Devastating, that is, to us: To our coastlines, fisheries, food prices, AC bills, vulnerable elderly, and on and on.
Sen. Brown used to have a pretty decent environmental record, including voting for the Regional Global Greenhouse Gas initiative, which limits Northeastern states’ carbon output.
The Globe sets it out today:
Brown, who says he now regrets supporting the region’s effort to cut greenhouse gases, has dismayed environmental advocates over the past two years by voting against multiple efforts to eliminate billions of dollars in federal subsidies for oil companies, and against requirements to improve auto fuel-efficiency standards.They also lament his votes for blocking the US Environmental Protection Agency from regulating greenhouse gases, and for slashing the agency’s budget by nearly a third — a bill the League of Conservation Voters described as “the greatest legislative assault ever on the environment.”
“He left Massachusetts with a strong environmental record, and he abandoned it when he arrived in Washington — and that’s disappointing,” said Jack Clarke, director of public policy for Mass Audubon, the largest and oldest conservation group in New England. “I think the voters in Massachusetts supported him for, among other things, his strong environmental record. We need leadership in Washington to deal with climate change, especially in the Senate.”
(Note to Globe: MORE, WAY WAY MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!)
That’s what’s so tragic: Brown used to be an enviro Republican, kinda. And he turned way, way, way over to the right, voting with the Inhofes and McConnells and spouting denialist goofball stuff along the way. And it’s been totally unnecessary: For some reason he may have thought that going anti-enviro was an opportunistic political play at the time, but I’m pretty damn certain it’s been out of step with his constituency.
We noted that he’s recently tried to flip-flop-flip back into acknowledging global warming as real, and said he looks forward to working on it next year. Gosh golly, we’re so thankful! The fact is that he’s had many, many chances to do really significant work, to show leadership, to move his caucus in the direction of sanity — And he caved, epically.
It’s a tragedy. For us, not him.
Discuss
4 Comments . Leave a comment below.Why when you and other posters agree with the Globe they are authoritative, and when you don’t, it’s bad journalism?
I know everyone loves loves loves Warren, but thinking she is going to hold back rising oceans (which would be the opposite of what you imply Brown is doing) is asking a lot from her (or should I say “Her”?).
And by being the 41st senator, he did just that. Is it true by allowing the EPA to regulate carbon, this would be a back room way to pass Cap & Tax? If so, thank goodness Scotto kept his word.
High energy prices are devastating to jobs, especially blue collar manufacturing. Google Haverhill Paperboard and read how a hundred year old company left in 2008, primarily due to high electric costs here.
IMO, this carbon tax is nothing more than Democrats trying to hurt the energy producing states, who happen to be Red States. Speaking of which, what is Professor Warren’s view on a carbon tax? I should not have to send a Facebook message to her, it should be on her website or get on the record.
If you are serious about carbon emissions, then the only proven energy source is nuclear power. Instead of sending $500 million down a rat hole into Solyndra, those monies should have been allocated in MA to help Entergy (owners of Pilgrim I) in building a new, modern nuclear power plant next to the aging one. The infrustructure is already there, so as Warren says in her ad, “Let’s get to work”. It would be an economic boom on the South Shore.
Having finally agreed to answer real questions, Senator Brown’s position has evolved to recognizing that human action is contributing to global warming. Brown’s policy of choice, however, is to do nothing.
There are essentially five Republican/Libertarian positions on global warming:
(1) the James Inhofe it’s all garbage–the position of choice for those who choose to be ignorant. Given the mass of evidence that human action is causing climate change, those who parrot this kind of foolishness should ask themselves why anyone should take anything they say seriously on any issue.
(2)The Charlie Baker I’m just not smart enough position: Cowering before the ignorant just makes the politician in question look idiotic. (Mitt Romney appears to have moved to this stance, but since he has not addressed the topic in months it is hard to tell.)
(3) The Libertarian-Pangloss variant: we are living in the best of all possible worlds and if humans do it, it must be good. Let’s just let the present coast of Florida disappear and the middle of the United States become a dust bowl because in the future Nunavut may prosper.
(4)The honesty it is a problem–this position is typically held by Republicans who are voted out of office (like Bob Inglis), or by Republicans who have not yet caved to their base (John McCain when he used to be John McCain)
The result, Bob Inglis and his peers marginalized and the rest of the Republican party dedicated in one form or another to a policy of environmental destruction.
If only we had a second planet just like earth.
Dinosaurs died because there was no room on Noah’s Ark – Dumb Dumb De Dumb Dumb Dumb!
Evolution is just a Myth – Dumb Dumb De Dumb Dumb Dumb!
All Scientist are Lie – Dumb Dumb De Dumb Dumb Dumb!
Gee, In the 1970s lets melt the ice caps – Dumb Dumb De Dumb Dumb Dumb!
Libertarian/Republicans – who cares?!?!?
« Blue Mass Group Front Page
Tue 21 May 4:58 PM