affect U.S. security. From Afghanistan to Somalia, we’ve seen how weak states and economic hardship can lay the foundation for political crisis and war.
Many military leaders say global warming poses a grave threat to our security, precisely because it will promote economic instability and political unrest around the world. Former Republican Sen. John Warner, a staunch and highly respected supporter of the U.S. military, strongly supports action on climate change, in part for national security reasons. Read Senator Warner’s recent testimony supporting U.S. leadership in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. [PDF]
Climate change is what military analysts call a “threat multiplier,” meaning it will intensify problems that already threaten us. Here is what a world with an unstable climate might look like:
To make matters worse, much of this will happen in volatile regions already on the brink.
Don’t take our word for it. Here’s what military leaders and experts say:
The climate bill now before Congress will help avert widespread and dangerous environmental changes that would lead to global instability, by cutting greenhouse gas emissions 83 percent by 2050. Another benefit will be reducing our reliance on imported oil. The U.S. has five percent of the world’s oil reserves but consumes 25 percent of the world’s oil. Much of the world’s oil comes from the Mideast, a focal point of political instability and extremism, making reduced dependence on imported oil a national security imperative. By moving the U.S. toward cleaner energy sources like wind and solar, the climate bill will reduce our reliance on fossil fuels like oil.
Many of the nation’s top military leaders and foreign policy experts are calling global warming a national security threat, as well as a critical environmental threat. Congress needs to avert this coming crisis by passing the climate bill.