Home > Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics > Obama VP – the Other Woman

Obama VP – the Other Woman

Governor Corzine’s call today for Clinton to stay in the VP hunt prompts me to re-post this July 7, 2007 post:

Kathleen Sebelius, at Yale global warming conference in April.

Salon is running a story today about a rumored Obama Vice-Presidential running mate, Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius.
I don’t normally pay attention to this kind of stuff, but it is important to note that Sebelius exercised enormous leadership on global warming by being the first to deny air pollution permits to two new coal power plants, on the basis of global warming.
At Yale, Sebelius stood in stark contrast to NJ Governor Corzine, who talks a good game on global warming, but has yet to back that up with action.

Kansas Governor Sebelius and NJ Governor Corzine at Yale Global Warming conference – April 18, 2008

According to Salon:
“But Sebelius can hit the liberal high notes on issues ranging from abortion rights (as a pro-choice Catholic she has battled with social conservatives for years) to the environment. In May, she vetoed for the third time legislation that would permit the construction of two coal-fired electric power plans in southwestern Kansas. “The reason it was so newsworthy is that this was the first time that a coal plant was rejected solely because of carbon emissions,” says Parkinson, who as lieutenant governor oversees energy policy. Even though critics predictably claimed that Sebelius was costing Kansas jobs with her go-green environmental stance, the governor had political cover, since 86 percent of the electricity that would be produced by the coal plants would flow to other states.”
Obama veepstakes: The other woman
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/07/sebelius/
Corzine has yet to come forward with a plan to implement the emission reduction goals of his highly touted Global Warming Response Act – see:
Corzine Missed First Global Warming Deadline
http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2008/07/corzine_missed_first_global_wa.html

Corzine supports new nuclear plants and did not publicly oppose a controversial plan by PSEG to export NJ produced power to NY City. See:
Saturday Nuke News
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/03/saturday_nuke_news.html

Corzine seems enthralled by the Legislature and paralyzed by the business community’s lies that environmental protection is costing NJ jobs. See:
A cruel hoax – on many levels
http://blog.nj.com/njv_bill_wolfe/2008/07/a_cruel_hoax_on_many_levels.html

ccc

Corzine needs to get closer to Sebelius on jobs, environment, energy exports, and global warming policies – especially on how to use regulatory tools and on how to stand up to the Legislature -
A VETO of THE PERMIT EXTENSION ACT bill now on your desk would be a good first step!.

Categories: Hot topics, Policy watch, Politics Tags:
  1. dionc9
    July 30th, 2008 at 13:38 | #1

    Yesterday, the corporate media took the bait of Tim Kaine (D-VA) as Obama’s VP. I like how Obama’s champaign plays the media for the vermin they are. I still believe Sebelius will be Obama’s VP and Kaine is a smokescreen to give the pundits someone to talk about. The media at this point in the election season seems only concerned with who the VP’s will be and if HRC is committed to helping the O Man.

  2. nohesitation
    July 30th, 2008 at 13:47 | #2

    I heard Kaine on C-SPAN the other day talking about infrastructure – he was pretty good and had some solid ideas.

  3. dionc9
    July 30th, 2008 at 14:29 | #3

    Don’t get me wrong Bill, Kaine’s a fine choice for VP but Kaine’s the smokescreen. Kaine is slated for a Cabinet spot. HRC is slated for debtor’s prison. And I know all this how you wonder? I’m full of it. But hey, I watch pundits do the same thing and they continually get it wrong.

  4. TomTallTree
    July 30th, 2008 at 14:42 | #4

    Obama will get all the press he can before he chooses a VP. It will be based on who can deliver the most votes, not who is best qualified. Obama will choose someone with extensive experience to offset his lack of it.
    Gov. Corzine is taking a more active part in Obama’s campaign. Corzine was the front man for Obama and is visit to Israel. He will not be the VP, but heaven forbid “Secretary of The Treasury”. Corzine is making a financial mess of New Jersey, lets hope he isn’t given the chance to make it worse for the country. He will probably want to sell the Interstate Highway system to private investors, or the buildings in Washington DC to foreign investors. The more I see of Corzine with Obama the more frightened I become.

  5. dionc9
    July 30th, 2008 at 14:44 | #5

    Also, I’m thinking about aesthetics and see Obama and Sebelius as a very good looking team (couple). Speaking of aesthetics, imagine McCain and Guiliani on the same ticket. It’s America, looks do indeed matter, we’re just supposed to be silent about it.

  6. essen
    July 30th, 2008 at 22:08 | #6

    How are we going to run our electric cars without power plants?
    “the governor had political cover, since 86 percent of the electricity that would be produced by the coal plants would flow to other states.”
    So what? When did we become the United States of Kansas?

  7. nohesitation
    July 31st, 2008 at 08:25 | #7

    essen – you’re confused – we have a global warming emergency.
    1. First, we don’t need any new power plants – see:
    “Why we never need to build another polluting power plant
    Coal? Natural gas? Nuke? We can wipe them all off the drawing board by using current energy more efficiently. Are you listening, Washington?”
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/28/energy_efficiency/
    2. Existing coal power needs to be phased out and replaced by wind, solar, hydro renewables.
    3. Plug in electric cars can use exisiting off peak power capacity at night.
    4. Do you support NJ consumers paying high rates for export of power produced in NJ and exported to NYC and Long Island so that utilities can reap windfall profits? Sebelius doesn’t.
    5. We need to move towards more locally produced “point of use and distributed power” – get off the grid!
    Nothing Sebelius did is inconsistent with the progressive energy policies in 1 – 5 above.

  8. TomTallTree
    July 31st, 2008 at 10:29 | #8

    Why we never need to build another power plant sounds like a Disney Movie.
    Think about locally produced power in New Jersey for example.
    1 – Where should we build windmills?
    2 – Solar panels are great, lets cut down the trees and pass a law eliminating cloudy days.
    3 – What utilities are reaping windfall profits? Look at their annual reports.
    4 – Get off the grid? Buy lots of candles, you are going to need them.
    We need to use every available source of power available. We currently just about have sufficient power to meet our needs. The existing planes are getting older and most have already been refurbished. Nuclear power and clean coal are teh current answer to our power needs, but we have to start building now. We need to drill for more oil here in the US. As new sources of energy are developed we can begin to close down older plants.
    Wishful thinking is not sufficient to supply the power we need today and tomorrow.

  9. nohesitation
    July 31st, 2008 at 10:44 | #9

    TTT – A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
    Get yourself aquainted with some data – even the private market is guaranteeing a 0.67 % REDUCTION in electric demand this year – see BPU’s own data here:
    http://www.njcleanenergy.com/files/file/OCE%20Straw%20Proposal%204-18-08%20final.pdf
    1. Wind power – off shore and on shore – see: draft Energy Master Plan
    http://nj.gov/emp/index.shtml
    2. lots of rooftops in NJ buildings that could produce a lot of solar. There are also thousands of acres of land available at abandoned toxic waste sites and old landfills.
    3. PSEG is making a killing since deregulation – Google is your friend- Google “PSEG” and “Tom Johnson”
    4. The Grid as we know it is a dinosaur – completely inefficient. Grid modernization and conversion is required to handle DC current from wind and solar.
    Offf grid point of use adn distributed power (heat and power) will be a major growth sector adn power source. That is for sure. Again, do just a little research before you spout your drivel

  10. nohesitation
    July 31st, 2008 at 10:46 | #10

    TTT – as for “wishful thinking- this expert is an engineer and capitalist:
    “In my five years at DOE, working with companies to develop and deploy efficient and renewable technologies, and then in nearly a decade of consulting with companies in the private sector, I never saw a building or factory that couldn’t cut electricity consumption or greenhouse-gas emissions 25 percent to 50 percent with rapid payback (under four years). My 1999 book, “Cool Companies,” detailed some 100 case studies of companies that have done just that and made a great deal of money.
    Why we never need to build another polluting power plant
    Coal? Natural gas? Nuke? We can wipe them all off the drawing board by using current energy more efficiently. Are you listening, Washington?
    http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2008/07/28/energy_efficiency/

  11. nohesitation
    July 31st, 2008 at 11:32 | #11

    TTT- data rebutting the “drill” myth – you need to stop regurgitating oil industry lies and Republican talking points::
    “A report last year by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. –WashPost
    George W Bush stated, quite bluntly, that opening up the OCS could match today’s total US oil production for a decade. He failed to mention that this would have minimal, if any impact, on America’s energy posture for literally decades. The Administration’s own experts, who are far from enemies of the oil industry and oil production, state that this move would not begin to produce oil until one year short of that ten years and that would “not have a significant impact on domestic production … before 2030.” And, in 2030, that production level would be just a three percent increase on the case without additional OCS drilling. That three percent is only the slightest fraction of today’s American oil production. The United States is producing about 5.1 million barrels of oil per day. The EIA estimate is that the additional offshore drilling would add 200,000 barrels to the 2030 production. To place this into context, US consumption is about 21 million barrels per day. Thus, the entire Republican effort to open up offshore drilling is talking about providing one percent of today’s consumption levels 23 years from now.”
    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/91424/bush_spins_a_big_lie_about_offshore_drilling/

  12. nohesitation
    July 31st, 2008 at 11:35 | #12

    TTT – one last point on technology:
    One of the strengths of solar and wind is that they can be brought on line much quicker than large scale centralized power plants (coal, nuke), or new oil supplies.
    This makes them far more adaptable.

  13. essen
    July 31st, 2008 at 12:41 | #13

    nohesitation:
    Global Warming – no comment and no confusion.
    1. California as an example of good energy management? What about the rolling power blackouts just a couple of years prior? Has this been corrected.
    2. I’m for for renewable energy, but that is going to take a long time. Let’s get started, but we can’t totally abandon the past.
    3. Electric cars can use power at night? Maybe, maybe not. Do you know how many cars the current grid can accomodate. Plug in electrics also discharge when not in use, so there is a waste factor there. Aren’t we substituting polution at the tailpipe with pollution at the powerplant (given the current infrastructure). How are we going to dispose of the batteries?
    4, No, but that is easily fixed. Those profits can be redirected to lower rates for the energy-producing states.
    5. See # 2.
    As far as wind power offshore (even Teddy Kennedy doesn’t want it if he has to look at it) or offshore drilling, I would rather see drilling in ANWAR. It would increase our domestic production by 20 per cent, the locals want it, and it would help our economy and national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
    As far as Sebelius goes, she sounds like a typical liberal, pandering to the masses. Wouldn’t the CO2 from the power plants feed the corn that we will burn to produce the ethanol that we will carry in diesel trucks (since it is water-soluoble and can’t be transported by pipes) instead of domestic oil. How much in agriculture subsidies does Kansas get? It is worth more to her to keep America in an energy bind for the benefit of Kansas.

  14. nohesitation
    August 1st, 2008 at 13:47 | #14

    essen – the “rolling blackout” you cite were caused by Enron crimnal conspiracy, not California energy policy (otehr than deregulation which enbled that crime).
    The”waste factor” is systemic in our highly inefficient power production and distribution system.
    The fact that you ignore this and claim plug in cars are inefficient shows severe bias.
    On ANWR and drilling in general:
    “A report last year by the Energy Department’s Energy Information Administration said that “access to the Pacific, Atlantic, and eastern Gulf regions would not have a significant impact on domestic crude oil and natural gas production or prices before 2030. Leasing would begin no sooner than 2012, and production would not be expected to start before 2017. –WashPost
    George W Bush stated, quite bluntly, that opening up the OCS could match today’s total US oil production for a decade. He failed to mention that this would have minimal, if any impact, on America’s energy posture for literally decades. The Administration’s own experts, who are far from enemies of the oil industry and oil production, state that this move would not begin to produce oil until one year short of that ten years and that would “not have a significant impact on domestic production … before 2030.” And, in 2030, that production level would be just a three percent increase on the case without additional OCS drilling. That three percent is only the slightest fraction of today’s American oil production. The United States is producing about 5.1 million barrels of oil per day. The EIA estimate is that the additional offshore drilling would add 200,000 barrels to the 2030 production. To place this into context, US consumption is about 21 million barrels per day. Thus, the entire Republican effort to open up offshore drilling is talking about providing one percent of today’s consumption levels 23 years from now.”
    http://www.alternet.org/blogs/environment/91424/bush_spins_a_big_lie_about_offshore_drilling/

  15. essen
    August 1st, 2008 at 19:06 | #15

    Nohes
    ANWAR drilling can start right away. And so what if it takes 20,30,or 50 years to increase oil production. If we would have addressed this during the first gas crisis, we would not have the issues we are having today. How long do you think it would take to a meaningful amount of energy from wind and solar. And thanks to the “no-nukes” crowd we have no clean energy to run our electric cars, we are only substituting one type of pollution for another.You have no data to support the feasability of powering electric cars from currently available sources, you are speaking from emotion, not logic – you are the one confused.

  16. nohesitation
    August 2nd, 2008 at 09:30 | #16

    essen – again, you are confused.
    Delivery of oil to US markets from ANWR could NOT start “right away”.
    The focus needs to be transitioning away from oil to other fuels – there is such a thing as an “opportunity cost” – if we invest finite resources in mainting oil infrastrucure, ewe divert necesssary transitional investments.
    On eelctric plu in at night cars – this is technolioigally feasible – see:
    Electric Cars Are the Key to Energy Independence
    http://www.alternet.org/environment/93609/
    No emotion involved: I’ve previously provided links to BPU Energy Master Plan – for far more ambitious and more technically and scientifically sophisticated data and analyses, see Amory Lovins, at Rocky Mountain Institute:
    http://www.rmi.org/
    If you’d spent as much time reading as attacking me – you might just change you mind.
    Wolfe

  17. essen
    August 2nd, 2008 at 13:05 | #17

    Wolfe,
    Oil vs Altenative energy is not a zero sum game. The oil companies pay for the oil infrastructure. It takes nothing away from alternative energy development, it just buys us some time.
    Electric cars, and the infrastrucure needed to support them will take more time than oil, natural/methane gas, or nuclear. L-Ion batteries cause notebook computers to go up in flames, what would a comparatively huge bank of the batteries do in a car?
    And I attack your ideas and your sources. Not you personally. I admire your dedication and passion.
    Now go kiss a blue-spotted salamander :)

  1. No trackbacks yet.
You must be logged in to post a comment.