WolfeNotes.com

I want to touch briefly on two important things I just read –

I am busy today, so this will be too long for a tweet but not meaty enough for a blog post.

1. Who Killed the DRBC Nov. 21 Fracking Vote?

I was in NY City yesterday at Occupy Wall Street’s Day of Action when the decision was announced.

But, based on all the press releases in my inbox declaring victory today, I’ll assume that it’s common knowledge that the DRBC cancelled the November 21 vote to lift the fracking moratorium.

So the question now becomes: why and how did that come about?

It is plausible that it is due to intervention by the the Obama Administration (state’s were split 2-2, with Obama the deciding vote).

Thus far, the Obama Administration’s role at DRBC has largely remained below the radar screen.

Which is exactly why I wrote:

[Update: 11/15/11 – Bob Jordan of the Asbury Park Press covers the story: Groups push for state fracking ban. But Obama is the swing vote, not Christie. NY and Delaware are likely to oppose. PA Gov. and Christie already have openly supported fracking. Just like the Keytone tar sands pipeline, all forms of “extreme carbon energy” must be stopped, or as Jim Hansen says: “it’s game over for the climate” – end update.]

And thus far, fracking has been discussed primarily as a water resource issue, not a global warming issue.

So, the failures to engage fracking as a global warming issue and to hold the Obama Administration accountable are exactly why I asked a question of the 350.org representative at the Nov. 14 Trenton press conference held by NJ ENGO’s (a question that surprisingly was objected to and almost blocked by the host of the press conference).

In asking my set up question, I wanted to provide an opportunity for the regional representative of 350.org to link the DRBC Vote with global warming activism and the Obama Keystone XL tar sands pipeline decision.

And this is why I linked the two projects (Keystone & DRBC) and put the primary focus on Obama and federal policy (national issues) in this post:

2. Republicans are at War with the Environnment and Clean Energy

In the “Excuse me while my head explodes” department, Matt Eliot of Environment NJ has an Op-ed running today – in of all places, the Morris Daily Record – titled: Cutting pollution and promoting clean energy should never be a partisan issue

Really?

Anyone who would characterize Gov. Christie’s policy on clean energy as a “mixed bag” is either not paying attention or pulling punches for political reasons.

And why are calls for bipartisanship now begin made, just when the Republican Party itself, as a Party – at the federal and state levels – is SO BLATENTLY attacking environmental and clean energy policy?

And why is this written just at the point in time when this is becoming OBVIOUS to the public?

This “bipartisan” idea is a fool’s errand (or worse).

The Republican party is attacking the environment and energy for 2 reasons:

1) ideological (they hate government and regulation) and

2) a warped set of priorities – when policy conflicts emerge (as they often do), Republicans seek to please their corporate paymasters and protect their private profits, over protecting the public interest.

WAKE UP!

(ps – and of course I realize that many Democrats are driven by the same corporate interests)

[Update: a reader optimistically suggests that maybe Obama “plans to do the right thing after the election[when] there’s no more need for corporate contributions”.

This is a fantasy that we reply to as follows:

If the Obama team finally “gets it”, then why would Obama be:

• supporting expanded drilling in Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico,
• issuing federal leases and permits for energy extraction from western lands at record rates (and sending critics to prison
• doing little on regulation of GHG; and
• expanding wars for oil and gas pipelines in the Middle east?

And after the election, those corporate interests just don’t go away.