A18
R
KLMNO
FGHIJ A clean-energy start
an independent newspaper EDITORIALS
S Majority Leader Harry Reid’s modest bill lays some useful groundwork.
ENATE MAJORITY Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) intends to bring an energy bill to the Senate floor the week of July 26. It will feature four key elements — a response to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill,
promotion of energy efficiency, a boost for clean- energy production and a cap on carbon emis- sions from power plants. This is not ideal, but it would be a useful start. The carbon dioxide released into the atmos- phere by burning fossil fuels adds to the green- house effect that threatens to bring destructive changes to the planet. Decreasing those emis- sions demands innovation — the development of greener and cheaper sources of energy such as wind, solar and nuclear power — and the use of economic incentives to wean industries off cheap coal and oil. To provide such an incentive, we have has long favored putting a price on car- bon, either (most simply) with a gradually rising tax or with a cap-and-trade system. By gradually
Guantanamo
as haven? Six Algerian detainees don’t want to go home.
T IS NOT EVERY day that detainees attempt to block their own release from the U.S. Na- val Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. But that is what six Algerians who have been held at the prison for some eight years are trying to do. Judge Gladys Kessler of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia cleared the detain- ees for release late last year, but she put the re- lease on hold after the United States indicated that it planned to send them to their native country. The men fear that in Algeria they would face abuse, torture or worse at the hands of the government or militant Islamic groups. They say they are willing to go to a third country or to stay in Guantanamo for years rather than return. The Obama administration notes that it has
I
repatriated other Algerian detainees without in- cident and that it expects the same results in this case. It also argues that while the judiciary has the power to order release, it has no authority to interfere with the executive’s decisions on where to send detainees. A decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed with the government. The Algerians appear to have no other re- course, given that Congress has forbidden de- tainees from applying for asylum or seeking refugee status. Last week, the D.C. Circuit lifted the hold on the Algerian repatriation; the de- tainees have since asked the Supreme Court to block their transfer to allow them to fully make their case before an independent federal judge. The court should do so. The Convention Against Torture — to which
the United States is a signatory — forbids repa- triation if it is “more likely than not” that indi- viduals will be tortured. Algeria’s shoddy human rights record has been well documented by non- governmental organizations. Daniel Fried, the special envoy in charge of de- tainee affairs, has offered an affidavit attesting
increasing the cost to companies of the carbon dioxide they produce, the United States can gen- erate revenue and marshal market forces to en- courage businesses to invest in greener technol- ogy. To this end, even a limited cap — like the one on utilities emissions proposed in the Senate bill — is better than none. Once a structure is in place, a cap can be expanded to encompass more industries and adjusted to drive innovation in the right direction. Moreover, power generation is the right indus-
try to target: Power plants account for 40 per- cent of all U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, and many utilities already have gotten on board with the concept of a cap. Rather than simply oppos- ing the cap out of hand, as many have in the past, Republicans should help make sure that it works sensibly. Much will hinge on how the carbon al- lowances are allocated. The best model would auction the allowances and use the funds gener- ated to provide rebates to consumers and en-
courage research and development of improved green technologies. Such a model would make the measure more palatable to taxpayers and drive more responsible energy use. Some utili- ties already are lobbying Congress, in exchange for accepting the carbon cap, to delay or loosen Clean Air Act restrictions on other forms of pol- lution, including smog and mercury poisoning. That’s a bad deal. Fixing the long-term problem of carbon emissions should not come at the cost of worsening short-term environmental problems. The Reid proposal is less ambitious than the stillborn bipartisan attempt of Sens. John F. Ker- ry (D-Mass.), Joseph I. Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), and far less ambi- tious than the Waxman-Markey bill passed by the House. But in the current economic and po- litical climate, it offers a reasonable compromise that could lay the groundwork for a sensible car- bon policy.
TOM TOLES
FRIDAY, JULY 16, 2010
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
dletters@washpost.com
Americans want clean energy
The July 12 front-page article “Climate debate un- moved by spill” needs clarification. While The Post’s poll numbers show a slight de- cline in public support for clean-energy policy since June 2009, this support has consistently remained above 50 percent in the past year — a remarkable number given the hundreds of millions of advertis- ing dollars the energy industry and big oil have spent in their relentless effort to keep America ad- dicted to their dirty fuels. The momentum is growing to create more clean
energy and to end offshore drilling. The writers list- ed three Sierra Club events showing this trend, in which more than 100,000 people participated. These unified citizens merely reflect the vastly
greater number of Americans who want action now to stop climate change. It’s time for Congress and the administration to listen to the American people. We want a clean- energy economy that boosts growth, creates good jobs and fights the causes of climate disruption. MICHAEL BRUNE, San Francisco
The writer is executive director of the Sierra Club.
The Senate has not acted on global warming for
several reasons, but not because of scant public ap- proval. Contrary to the July 12 front-page story, pub- lic support for action on climate change remains strong. The Post’s own June poll found that 71 per- cent favor action to “regulate the release of green- house gases” — an increase since your poll in De- cember. Americans clearly want investments in clean-energy jobs and to slash climate pollution. Whether 60 senators listen, or 41 follow big oil, is the real question.
DANIEL J. WEISS,Washington
The author is a senior fellow and director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress.
Silence on Venezuela’s repression
Jackson Diehl rightly highlights the ordeal of Guil- lermo Zuloaga, owner of Venezuela’s last opposition TV station, and notes the protest by Frank La Rue, the United Nations’ free-speech monitor [“Defying Chávez’s iron fist,” op-ed, July 12]. Tragically, Mr. La Rue’s stand against abuses by the regime of Hugo Chávez has been the exception at the world body. The 47-nation U.N. Human Rights Council to which Mr. La Rue must report — dominated by dicta- torships such asChina, Cuba and Libya — has turned a blind eye to Mr. Chávez’s trampling of basic human rights and due process. Instead, in one of its few reso- lutions not condemning Israel, the council last year endorsed ousted Honduran president Manuel Ze- laya, reportedly a beneficiary of Mr. Chávez’s oil mon- ey and private jets. Last month, the council unani- mously elected another Chávez ally, ex-Sandinista Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, as one of its advisers. Which is all the more reason the United States and the European Union must embolden the few U.N. voices willing to defy this authoritarianism. The international community should demand that Ven- ezuela accept Mr. La Rue’s request to visit and inves- tigate. As the space for free expression shrinks at alarming speed, unflinching solidarity with Ven- ezuela’s courageous dissidents is crucial. HILLELC. NEUER, Geneva
The writer is executive director of UN Watch. Arizona’s immigration debate Regarding Wade Henderson and Janet Murguia’s
to the administration’s belief that it would be safe to send the men back home. There is every reason to believe that this assessment was made in good faith, and it may very well be accurate. Moreover, the judiciary generally has no busi- ness second-guessing the political and policy prerogatives of the executive, especially in the foreign policy arena. The government’s asser- tions and prerogatives must be given significant
weight and should be accepted unless the Algeri- ans present clear, convincing and particularized evidence that the administration’s calculations are wrong. But given the sordid history of Guan- tanamo, including a record of claims by the ex- ecutive branch that have melted away when test- ed in court, the administration should not be given the exclusive right to determine these men’s fate.
A victory for fairness In upholding same-sex marriage, D.C. appeals court secures a win for all minority groups.
and Ethics is likely to have significance far beyond the realm of gay rights. In a 5 to 4 ruling, the court held that the D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics was right to block a voter initiative sponsored by Bishop Harry R. Jackson Jr. and other opponents of same-sex mar- riage that would have allowed District residents to vote on the definition of marriage. The initia- tive was intended to nullify the D.C. Council’s de- cision to sanction same-sex marriages by requir- ing that only unions between one man and one woman would be legally recognized. The appeals court essentially ruled that theRev.
T
HE D.C. COURT of Appeals on Thursday provided an important and welcome vic- tory for same-sex marriage. But its deci- sion in Jackson v. D.C. Board of Elections
Jackson has a right to his opinion but that he and others do not have a right to force on the District an initiative that would have codified discrimina- tion. “The initiative . . . would take away from those individuals a civil right that the Council has seen fit to recognize and expressly allow,” the five- judge majority concluded. This simple and just conclusion is estimable, but it is the manner in which the court ruled that is worthy of note. The court held that no initiative could be placed before voters if it contravenes the District’s Human Rights Act, which prohibits dis- crimination on the basis of race, sex, religion and sexual orientation, among other things. This hold- ing is likely to resonate for some time to come and protect all manner of minority groups from hav- ing their civil rights stripped at the ballot box.
Opponents of same-sex marriage have not giv- en up and are contemplating an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices rarely take up legal matters that affect only the District; indeed, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. declined this year to block implementation of the District’s same-sex marriage law, noting that it “has been the practice of the Court to defer to the decisions of the courts of the District of Columbia on matters of exclu- sively local concern.” This contrasts with the D.C. gun case, which involved a question about the Second Amendment on which federal appeals courts across the country had disagreed. There is no constitutional issue of national import or cir- cuit split in the Jackson case. The court should de- cline to hear the matter and respect the District’s right to home rule.
July 12 op-ed, “Arizona’s strikeout”: In calling for Major League Baseball Commis- sioner Bud Selig to move the 2011 All-Star Game from Phoenix, Mr. Henderson and Ms. Murguia point out that baseball is a diverse game, with roughly one-third of its rosters made up of African Americans and Latinos. The situation is similar in Phoenix, where 40 percent of our population is Latino.
But you punish all of us when you boycott Ari-
zona. The Arizona of S.B. 1070 isn’t the only Ari- zona. S.B. 1070 is not the big-hearted state trying to strengthen a struggling economy, encourage di- versity and fight an overbroad, potentially dis- criminatory law. That Arizona, intensely commit- ted to justice, needs your help, not your deaf ear and scorn.
Arizona was the second state to elect a Hispanic
governor and the first state to pass a Martin Luther King Jr. holiday at the polls. Every March, our city celebrates Cesar Chavez’s birthday not only with a paid holiday but also with a day of service citywide. Don’t punish the many for the decisions of a few. PHILGORDON, Phoenix
The writer is the mayor of Phoenix.
LOCAL OPINIONS 3Join the debate at
washingtonpost.com/localopinions
The D.C. Council didn’t use a flawed study of lead in water Regarding the July 4 Local Opinions com-
mentary “CDC must do more to respond to the D.C. lead cover-up”:
Authors Dana Best and Marc Edwards as-
serted that a flawed study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was “used by the D.C. Council to justify the elimination of all water-related language from the bill it passed to prevent lead poisoning.” This is simply wrong. Neither Dr. Best nor Mr. Edwards was in- volved in the deliberations, in which I took part, that led to passage of that landmark law. Under the leadership of council member Jim Graham (D-Ward 1), a group of building owners, scien- tists, advocates, policymakers and others worked to achieve consensus on the 2008 lead- poisoning prevention law. The CDC findings about lead in D.C. drinking water were never
discussed in our deliberations because the 2008 lead-poisoning prevention law targeted build- ing owners’ responsibilities, not because any- one believed that lead in water was unimpor- tant. The District’s law aimed at preventing lead poisoning is well-reasoned and practical and is proving effective. Dr. Best and Mr. Edwards do a disservice to D.C. residents by looking back- ward instead of forward. The critical step to protecting children in the District and across the country from lead in drinking water is tight- ening the Environmental Protection Agency’s regulations and safety thresholds. DAVID JACOBS,Washington
The writer is the chairman of the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Advisory Committee to the D.C. Department of the Environment.
ABCDE
EUGENE MEYER, 1875-1959 • PHILIP L. GRAHAM, 1915-1963 KATHARINE GRAHAM, 1917-2001
BOISFEUILLET JONES JR., Chairman KATHARINE WEYMOUTH, Publisher and Chief Executive Officer News pages:
MARCUS W. BRAUCHLI Executive Editor
RAJU NARISETTI, Managing Editor ELIZABETH SPAYD, Managing Editor
SHIRLEY CARSWELL Deputy Managing Editor
Editorial and opinion pages: FRED HIATT
Deputy Editorial Page Editor
STEPHEN P. HILLS, President and General Manager KENNETH R. BABBY, Chief Revenue Officer/GM, Digital
Vice Presidents
ROGER ANDELIN ......................................................................................... Technology BENJAMIN C. BRADLEE .................................................................................... At Large USHA CHAUDHARY..................................................................... Finance & Admin/CFO JAMES W. COLEY JR. ......................................................................................Production L. WAYNE CONNELL ......................................................................... Human Resources LEONARD DOWNIE JR. ...................................................................................... At Large WENDY EVANS ............................................................................................. Advertising GREGG J. FERNANDES .................................................................................Circulation JOHN B. KENNEDY ............................................................................................... Labor ERIC N. LIEBERMAN ......................................................................................... Counsel CHRISTOPHER MA ................................................................................... Development STEVE STUP ..................................................................................... Digital Advertising
1150 15th St. NW, Washington, D.C. 20071 (202) 334-6000
The Washington Post Company: DONALD E. GRAHAM, Chairman of the Board
d Business and advertising:
Editorial Page Editor JACKSON DIEHL
Regarding the July 7 editorial “Suing Arizona”: The Post editorial board certainly has the right to promote a “pathway to citizenship” for illegal im- migrants. It is regrettable, however, that its pages have never contained a balanced view of the pros and cons of approaches to addressing illegal immi- gration; or mentioned that The Post’s favored ap- proach was tried in 1986 and totally failed. Three million people were legalized, and now we are deal- ing with 12 million illegal residents. What is really objectionable in The Post’s editorials is their consis- tent pejorative labeling of those holding different views. This editorial infers that the Arizona law may be “reprehensible and shortsighted” and notes that “xenophobia and fear-mongering” are the main reasons hindering passage of another 1986- like bill. Other Post articles have referred to “rac- ism” and “nativism” as the driving forces behind op- position to the current bill. An objective analysis of this issue can quickly identify powerful reasons for not repeating a failed policy — and for not reward- ing illegal behavior. The Post needs to better perform its public duty of presenting all sides of an issue, encourage honest debate based on facts and avoid the blanket deni- gration of those who hold opposing views. WILLARD SHAW, Derwood
Letters can be sent to
letters@washpost.com.
Submissions must be exclusive to The Post and should include the writer’s address and day and evening telephone numbers. Letters are subject to editing and abridgment. Please do not send letters as attachments. Because of the volume of material we receive, we are unable to acknowledge submissions; writers whose letters are under consideration for publication will be contacted.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116