Stuart Staniford over at Oil Drum offers some predictions for 2006 that are worth reading. I think he really lost his nerve here, though: Civilization Collapse, Rapture, Alien invasion, etc. I estimate the probability of any of these events in 2006 as being negligibly small. Aw, c'mon! More willing to predict The End, as always, is the indefatigable Jim Kunstler, who thinks 2006 ...
As political junkies know, Grover Norquist -- a major player in the Republican establishment -- holds weekly breakfast meetings, attended by everybody-who's-anybody on the right. This is where much of the famed "message coordination" happens. It would take a brave Democrat to venture into that lion's den. I guess Al Gore is brave (stupid? foolhardy? running for president?). He attended last week's meeting to give a version of his basic PowerPoint presentation on global warming. According to Steve Hayward's account (via Ezra), Gore was charming and the presentation was impressive, but the Q&A session failed to dazzle. What bugs me about Hayward's post is this:
The stereotypical environmental debate is between people who favor "command and control" regulation (big government) and those who favor market mechanisms (small government). Democrats and most environmentalists are thought to be on one side, Republicans and "free market" environmentalists on the other. This is a woefully imprecise and outdated way of describing the current political landscape. It's a large and complex topic, too much to chew over in one blog post. But Kevin Drum, writing on an unrelated subject, nails perhaps the most salient fact: One of the underreported stories of the past few years is the evolution of the Republican Party from being the party of capitalism and free enterprise to being merely the party of whichever business interests can help Republicans get reelected. There's a big difference between being pro-market and being pro-business -- in fact, they're often diametrically opposed ....
Deb Callahan, 10-year president of the League of Conservation Voters, announced today that she is resigning.
Some folks -- take, for instance, me -- have argued that the whole hubbub over "foreign oil" is a bit of a red herring. Generally speaking, energy commodities are fungible, sold on the world market. If one producer (say, Saudi Arabia) suddenly refuses to sell to us, they'll just sell to someone else, and we can buy from that someone else. If we've got the money, eventually we'll get the oil. (The world's declining oil and natural gas reserves are, of course, a problem, but there's no need to add the sheen of xenophobia, however satisfying.) Others -- for instance, Bart in comments -- argue that as energy reserves decline, those who have oil and natural gas will start using them as political weapons. In effect, their political value will exceed their economic value. (And since the U.S. has much domestic demand and little domestic supply, we'll be screwed.) Right now the discussion is mostly theoretical, but in the past week we've had a bit of a test case. As you may have heard, Russia cut off natural gas supplies to the Ukraine. Supposedly, the move was a response to Ukraine's refusal to sign a new contract and pay much higher, Western-Europe-style prices. (Ukraine wants a three-month phase in of new prices.) But the subtext is political: Russia is ticked off about the Orange Revolution and Ukraine's desire to join the E.U. and NATO. While Ukraine is being asked to suddenly pay $230/cubic meter (up from $50), the more Russia-friend Belarus pays just $47/cubic meter. The U.S. State Department said this:
Here's a nifty little guide to setting up your Prius as an emergency power supply for your house. (via BB)
Consider: President Bush argues that we are at war (against "terror"), that the war will go in indefinitely, and that he alone decides what constitutes a cessation of conflict. President Bush argues that the executive branch has what amounts to absolute power on matters of national security during wartime, irrespective of statute and without Congressional oversight. President Bush argues that making the U.S. independent of "foreign oil" is an issue of national security. President Bush argues that drilling in the Arctic Refuge could help make the U.S. independent of foreign oil. Given the above, why can't Bush just decree that the Arctic Refuge will be opened to drilling?
This screed by George Monbiot is mostly directed at a particular set of UK organizations, but it contains worthy insights with broader application:
I once claimed that environmental humor is never funny. But Will Ferrell as President Bush, speaking on global warming? Kinda funny. (via EE)