Hillary Clinton opposite to Walker on energy, climate
Good to see Hillary Clinton addressing issues like climate change and renewable energy, since Walker and the field of GOP hopefuls use climate, the environment and clean energy as political footballs launched to please fossil-fuel interests.
Why else would the Koch brothers summon Walker to California, again?
Iowa media - - continually missing the Walker big picture in favor of Harley riding and Kohl's cheap clothes photo ops - - should be pointing out that while their state is a wind energy leader and renewable power job-creator - -
- - Walker has blocked wind farms in Wisconsin and has used his Public Service Cpmmission and sway with the GOP-dominated Legislature to block renewable energy applications add new fees on renewable power users.
Why else would the Koch brothers summon Walker to California, again?
Iowa media - - continually missing the Walker big picture in favor of Harley riding and Kohl's cheap clothes photo ops - - should be pointing out that while their state is a wind energy leader and renewable power job-creator - -
 |
| Wind turbines, Western Iowa, as far as the eye can see, both directions. |
 |
| The candidates' differences can be reduced to a simple image |
4 comments:
Remember this?
http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/purple-wisconsin/300179441.html
You know, I didn't!. Thanks for the reminder.
It IS good to see Sec. Clinton develop an energy platform.
Observations:
The targets specified will be reached by market forces and existing policy programs, so no vision, risk or move to the forefront or crossing of donors is entailed for Sec. Clinton.
Conspicuously absent is any firm, clear-cut stance on fracking, KeystoneXL or Enbridge pipelines -- something folks who pay attention don't overlook and won't dismiss. With TransCanada lobbyist on campaign staff, objective observers have substantial reason for concerns that this statement is a faux policy, nothing more than window dressing to relieve anxiety among believers by outlining something that sounds concrete, but requires no substantial progress or tough decisions.
There's no Sistah Souljah moment here.
Further, it was under Sec. Clinton that the State Dept rigged the cross-border permit for Enbridge (in which the shifted tar/oil to a parallel pipe for a few hundred feet, then back over to the first pipe, all to avoid the required permit process). That State rigged the KeystoneXL EIS/analysis through badly compromised ERM has already been outlined.
Given that eminent domain's been so thoroughly inverted, and the Takings Clause legally perverted by the judiciary, it's worth noting one of Sec. Clinton's key early case at Rose Law firm representing a utility used a novel interpretation of the Takings Clause to overturn an Arkansas referendum that lowered utility bills on behalf of low-income ratepayers. See, The Utility had an ironclad expectation of future income, even in a free market, and voting in a democracy was 'a Takings' of Utility Property in the form of 'expected' but-not-yet-earned income. So you have a Yale lawyer distorting the clear meaning of the Constitution to deliver compensation for private corporations when no property has been taken and no public interest is at stake. 40 years later, eminent domain and Takings are a sad joke as pipeline approvals speed merrily forward.
Close observers don't agree that Sec. Clinton has authored a credible or substantive energy policy. Not one that leads or moves America forward. Not one that uncompromising in the national interest.
It's a Potempkin Policy.
RF
Wrong way Walker.
Head stuck in the past.
Post a Comment