[Fuzzy, touchy-feely "thinking" from a global warming believer] | By Andrew Sullivan

In pure economic terms, I'm not sure this bill is worth it (if it accelerates new energy technology, it still could be). But in reflecting on this, I do believe that my generation of humans should not be responsible for altering in unknowable ways the eco-system that sustains us and so many other forms of life. We have a responsibility not simply to advance our own material welfare, and weigh costs and benefits, but also to conserve our natural inheritance as much as we can. I reach this from a religious perspective, but it is easy to reach it from other grounds. And if this bill is the beginning of a process we can improve on and tweak and finesse in the coming years, then I think it's worth the loss of economic growth. Some things count for more than money or our own species' well-being. And climate change could take on a momentum impossible to impede if we carry on the way we are.

Twitter / Moose and Squirrel

LOL! -- RT @onetireddad: Q: How do you get a lefty to argue Global Warming is not real? A: Tell them GOD did it.

[99.4% of PG&E customers fail to sign up for ridiculous "ClimateSmart" program?] « Green Hell Blog

Pacific Gas & Electric’s special program to charge consumers more for electricity in return for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is proving to be nothing short of a rip-off.

California regulators approved in December 2006 PG&E’s three-year plan to raise electricity rates in order to collect $16.4 million which was to go toward the utility’s “ClimateSmart” program, an effort to offset its greenhouse gas emissions by planting trees. The program, launched in June 2007, also allowed consumers to sign-up by voluntarily agreeing to pay more for electricity.

Two years in the program, PG&E is seeking an 18-month extension of ClimateSmart because it has neither met its greenhouse gas reduction committment — it’s 500,000 tons short of the 1.5 million-ton target — nor has it signed up the number of customers originally predicted (0.6 percent actual vs. 3.3. percent predicted), according to a report in Carbon Control News (June 29).