Blog Archives

The Obama administration seems to think "climate change" is too divisive to mention, but underwriting clean energy tech? That's bipartisan.

Surprisingly, conservative commentators didn't seem to buy it. Why? Government intervention, absent a large-scale emergency, goes against basic conservative philosophy. All they see is needless government intervention into energy technology, and they have a point. Absent climate change, where is the urgency?

Some of you might not know it, but I was born and raised in the great state of Alaska. In good old Anchorage, Alaska, there isn’t a lot of sun. Sometimes, local residents find themselves staring hopefully into the sky at a small spot of blue. Up north, we refer to that small patch as a “sucker hole.” Why? Because it doesn’t mean the sun is coming out, and believing anything else makes you a sucker.

A little snow and record low temperatures aren’t enough to keep Coloradans from coming together in homes, churches, and cafes across the state to build 1Sky action teams and plan rallies to defend the Clean Air Act. We know that the snowfall and fluctuating temperatures are all part of the climate crisis, and that our children’s futures are threatened. But we aren’t just going to sit around and talk about it; we are going to get to work.

The latest attacks on the Clean Air Act are not about policy or even politics; they're about corruption, plain and simple.

We see these attacks coming from both Republicans and Democrats, but nearly all of them are coming from lawmakers who have received large infusions of cash or pressure from big polluters like the coal industry.