By now, you’ve likely heard the news that Pres. Obama has rejected the Keystone XL pipeline; though rejected may be too strong a word. Punted is more like it, since the pipeline’s builder, TransCanada, will be allowed to reapply for a new permit. But for now, it’s a victory, and everyone who protested and marched and called their Congressperson certainly deserves a thank you.

The Republicans deserved this, of course. They were the ones who placed a rider in the payroll tax cut extension forcing Obama to either reject or approve the pipeline by Feb. 21. What a ridiculously short and arbitrary deadline. Did they think Obama (and the State Department) would approve such a far-reaching project without having adequate time to study its potential risks?

The rub is: Of course not. It was a setup.

The Republicans put that provision in the legislation because they knew that Obama — or any sensible person, for that matter — would be forced to reject it, and then they could call him out for being a job-killer and make him look bad in his bid for reelection.

Nevermind that Cornell University says the pipeline could actually cost us jobs. Look for Republicans to stick to those ridiculously inflated TransCanada numbers in the months ahead.

Is anyone else insulted that the Republicans think we’re that stupid?

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Kim Carpenter NY

I’ve been keeping an eye on all the coverage leading up to the 10th anniversary of this day, September 11. I haven’t been able to bring myself to read or watch any of it.

I grew up in a New York suburb. My father worked on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange; I remember visiting the World Trade Center often as a child. Shortly after college, my now-husband and I moved in together on East 51st Street. That was August 2001.

There is nothing I could say here to describe what it was like to be in New York on that fateful morning. There are no words.

What I will say is this: After the attacks, we had the sympathy of the whole world. The president had the attention of every American. We were gathered together, waiting to be directed, ready to do whatever was asked of us. We had a golden opportunity, to declare ourselves free from foreign oil, to shut our ports and our gas caps right then and there. It wasn’t worth it. We would have found another way.

A decade and two presidents later, we are still fighting a war in one country and occupying another. We are reliant as we ever were on Mideast oil. Our country is more divided than at any time since the Civil War.

The 2,977 who lost their lives on September 11, 2001, most likely know none of this now, of course. But they deserve better.

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Tarsandsaction. Credit: Shadia Fayne Wood

If there’s one environmental issue you should be following — make that fighting for — it’s the effort to stop the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, which would leave a 1,700 mile scar across America’s Heartland to transport crude from Canadian tar sand fields to Gulf Coast refineries. A rupture in the pipeline could be devastating — we’re talking a BP-scale oil spill over the source of drinking water for 20 million Americans.

Needless to say, people are pretty pissed. As in, not-just-sign-a-petition-online-but-go-sit-in-at-the-White-House pissed. Here, a glimpse at the protests that took place over the past two weeks. 1,252 people in total were arrested.

Photo via Flickr: Tarsandsaction. Credit: Josh Lopez

Photo via Flickr: Tarsandsaction. Credit: Ben Powless

Actress Daryl Hannah. Photo via Flickr: Tarsandsaction. Credit: Ben Powless

Photo via Flickr: Tarsandsaction. Credit: Ben Powless

Photo via Flickr: Tarsandsaction. Credit: Shadia Fayne Wood

The White House sit-in, which was led by Tar Sands Action, officially ended on Saturday, but Phase 2 will be starting soon. Circle October 7 on your calendar, then click here to find out more.

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via OHVEC.org

Whenever a politician sets him or herself apart from the party pack, attention is sure to follow. Case in point: Jon Huntsman’s much-talked-about tweet last week, where he strayed from the GOP’s global warming talking points to side with the scientists.

But I have another theory about the buzz surrounding that tweet: I think there are a lot of Republicans out there who identify more with Huntsman than with Perry. Forty-four percent of Americans say they will likely vote for a Republican candidate in the 2012 election, yet seventy-seven percent of Americans support the work the EPA is doing. So clearly there’s some overlap.

Agree with me? Check out Republicans for Environmental Protection. The grassroots organization so far has only 350 followers on Twitter, but I predict we’ll see that number climb in the months to come.

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via jon2012.com

Texas Gov. Rick Perry called climate change “a scientific theory that has not been proven,” in New Hampshire on Wednesday. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has said she doesn’t think global warming is possible because “CO2 is a natural byproduct of nature.” Thankfully, there’s a beacon in the smog among the GOP presidential wannabes: Former Utah governor and Ambassador to China Jon Huntsman, who yesterday tweeted

To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.

The tweet was a clear jab at Perry, who had been questioned earlier that day on both topics (evolution “has some gaps” in it, Perry said).

I like your style, Mr. Huntsman, but tell me: If you do trust the scientists, why is there not a single tag for “Environment” on the Daily HBlog section of your campaign website?

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Notice whose photo this is. What is it being used for? Photo via Flickr: TexasGOPVote.com

It’s been obvious for some time now that the Republicans have been trying to undercut the EPA at every turn — the slew of anti-environmental riders attached to the 2012 spending bill being the latest example — but an article out this week puts the writing on the wall: The Republicans have made it their mission to halt what it views as EPA’s ‘activist’ agenda.

From Reuters:

Emboldened by their success wresting concessions from the Obama administration in debt-limit talks, House Republicans now plan an assault of similar vigor on the Environmental Protection Agency.

Republicans, backed by wealthy conservative lobbyists, are determined to stop the EPA and what they see as an activist agenda that is costing jobs and hurting corporate profits.

“Right now for House Republicans one of their important rally cries is that EPA regulations are excessive and even abusive,” said Robert Stavins, director of the Harvard Environmental Economics Program.

Here’s my question: Isn’t calling the EPA “activist” kind of like calling the Department of Homeland Security activist? I don’t know about you, but I like my taxpayer dollar–funded federal agencies to do the job they’ve been tasked with, which in the case of the EPA — otherwise known as the Environmental Protection Agency — is to do just that: Protect. The. Environment.

It’s not the Protect-The-Environment-But-Only-When-It’s-Convenient-For-Big-Business Agency, after all. That would be too cumbersome an acronym.

Hell, why don’t we just shut down Border Patrol while we’re at it? Terrorist, shmerorist — the BP oil spill was arguably a weapon of mass destruction (though perhaps an unintentional one), and we’re doing just fine now, thank you very much. (By “we” I mean BP — $18 billion-plus in cash and counting!).

Did you know the EPA was created during the Nixon administration?

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: KOMUnews

The GOP-led House has gone on an environmental rampage this year, and the debt-ceiling negotiations have proved no different: At last count, more than 75 anti-green riders have been attached to the 2012 spending bill for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department — including one that would eliminate all carbon pollution reporting requirements under the Clean Air Act, one that would halt EPA’s work to update clean air standards for smog and soot, and another that would cut funding to enforce mercury standards for power plants.

I say anti-green, but what I really should say here is anti-minority: According to the NAACP, an astounding 71 percent of African-Americans live in counties that are in current violation of air pollution standards. As a result, these communities are most at risk for the dangerous health effects of toxic air — including heart disease, asthma and low birth weight.

Isn’t breathing clean air a civil right?

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Satoru Kikuchi

It’s expected that the House will be voting today on the BULB Act, a misguided piece of legislation that would repeal the bipartisan light bulb efficiency standards signed into law by President George W. Bush. Contrary to popular belief, the law, if it avoids repeal, does not ban incandescent light bulbs, nor does it mandate the use of CFLs — it only requires that incandescents become 30 percent more energy efficient by next year.

Manufacturers have already developed these light bulbs. There will be no disruption to the consumer, other than lower energy bills. What’s more, all of this information is readily available.

So why am I receiving alarmist press releases in my email inbox from an organization called The Heartland Institute, warning me about the dangers of CFL breakage and mercury contamination and ostensibly urging a “yes” vote on the BULB Act?

You don’t like CFLs; that’s great. Well guess what? You don’t have to use them. You can use the freedom of choice you’re so vehemently in support of to buy a more energy efficient incandescent.

And, by the way, if you really did care about the heartland, you’d realize that with a near 10 percent unemployment rate, most Americans welcome the idea of paying 30 percent less for their lighting.

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Stampworthy

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed

Photo via Flickr: Brownpau

Quick quiz: How much did each of the Big Five oil companies pay in federal taxes last year? I’ll give you a hint: It rhymes with Nero.

Nero, as in the infamous emperor who fiddled while Rome burned. Who took sadistic pleasure in the suffering of others. I think the comparison is apt, considering the giant corporations in this country (like ExxonMobil, Shell, BP, ConcocoPhillips, and Chevron) that are reaping record profits at a time when a lot of Americans can’t even put food on the table. At a time when Republicans want to cut funding for schools and disabled veterans in the name of reducing the federal deficit.

Want to reduce the federal deficit? Take away the $4 billion a year that Big Oil receives in subsidies.

That’s what the Democrats are proposing, anyway, which is why today the Senate Finance Committee is holding a hearing with the Big Five executives, who I’m guessing will use every move in their fear-mongering playbook to convince our elected representatives (our elected representatives, as in We, the People) why they deserve a helping hand against the backdrop of more than $35 billion in profits in the first quarter of 2011 alone.

My only question is: Why is it the Democrats who are proposing an end to these subsidies? Isn’t supporting capitalism at its essence (i.e., no subsidies) a core value of the Republican party?

If the Republicans (i.e., the Tea Party Patriots) don’t support repealing oil subsidies, then they don’t have a leg to stand on.

–Jennifer Grayson

Like this post? Subscribe to The Red, White, and Green RSS feed