Enviromentalists 'feel stabbed in the back' over 'dastardly move' by Obama admin.

[Bluebear]

Via Americablog: The environmentalists now have their own version of the DOMA brief from the Obama administration. Via NYT's Greenwire:

The Obama administration has urged the Supreme Court to toss out an appeals court decision that would allow lawsuits against major emitters for their contributions to global warming, stunning environmentalists who see the case as a powerful prod on climate change.

In the case, AEP v. Connecticut, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with a coalition of states, environmental groups and New York City. The decision, handed down last year, said they could proceed with a lawsuit that seeks to force several of the nation's largest coal-fired utilities to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

Reading the article evoked a lot of memories of June 12, 2009 when we read the Obama administration's despicable DOMA brief. This part sounds really familiar:

Matt Pawa, an attorney representing plaintiffs in the case, said he and his colleagues expected the White House to stay out of the matter. During a meeting with more than 30 administration lawyers at the solicitor general's office on June 24, it seemed they had "a lot of friends in the room," he said.

"We feel stabbed in the back," Pawa said. "This was really a dastardly move by an administration that said it was a friend of the environment. With friends like this, who needs enemies?"

Top attorneys at environmental advocacy groups are buzzing about the brief, sources say. Some feel betrayed by a White House that has generally been more amenable to environmental regulation than its predecessor.

"This reads as if it were cut and pasted from the Bush administration's briefing in Massachusetts," said David Bookbinder, who served as the Sierra Club's chief climate counsel until his resignation in May.

Welcome to our world. The Obama administration's DOMA brief actually was written by the Bush administration.

Now, what these environmentalists don't understand -- yet -- is that Team Obama isn't really on their side. Not in the way they think, anyway. It's a tough lesson and hard to swallow. The gays learned it early on, between Rick Warren and the DOMA brief.

[Skittles]

1. I hope they were not surprised

[depakid]

17. No Democratic constituency can trust this administration- that much is clear

[Vincardog]

92. This isn't how you get your base to the voting booths this year...and 2012. Hear that PLEDGE to

Vote NOW advocates? I am beginning to have serious doubts about this administration.

[indepat]

124. I didn't begin to get serious doubts about this administration until coming to grips the fact

that most of junior's far-RW/egregiously wrong-headed initiatives were being ratified/continued, then a RW HCR without a public option and assuring continued mega profits for the health insurance industry, then the insidious plan now underway to gut social security. Then not pursuing prosecution of war criminals. Then tepid financial industry reform and not aggressively pursuing and prosecuting the major culprits involved in the financial meltdown. These are just for starters, but surely enough for game, set, match, and championship. :)

[tavalon]

139. Welcome to the underside of the bus

We try to stay friendly under here but damn, it is getting crowded!

[ooglymoogly]

120. We need to primary this cuckoo bird who has taken over our nest...

trying to push true democrats out, While Rahm recruits pugs to run as Dem's. It is time to start the true Democratic band wagon rolling. Am waiting for Grayson to finally say he's had enough and stop biting his tong to stay loyal to this Dino Judas Goat; Leading us to the slaughter..

[merbex]

135. Good analogy n/t

[terrya]

2. I don't understand this

There is serious concern about climate change in this country. This action is something I'd expect the previous administration to do. It's sad to see the Obama Administration causing such disillusionment among its base. This isn't how you get your base to the voting booths this year...and 2012.

Election Night, 2008, seems like a million years ago.

[Marr]

4. I'm beginning to think the White House wants there to be fewer Democrats in Congress.

It'd certainly be easier to sell that "compromise" bullshit if they didn't have big majorities.

[Raine]

20. EXACTLY! nt

[amborin]

28. +1

[jgraz]

39. That's actually my biggest motivation to support Democrats this fall.

I want to see the OH SHIT looks on their faces when they realize they still have to govern.

[derby378]

48. It just has to be the RIGHT KIND of Democrats

And if Reid needs to be replaced as Majority Leader, so be it. And if Pelosi needs to be replaced as Speaker of the House, so be it. The Democratic Party is bigger than these two - and we would be wise to remember that.

[Enthusiast]

121. Yes. I can see your point.

There would be no cover, no smoke screen. I would love to see the House and Senate made up of a 2/3 Democratic majority. Only then would we behold the true nature of our representation.

[laughingliberal]

77. I started saying that about a year ago. Called the WH & told them their actions looked like...

a voter suppression effort and I was wondering if they wanted more Republicans to facilitate a further shift to the right.

[KoKo]

89. Why else would they allow the attacking of fellow Dems by Gibbs, Emmanuel and Simpson?

I'm thinking the same thing. Where is their "Messenging Team" who should be out there on the cables and print media refuting the Repug Lies and fighting back about the reporting? If this administration isn't doing what's being reported then why aren't they explaining themselves? Why are fellow Dems being made a scapegoat?

They want to lose...it will make their job so easy as they really can work with Repugs without the smokescreen of Repugs being the opposition.

This is not good...

[Enthusiast]

119. You too?

Something is not on 'the up and up', as they say. Can you say subterfuge?

[Radical Activist]

13. The thing to understand

is that the small number of people invested in this strategy are using a lot of overly dramatic language to argue their case.

It says a lot that there are quotes by a "former" spokesperson for an environmental group. There aren't many statements from blogs and current spokespersons because the environmental community is divided about whether this strategy is even a good idea. What's far more important is EPA regulation of major CO2 polluters, which Obama strongly supports. Many leaders will shrug their shoulders about this case and move on to the more important things they were already doing.

[lark]

112. Does he really?

Or is this just another thing he says until it comes time to really do something and then he completely folds and capitulates to the Repugs who still won't vote for anything he puts forward unless it's continuing our endless wars for no reason.

[Radical Activist]

128. It's already done.

And he issued a formal veto threat against the Senate Murkowski resolution that would have stopped EPA from regulating major CO2 sources. Look it up sometimes. He's doing the 100% right thing.

[ooglymoogly]

122. Rose colored deflectors...up. nt

[Radical Activist]

129. Your jerking-knee...up.

I have actual understanding of the issue and don't believe every jackass with a blog who makes an uninformed attack against Obama.

[ooglymoogly]

141. I bow to the rapier wit; That claims such laurels

unto itself. How can I compete with the sheer grandeur of knowledge confronting me with the elegant snark of Cyrano in its poetic brevity; Other than the sound and fury; What is this so eloquently touted knowledge encrypted in your post? Can I, a mere mortal even begin to understand it, without the assistance of enigma?

[enough]

14. The saddest thing is how often I find myself thinking, if Bush had done this, we would all be

exploding with outrage. It's so hard to have to change one's entire picture of what is going on.

[ooglymoogly]

132. Not when you realize Dino's have taken over our party

orchestrated by Rahm and the DLC. Rubber stamping a bunch of rightwing crap with the D brand, to leave the pugs smelling like a rose and the Democrats smelling like shit knowing they, the Republicans could never such onerous one sided crap passed when they were in charge though they desparately and persistently tried.

Now they pass it and in the best kabuki and once realized. To become dead weight baggage far too heavy for Democrats to Cary in the coming elections

Its a seeming conundrum; An enigma connived by much smarter folks than the ignorant pugs who will appose this self serving crap legislation, even though it is near and dear to their hearts. But alas, they are nothing but surrogates to the most powerful interests on earth; A successful attempt at having your cake and eating it, so to speak;

A diabolical plan to destroy the democrats and their lofty goals and people protecting principles; For democrats to come out of this treachery to live in infamy;

In ever larger numbers seniors will no longer vote for this man, for daring to put their fragile lives in serious doubt; Their bought and paid for lifeline SS on the chopping block against all the laws protecting it;

The ominous lesson being the unbelievable Brown victory in MA. Gays, though still ambivalent, Still looking desperately for some sign to support this man; Will, come election have lost all enthusiasm for this man, few getting to the poles.

One by one he destroys his constituencies; Demographic by demographic.

The Ra, Ra "O" or die left me soon after he was signed into office

A jaundiced eye from his beginning acts, became focused when he appointed Rahm who in turn began recruiting pugs to run as Dem's; The jaundiced eye became a critical microscope at his first step across the red line; The line upholding the constitution I am sworn by allegiance to protect; Realizing things were not at all what they seemed;

I have manned the barracudas with a little company, ranting add infinitum. To fight with every thing I have got against the treason taking shape. There is a game afoot that many of us on this sight have figured out; Though now being realized by more and more folks.

Now just like "*" I spit in his shit tracks and am sickened at the sight of him and will throw everything I have got into primarying him out of smelling distance.

His actions, no mater how you paint them are not those of a Democrat.

[nosmokes]

3. Funny how easy it is to feel stabbed in the back while being stabbed in the back.

Not funny ha ha but funny this is really fucked up twelve ways to Sunday.

[quinnox]

5. This is becoming standard procedure for Obama administration

Say one thing and then do the opposite.

Thanks Obama and friends for helping the air polluters off the hook!

Did you get some big contributions from them in 2008?? Payback time, eh?

[Divernan]

118. The contributions from corporate polluters are an ongoing thing

PLUS, cabinet level political appointees know they can put in a few years and then resign (gotta spend more time with the little woman and their kids (now in their 20's - yeah, right!) and get appointed to the Boards of said Big Polluters - as did Tom Ridge, who's on about 6 corporate boards now. His latest gig is pushing for minimally regulated drilling in the Marcellus Shale parts of Pennsylvania, notwithstanding the disaster such drilling has brought to other parts of the country.

Pittsburgh - Gasland Showing Frick Park Fri 8/27 8PM

On Friday, Aug. 27 at 8:15 p.m., PennEnvironment and our allies are hosting a very special outdoor screening of the film Gasland at Frick Park in Pittsburgh. The film will open your eyes to the consequences of gas drilling in Pennsylvania and the United States, and will be followed by a discussion with experts, including PennEnvironment's own Erika Staaf, about the gas drilling happening right here in southwestern Pennsylvania.

WHAT: Gasland, the movie
WHERE: Frick Park, located at the intersection of Beachwood Blvd. and Nicholson St. in Squirrel Hill, Pittsburgh
WHEN: Friday, Aug. 27, 2010
Live music at 7:30 p.m.
Screening at 8 p.m.
WHO: After the film screening you'll have a chance to get your questions answered by the film's director Josh Fox, PennEnvironment's Clean Water Advocate Erika Staaf, and other area experts.

When filmmaker Josh Fox discovered that gas drilling was coming to his area in the Poconos, he set off on a 24-state journey to uncover the deep consequences of the U.S. gas drilling boom. What he uncovered was truly shocking -- water that can be lit on fire right out of the sink; chronically ill residents living in different drilling areas across the country, all with the same mysterious symptoms; huge pools of toxic waste that kill cattle and vegetation; and well blowouts and huge gas explosions.

Gasland was the winner of the Special Jury Prize for Documentary at the 2010 Sundance Film Festival and was recently shown on HBO. You won't want to miss this special screening!

[ProSense]

6. "these environmentalists don't understand -- yet -- is that Team Obama isn't really on their side"

You mean he's a traitor?


All that other stuff he's doing is really for show?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

8. Let's see now

Refusal to prosecute torturers. Refusal to challenge DOMA. No repeal of DADT. No prosecution of warrantless wiretappers. No acquittal of Don Siegel.

And NOW, and ACTIVE appeal from the DOJ to toss out a major "Global Warming" case.

Got it.

[Canuckistanian]

9. Let's see now

Refusal to prosecute torturers. Refusal to challenge DOMA. No repeal of DADT. No prosecution of warrantless wiretappers. No acquittal of Don Siegel.

And NOW, and ACTIVE appeal from the DOJ to toss out a major "Global Warming" case.

Got it.

[LiberalAndProud]

15. You know it's more than refusal to challenge DOMA, right?

They are actively defending it.

http://www.glad.org/doma/

[Canuckistanian]

32. Oh, really?

I didn't know that. I just thought they were totally ignoring it.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Radical Activist]

11. Why didn't you include a link to the blog post?

Maybe you didn't want people to see the disclaimer at the end?

"Full disclosure: my practice involves some nuisance cases, although none related to climate."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/26/133248/603

In other words, the author:
1) has a financial interest in nuisance laws, and
2) doesn't know jack about global warming.

Look around the environmental blogs. Are people outraged about this? No.

You'll see very little mentioned about it, if it at all. That's because this was a minor strategy that environmentalists are divided over. You'll find environmentalists who think this move by the administration is a GOOD thing.

Obama has already done more to stop global warming that Clinton and Carter did in 12 years combined. Other than the Senate's failure to pass a cap-and-trade bill, he's doing an excellent job.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

54. What this boils down to...

is that the Obama Administration wants to pursue a policy of federal, not state regulation of pollutors (pollution doesn't stop at state lines, so this approach makes sense). Rather than have a patchwork of states and coalitions of states bringing lawsuits helter-skelter -- and cause businesses no end of regulatory headaches as they try to comply with multiple (and sometimes contradictory) environmental regulations -- the Administration wants a single policy.

There's nothing "dastardly" going on here.

But why get in the way of a good poutrage party.

[Radical Activist]

57. Exactly.

And I don't want state regulators in Alabama and Alaska deciding how much CO2 they can pump into the air because it's going to hurt all of us eventually.

[snooper2]

88. how dare you put some context around this and explainin' n stuff!

The haters were just getting started. Now they are going to have to find another thread to bitch about Obama :)

[Hell Hath No Fury]

91. This is about what is happening here in California --

We have put in place regulations that are better than the federal regulations on emissions. Because so many of the country's cars are sold here it is a way to force car companies to build nationally to our high specifications -- that means cleaner air everywhere.

This is a real blow to what we are doing out here.

[Radical Activist]

98. Two things.

First, this case is about major sources of CO2 like a coal power plant. It doesn't impact auto emission standards.

Second, Obama reached an agreement with the auto industry last year as part of the bailout that sets auto mileage and emissions regulation comparable to the California standards. CA deserves credit for setting the example and now it's being done at the federal level thanks to Obama's effort. It's one of the best things he has done since taking office.

[stevenleser]

114. You mean the Obama haters have distorted this whole thing? I'll try to act surprised

... nope, cant do it. Not surprised.

[Vincardog]

93. Well then why are we not hearing that from THEM? They have been very clear that Liberal voices are

not wanted in their discussions PERIOD.

[liberalhistorian]

107. Bingo! And

"poutrage" is a perfect word to describe it. People would be well-advised to actually read deeply and THINK before emotionally spouting off.

[AtomicKitten]

127. Context is everything.

Thanks and cheers.
:fistbump:

[Diane R]

133. Exactly, times two. I sometimes wonder if some DUers really want Obama to fail.

[MaeScott]

101. Is this posting a hit piece? sounds like it. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

12. ROFL @ "dastardly"

:rofl:

It just gets more and more clownish everyday.

[ProSense]

30. What the hell is going on?

:rofl:

[bobbolink]

16. And poor people have often felt stabbed in the back by uncaring environmentalists.

Maybe some poetic justice to wake 'em up?

[Radical Activist]

18. Wow.

Because more cancer clusters and asthma is just what poor neighborhoods need. :eyes:

Poor people are only being stabbed in the back by major polluters who want us to believe that our only two choices are poverty or taking a job that will help destroy their own community.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

46. I'll echo Raine's statement

And also remember that the wealthy have traditionally favored huge wealth disparity between the rich few and poor masses not only so they could pick from oceans of desperate labor, but also because it allows them to automatically buy into / occupy the environmental "high ground" in any given region or situation. IOW, the assumption and MO is that spoiling the environment scarcely affects the wealthy few.

Environmentalism cuts right across that aristocratic tradition. Without it anti-poverty campaigners in the 21 century have no lasting foundation on which to stand. Then again, the poorest nations in the world are now heavily pushing enviro agendas so I think they understand something that you do not.

[depakid]

19. How so?

By working to eliminate environmental racism?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice

[bobbolink]

25. Do you sincerely want to know, or is that just a way to tell me to STFU?

[depakid]

35. I asked a simple question because it doesn't comport with my understanding

or anything I've worked on or for over the years.

Did you read the link?

[bobbolink]

36. Then, thank you. When environmentalists keep pushing for higher federal gas tax,

which only hurts the poor (and has been proven NOT to be a deterrent to affluent drivers), without thinking of how it will affect the lives of poor folk, and then won't listen to the objections, it says clearly that we are not the recipients of your concern. There are alternatives, but it falls on deaf ears.

That is one example.

There are others.

The point is to Think First how things affect others, rather than only those who are like you. Then to be willing to listen if the proposal is objectionable to vulnerable people.

It is really common decency.

[depakid]

38. You seem to be Americano-centric here.

Do you realize how heavily subsidized and comparatively CHEAP your petrol is?

On another point- for those who aren't affluent enough to have cars, who do you think champions public transit?

and works to eliminate food deserts in poorer communities?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_desert

[bobbolink]

40. Thank you so very much for not listening. I asked you honestly, and you said you wanted to hear.

Obviously you also don't give a flying fuck how you affect poor people.

Go back to patting yourself on the back for being so superior. Just don't be surprised when you start getting a lot of people fighting you. You deserve it.

bye now.... have fun slamming me, because it is my turn not to hear you.

[depakid]

50. As your cheap oil runs out- you're in for big time trouble

and you'll be wishing more people listened to environmentalists about the need for public transit and community food security.

[bobbolink]

52. Thank you. You have convinced me that it is so much better to have poor people suffering

disproportionately.

We need to feel soooo sorry for those poor rich people.

Of course, you would rather try to drive me into the ground that accept alternatives to achieve the same end.

SO, you have outted yourself as being quite insensitive to poor folk, which is what I originally posted. Thank you for confirming it. Now others see it, and I will point to this when some say how poor people are taking into consideration. I do thank you.

[depakid]

59. Read my sig line and you'll see where I'm coming from

Natural laws are what they are and make no distinctions between rich and poor.

[bobbolink]

64. Thank you. You are showing the callousness that I was talking about.

It is much appreciated... you are doing the education for me.

[Usrename]

86. How does a gasoline tax hurt poor people?

That doesn't even make sense. The poor people that I know don't buget any money for gasoline.

You'll have to explain to me, like I'm ten years old, exactly how you think that a gasoline tax will affect the homeless, for example.

The way you present this "factoid" about the gasoline tax sounds more like some kind of dogma than the result of some kind of scientific study or even thoughtful reasoning. Where did you hear this?

[Fumesucker]

102. If you're living in your car, the gas tax does indeed hurt you..

There are very few place you can just park a car permanently and live in it, you have to keep moving it or sooner or later someone is going to complain to the cops, at which point your car will be impounded and quite possibly you will go to jail.

Moving the car requires gasoline (unless your car is a diesel).

See, there is a connection..

[Usrename]

134. Yeah, if you're living in your car a gas tax would ruin your life.

I see your point.

[Radical Activist]

43. huh

I don't believe any of the major environmental groups are working on raising the federal gas tax. It's an idea you'll see now and then but it has never been the mainstream.

I think what you're doing is no different than people who say what "the black community" thinks about an issue as though they all think the same thing. I see environmental groups working against the polluters who poison people in poor communities every day so you bet I have a hostile reaction to your attitude.

[bobbolink]

49. Look, you clearly aren't interested in actually hearing.

That exact thing has been proposed over and over and over at DU, and when it is objected to, it is met with vile hostility.

If you don't agree with it, then why haven't YOU been telling people to pipe downn about it.

Plus, several years ago, a friend of mine in her environmentall group was off on that gas tax thing, and none of them would hear how disastrous it would be to poor people. So don't pretend it is a minor thing, or a seldom thing.. it is brought up all the time, and environmentalists have a hell of a lot more power than poor people do.

Take responsibility for your own hostility! You have come at me over and over lately, for various things, and you are consistently hostile. You have been hearing from others about your own attitude, and you might consider hearing what others are suggesting to you.

It is really simple.... hear what others are objecting to, and pay attention to how it affects others instead of stereotyping others.

[Radical Activist]

55. Stereotyping

is deciding that environmentalists in general don't care about poor people because of what your friend and a few people on DU think about one issue. That's the textbook definition of stereotyping.

I'm a huge environmental activist and the last time this came up on DU I argued against a big gas tax increase because of how much it would hurt the rural poor. You don't even know if the people arguing for it were leaders in any environmental groups like I am. You have your own prejudices and stereotypes to deal with.

[bobbolink]

63. you weren't there speaking in support of us, and you are stereotyping me.

get over it.

If you want people on your side, then you need to be on their side, too.

It is realy quite simple.

I used to be involved in all of that... but when none of you can be involved in MY/OUR issues, then we do what people naturally do... we draw back into our own concerns.

Stand up and listen to us and stand up for us when we need it.

Then you would find a different "attitude". But don't expect people to care about YOUR concerns, when you don't care about theirs. Simple, human logic.

[Radical Activist]

70. Actually, I was there making the exact same argument as you on this issue.

I guess you forgot.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=8717055&mesg_id=8718184

How's that for your stereotype? You and I have had the exact same position on this and we argued on the same side. But you made an assumption about what I think because I'm an environmentalist. That's stereotyping.

I know the head of every civil rights group and community organizing group in my town plus members of the group organized by the homeless. We know each other well because I work with them on a regular basis as the head of a local environmental group. I go to their events and support their issues. How does that fit in with your prejudiced ideas about environmentalists?

Yes, I've had to talk some sense once in a while to a University egghead environmentalist with some bright idea that makes no sense in the real world because it would hurt the poor. But, that's not what most of the movement is like.

I guess you had a bad experience with some environmentalists but that's how stereotypes work, isn't it? Someone has a bad experience getting mugged by a homeless person and all of a sudden they start worrying that all homeless are muggers. What you're doing is no different than that. Look at yourself in the mirror when you point that finger.

[cprise]

53. You have swallowed some nasty propaganda

Neglect of public transportation (which is rife in the US) is what hurts the poor. The banks' reluctance to fund affordable urban development (but hey, have a McMansion out in the hinterlands instead and live the 'dream') has hurt the poor.

Without those trends, gas tax rises wouldn't hurt.

But I got news for you, taxes will seem insignificant once the glorious and blame-proof Market recognizes the permanent downward slope of peak oil and sends gas prices permanently through the roof.

Sadly, public transportation is being reduced in this country as we speak... the exact opposite of what should be happening. But hey, I'm sure is better for the poor to be tied up in traffic jams in our own little death traps.

[Name removed]

69. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cprise]

75. This is just a lot of crazy-making

n/t

[Raine]

21. That's TOTALY crap

poor people suffer the most from a poor environment! Do you really think that anyone with money will suffer the way the poor do from a poor environment????? :wtf:

[bobbolink]

26. Thank you so much for your ability to actually HEAR other people who are different from you.

That kind of shutting people up goes soooo far towards building a strong movement.

[Selatius]

23. So it's OK for the power plant to dump mercury into the river because it's by a poor neighborhood?

[Name removed]

27. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

29. Sorry, but where I live, the power plant did dump mercury into the river.

And if it wasn't that problem, we have BP destroying our local environment. I do not see where you are honestly coming from, but where I live, environmentalists as well as community activists have been working so damn hard cleaning up the mess corporate polluters leave behind because if they don't, the cancer rates are going to impact most heavily on the working class neighborhoods by the shore.

[bobbolink]

31. No, you probably don't know where I am coming from, although I have posted it here enough.

So instead of actually talking to me like a fellow human, you make up something and put it in my mouth like I have no mind of my own, or nothing worth hearing.

If that is how the poor people in the neighborhoods around you are being treated, then you aren't going to have any kind of working coalition for very long.

[Selatius]

33. Excuse me, but you were the first to post an inflammatory response in this thread.

Did you honestly think you would get anything but the sort of responses the other three posters gave you? Exactly how has the environmental movement impacted your life?

BTW, it wasn't an attempt to shove words in your mouth but a real God's honest response to your post. I see environmental activists as nothing short of brothers of the labor movement. What good is a labor movement if it won't secure an environment where people aren't dying on the machines or dying from the by-products of capital?

[bobbolink]

34. It wasn't inflammatory... it was what has been happening for a lot of years now.

YOU chose to make it inflammatory, because you perceived it to be an attack on your sacred cow.

Environmentalists are not "brothers" (are they all men?) of poor folk, because they have been unwilling to listen to objections to their proposals and actions. When you refuse to listen, you can expect that some will let you know you have trespassed on them.

People are hurting and you have a choice to hear it, or make up shit.

[Selatius]

37. Of course it was inflammatory. Why else did everyone else respond the way they did?

You purposely worded your post in such a manner to illicit a response.

I don't elevate environmentalism to the level of "sacred cow."

But I believe a safe environment and a work place are far better than ones that are not safe or pollution free. Because of environmentalists' activity, fewer people are getting poisoned or dying of cancer. Currently, the local interests of labor here align almost perfectly with that of environmentalists because of the oil polluting our beaches and seafood.

I am sure there are points of conflict between the two opposing groups, such as loggers vs. environmentalists or the inane idea of jacking up gas prices with gas taxes, but on a whole, there is more overlap than conflict. I don't know about you, but I would rather Obama start a jobs program around renewable energy and public mass transit as opposed to targeted tax cuts at special interests instead of the poor.

[bobbolink]

42. Why? because that is the way of DU, and because most people don't give a shit about

poor people.

There is clearly no interest in actually communicating, and you have tossed poor folk under your environmental bus, so have fun with your looking down your nose at people you see as beneath you.

[Selatius]

45. See, now it is you who is purposely misreading my position.

Exactly where in my last several thousand posts do I advocate anything remotely attacking the interests of the poor? Like a gas tax hike? Exactly where have I said I support sales taxes or any consumption tax for that matter?

[bobbolink]

51. You're right. When you said that everyone was being reasonable in attacking me in such an

outrageous way, I quit reading.

That is what happens when people, who claim to be on the "same side", try to overpower others rather than to communicate.

They often just tune out.

Welcome to reality.

And that is all the energy or time available for this.

I stand by what I said... that many times poor people have felt stabbed in the back by environmentalists.

Deal with it.

[Selatius]

56. I honestly think you're fighting the wrong people here.

In a thread specifically calling out Obama, don't you think Obama is the worse of the two at the current time? For instance, they keep saying the seafood here is safe to eat now since they opened it up again for fishing, but who honestly buys that horseshit? Because it seems that's what the EPA is trying to feed all of us here.

Yet you plug environmentalists as if all of them are limousine liberals who are out of touch with reality in polluted working class neighborhoods with not a possibility that some of those environmentalists were of the poor like many others. You honestly shouldn't be tossing stones if you live in a glass house.

[bobbolink]

62. If you remember, or if you give a damn at all, I DON'T HAVE A HOUSE TO LIVE IN

This is exactly the kind of crap that happens because people pick one issue, and that is all they know.

If you were so strong against taxing gas, why didn't you join in any of those threads where people were harping about raising the tax, and gave not a damn how it hurts poor people? If you are now among the concerned, where were you then?

If you would show up in threads about poverty and show some concern there, just maybe you might learn a bit, and just maybe you mmight forge a few alliances.

We have found that we HAVE NO FRIENDS among so-called "progressives" --certainly not Obama and his cheerleaders, nor the rest who are only intersted in *THEIR* concerns. So don't tell me I'm picking on the "wrong people". Cross the street and come give some support to those who have little... and those who are left behind all the other issues.

I "plug" you? Why don't you show up and show us some support, then? This is really crazy. Your feelings are hurt because I don't see you as having any concern for us? Then show the concern, and be willing to understand a different vantage point. That is, historically,, the liberal way.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Selatius]

73. Because I don't post on here REGULARLY. I missed those gas tax threads back when gas was 4+/gallon

So I will not apologize for whenever there were threads advocating gas tax spiking where I was never there to read, and I will not budge on that statement. There's a whole world of war out there that needs fighting besides here on DU, and DU isn't exactly where I spend most of my time nowadays because of the stupidity I see here regularly.

Again, you misrepresent my position. Who says I'm an environmentalist first above all other issues? Where were you when I was pulling dead bodies out of buildings after Katrina? Where were you when I volunteered with the Red Cross after 9/11? Where you even involved in any of that? Because I'm not indicting you for that as you just tried to do with me with the idiotic notion that my absence from specific threads reflects poorly upon me. You know nothing about what I've done, so why should I tolerate your characterizing my absence on specific threads here as an indictment against me not being a committed fighter? Do you even know what political beliefs I hold? Or my economic stance on issues is?

I can see this is getting us nowhere, so I will bid you good day and be done with you. You wanna fight with people on this message board then fine by me, but I got serious problems here in my neck of the world and within my family that needs boots on the ground, yet you try to toss your shit in my face as if a fight on a messageboard is equally important as cleaning up oil here or pulling out dead animals from the water or making sure my mother doesn't die of her illness because the health insurance company fights her claim.

This is exactly why I do not post regularly anymore. Skinner was right. This place has changed.

[cprise]

60. Why?

"I stand by what I said... that many times poor people have felt stabbed in the back by environmentalists."

If that's true, why would that be? You seem to be laying the blame for that at the feet of environmentalists. But as I see it, enviros right now are pushing the hardest for public trans. and urban housing.

I'd also like to know how you could walk into an environment thread and - without any respect for our stances on the issue - start dumping on us as anti-poor without adding anything constructive, no examples, no info, nothing really that would help a person think about the issue from a different perspective.

[bobbolink]

66. Actually, I explained it. You feel stabbed in the back... well, we feel stabbed by you sometimes.

Maybe, as I said to others, if you came from behind your enviro walls and paid attention to some of the poverty issues here, you would understand it better, and maybe you would gain some support if your supported others.

You could think from the issue from a different perspective if you walked outside your comfort zone and particupated when the few who care about poverty posted about it. But, you don't, so it came to you.

That is how it works sometimes.

We have felt stabbed by you enviros lack of concern, and lack of willingness to listen and I said so. Just like other oppressed people do.. ... speaking up for what happens to them.

You don't like it? Then consider looking at your own avoidance of an issue that is just as important. None of you who have criticised me for posting this have shown up in poverty threads. So you think about that.

[cprise]

76. No chance

...in hades will I bow to such a one-sided point of view that repeatedly evokes negative stereotypes like a broken record.

As far as this sub-$20k earning person is concerned, you are NOT representative and you are helping neither environmental nor poverty problems by trolling here.

Have a nice day.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Canuckistanian]

140. It's a familiar pattern with her

She's the one and ONLY DUer I have on ignore.

She argues for the Hell of it - I suggest you ignore her too.

[Lorien]

82. You have to be fucking kidding me

environmentalists are the ones protecting your ass from a very early grave. Ever read Dickens? Out of control polluters WILL kill you and the rest of this planet. Look at Russia, NOLA and Pakistan and WAKE THE FUCK UP!

[20score]

109. I've agreed with you on economic issues, but on this you could not be more wrong.

Thinking people give a damn about the environment, no matter how much money they have! And no amount of rationalization will change that.

You owe a good chunk of the country an apology.

(Maybe you're the one who needs to listen.)

[Divine Discontent]

111. bobbo, I stand with you about homeless advocacy, but you have done these types of comments many

times before and they're not necessary. It's not a fight between environmentalists fighting for protections of us all Versus the Homeless' plight. I recall one of these types of comments in my silent kick "Stonewall" thread. We all suffer right-wing cruelty and greed. I'm not saying that specific environmentalists have done nothing to harm the homeless plight as you state, but I am saying we need to work together, and this kind of post doesn't do that. It's a thread about the administration and policy surrounding the enviroment. It should not be hijacked.

[KamaAina]

125. Examples, please?

:shrug:

[another saigon]

24. well he did get lots of campaign cash from Big Coal

he really seems to be on his knees these days thanking all of his corporate cronies much more blatantly than even bush.

[theHandpuppet]

41. Join the rest of us under the bus...

....although by this time I think we'll need an 18-wheeler to accomodate everyone.

[Mendocino]

47. Like OMG

what do these professional lefties expect...change? Puh-leaze:sarcasm:

[hedgehog]

58. The first article that came up on Google was from a year ago -

http://www.grist.org/article/2009-09-21-connecticut-v-aep-public-nuisance-ruling-may-boost-epa-co2-regs/

It's a complicated question that boils down to a strategy debate - is it better to fight global warming in the courts of Congress? Obama hasn't thrown anyone under a bus here, he just wants to take a different route to the same goal.

[Bluebear]

68. Well, of course. Thank you for explaining it away for us!

[donco6]

61. And I get threatened by the EPA for missing a deadline on my stormwater report.

I have a parking lot with three drains that run into the Platte River. When I was out with my cancer surgery, I missed filing the required stormwater drain report (you have to describe your education program as to how you're training people to not dump nasty things down the drain). I got a nastygram today from the state demanding it be filed by Sept 3 or ELSE!

I wish I were a big national corporation where I could just say FUCK YOU! and get away with it.

[dem mba]

67. I don't get it

since when did the Executive branch tell the Judicial branch what to do?

[LiberalAndProud]

71. It seems that the administration landed on the middle ground.

Richard Faulk, chairman of the environmental practice at Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP, said industry groups want the Supreme Court to review and overturn the 2nd Circuit's decision, but they would be fairly content if the justices followed the administration's suggestions.

"So far, the petitioners haven't asked that the case be remanded back, but it's hard for me to imagine that anyone would be really disappointed if the Supreme Court decided to do that," Faulk said. "People would like to see the case reversed, but having it sent back for further deliberation is certainly a better result than having the result affirmed."


http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/25/25greenwire-obama-admin-urges-supreme-court-to-vacate-gree-42072.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1282878003-NMiQr1f+JX6gCwkBQHyZzA

[Recovered Repug]

72. So what level of chess are we up to? nt

[nashville_brook]

84. i think we're playing dodge ball now.

[amborin]

74. Unions learned the lesson early on: EFCA was gutted & ignored

[mitchtv]

145. the wolves learned soon enough also

along with the Gays and now seniors

[Kringle]

78. state vs. state extortion ,nt

[Joe Fields]

80. One of the reasons I did not support Obama early on, in the primaries,

was because of the Excelon scandal in Illinois. It proved to me that he clearly was influenced by big business and their very influential political contributions.

[Lorien]

83. He will never get my support again

no money, no months of volunteering, and NO VOTE!

[Lorien]

81. So Obama bows to the billionaire Koch brothers while fucking over the very

people who helped to get him elected. Talk about "loving thy enemy" (though it's become apparent that they aren't adversaries after all).

[Usrename]

85. IBTL

[Peacetrain]

87. Who the heck is AmericanBlog.. and the Sierra Club..

http://green.tmcnet.com/topics/green/articles/50701-analysis-president-obamas-new-green-stimulus-law.htm


“This is a historic and unprecedented investment in clean energy, green jobs and green infrastructure,” is how Melinda Pierce, Sierra Club’s lead advocate for the bill and Deputy Director of National Campaigns reacted to the bill. “This monumental bill revolutionizes our government’s approach to clean energy and will finally transform our economy into something that works for the 21st century. With these investments and incentives in clean energy, efficiency and smarter infrastructure, we will be able to literally rebuild the American economy in a way that not only creates jobs but sets us on the path to a clean energy future.”

[Bluebear]

96. You're quoting something a year and a half old? Well, nothing surprises me.

[Peacetrain]

97. Well you have no links.. what is Americanblog?.. you could be making

these statements up out of thin air.. at least I have links and solid numbers.. you on the other hand.. well nothing surprises me either..

[Occulus]

106. It's AmericaBlog, not "AmericanBlog"

and it's fairly well-known. Enough so to be known by name.

http://www.americablog.com/

I find it amazing that you don't know that. It's not as though we don't link to it here on DU...

[Bluebear]

138. I'm SURE she tried to google it and was just spelling it wrong.

Oh, wait, I don't think that happened. :toast:

[Bluebear]

137. Gee, I forgot a link. No, I didn't make this all up "out of thin air" lololol

Here you are, darling, the original link:

http://www.americablog.com/2010/08/enviros-feel-stabbed-in-back-over.html

and the New York Times' GREENWIRE where the quotes came from:

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/25/25greenwire-obama-admin-urges-supreme-court-to-vacate-gree-42072.html

You're welcome.

[LaurenG]

90. What was the reason for this?

Corporations must survive at any expense? This absolutely sucks...again!

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

94. It's just like FDR and his "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself" insult.

He just threw the entire coward community under the bus.

[mkultra]

95. of course...here is what was left out of the "liberal" blog.

from the NYT article:

In a brief (pdf) filed yesterday on behalf of the Tennessee Valley Authority, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal agreed with the defendants, saying that U.S. EPA's newly finalized regulations on greenhouse gases have displaced that type of common-law claim.

Katyal urged the court to vacate the decision and remand the case to the 2nd Circuit for further proceedings, this time taking into account the administration's push to regulate greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act.

The 2nd Circuit's decision rested on the assertion that "EPA does not currently regulate carbon dioxide," but that has since changed. The Obama administration has finalized several regulations in response to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which told the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

"Since this court held in 2007 that carbon dioxide falls within that regulatory authority, EPA has taken several significant steps toward addressing the very question presented here," Katyal wrote. "That regulatory approach is preferable to what would result if multiple district courts -- acting without the benefit of even the most basic statutory guidance -- could use common-law nuisance claims to sit as arbiters of scientific and technology-related disputes and de facto regulators of power plants and other sources of pollution both within their districts and nationwide."

[MaeScott]

99. Remanded to 2nd Circuit? Use the Clean Air Act? This is

Not included in the post..

Hmmm

[mkultra]

123. its a conflict between teh 2nd circuit and the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA

The EPA now has regulatory power to punish polluters.

[scheming daemons]

100. yawn.. what a surprise... bluebear finds a new way to bash Obama

...

[glinda]

103. We need to replace every Dem with environmentalist Dems.

[blindpig]

104. The mainstream enviro orgs are fools.

All of their prognostication, all of their efforts, are posited on the premise of capitalist society. Thing is, environmental conservation has no place in capitalism unless a buck can be made on it. Do we want all of nature commodified? With it's insatiable need for profit it is Capitalism which is the primary cause of environmental woe, to want to 'save the earth' with Capitalism in place is tilting at windmills.

The reason for this blind spot is that environmental organizations are largely the domain of the upper class, there are millions of people greatly concerned with the environment but a wealthy minority runs the show, sets the parameters. Sound familiar?

So now when Capital, as represented by the DOJ, kicks their half-assed schemes to the curb cause it will respect no limits, their feelings are hurt...'shoulda known, it was a snake'.

There is a certain arrogance exhibited by these elites run orgs when it comes to other, less well-heeled humans, they know best. Thus indigenous people have been forcibly removed from their homelands for nature preserves,'market based' solutions weigh most heavily upon those who can least afford it. This is no way to 'make friends and influence people', indeed, this is a fine way to have people reject environmentalism. These people must choose, their class interests or nature and humanity

[truedelphi]

105. A lot of us agricultural-based environmentalists were stunned by the Kagan

Nomination. She is a Monsanto team player and that is most important, as the Supreme Court is the one recourse that we consumers have left as protection against the coming Famine from The GMO Food stuffs.

This new info just adds to the many proofs that there has

never been a CorpoRATist notion, game plan, and/or
cloned individual as appointee,
that Obama doesn't support.

[JDPriestly]

108. That seals it. Obama should not even try to run for a second term.

This is just awful!!!!

[MaeScott]

110. Another Dem bashing diary. Ho hum. nt

[AnArmyVeteran]

113. How many stabs in the back can the citizenry take before it dies???

At least under Bush we expected it. But it looks like Bush's knife has Obama's fingerprints all over it.

[Deep13]

115. Betrayal over the single most vital issue of our time...

...and perhaps of all time.

I can only hope there is aprimary challenger.

[ProfessionalLeftist]

116. Well they are certainly not alone. n/t

[earth mom]

117. Gore 2012. This country and planet needs him now more than ever. nt

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

126. Al Gore supports Obama, and his environmental policies.

:nopity:

[katandmoon]

143. Al Gore certainly did not support Obama's offshore drilling plans.

:nopity:

[mckara]

130. The Earth is Doomed Until Americans Worship More Than the Dollar!

[Divine Discontent]

147. in societal terms - truer words were never spoken

[pezDispenser]

131. some good can come of this

We here at DU should now have a common enemy again. And we didn't even have to vote republican!

[meowomon]

136. I wonder if Obama is still a Democrat sometimes

I am so disgusted.

[tavalon]

146. DLC, third way, new Democrat otherwise known as old Republican

Not batshit crazy but not Democrat either, IMO.

[katandmoon]

142. And the Obama betrayals keep a-comin'.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

144. There's more to this than what appears in the OP...

"The 2nd Circuit's decision rested on the assertion that "EPA does not currently regulate carbon dioxide," but that has since changed. The Obama administration has finalized several regulations in response to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, which told the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases were pollutants under the Clean Air Act.

"Since this court held in 2007 that carbon dioxide falls within that regulatory authority, EPA has taken several significant steps toward addressing the very question presented here," Katyal wrote. "That regulatory approach is preferable to what would result if multiple district courts -- acting without the benefit of even the most basic statutory guidance -- could use common-law nuisance claims to sit as arbiters of scientific and technology-related disputes and de facto regulators of power plants and other sources of pollution both within their districts and nationwide."

http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/08/25/25greenwire-obama-admin-urges-supreme-court-to-vacate-gree-42072.html