Lest you start feeling twinges of fondness for Republican moderates thanks to their recent move to save the Arctic Refuge, remember that a) they've been totally passive in the face of five years of monstrosities, and b) the very legislation they've stripped refuge drilling out of itself remains a monstrosity. Sam Rosenfeld puts it well: The House leadership's decision to rescind the ANWR drilling measure from the reconciliation bill is being spun as a sign of the new power of the erstwhile pitiful Republican moderates. There's a tiny bit of truth to that. But really, the fact that enough of them are now saying explicitly that removing that provision is sufficient to ensure the bill's passage is more pathetic than impressive. The ANWR provision is in the Senate version of the spending bill; leadership assurances to the House moderates that the measure won't return in a conference report should be taken with a grain of salt. Much more importantly, the rest of the bill is nearly unchanged, and is loaded with atrocities that moderate Republicans have spent plenty of time wringing their hands over but show little inclination to take action against. This is another example of what I was talking about yesterday: For some reason it's become safe or convenient for righties to start making concessions or taking stands on the environment. But this budget reconciliation bill still contains drastic spending cuts for kids and poor people. Do greens stand down now that they got what they wanted? Or do they continue to fight on behalf of other elements of the progressive coalition?
What's with the editorial writers at the New York Times and the Washington Post? What does it take for political reality to sink in? An unsigned NYT editorial bashing Bush on global warming -- particularly for his opposition to mandatory emissions limits -- says this: Meanwhile, Mr. Bush's staunch and patient friend, Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, has once again - this time in The Observer - appealed to the president to join in a global effort to limit greenhouse gases. Well, not exactly. Blair's Observer editorial is notable precisely because it marks his rather conspicuous break from the Kyoto (read: mandatory emission limits) crowd. He's pleading with Bush to join a worldwide effort to develop clean-energy technology. His "staunch and patient" friendship continues to consist entirely of him attempting to accommodate Bush in exchange for ... nothing. The WaPo editorial board thinks, well gosh, here's the chance Bush has been looking for to abandon his retrograde position on climate change and hop aboard the multilateral train: What is clear is that Mr. Blair's initiative offers an excellent opening for Mr. Bush. The president, who has benefited from Mr. Blair's support, should say he supports the prime minister's initiative, wants to leave the Kyoto dispute behind and is ready to address climate change issues, actively and enthusiastically, in an international forum once again. They argue earnestly that this is the right thing to do, because climate science has made it indisputable that warming is a problem. Bush should reciprocate Blair's friendship. He should join a multilateral agreement. He should admit he's been wrong about climate change. Meanwhile, back on planet earth ...
I keep meaning to say something about this excellent NYT op-ed on mountaintop-removal mining, but I never seem to have time, so ... just go read it.
It is amusing to watch Republican senators trapped between their two main constituencies: the oil industry and, uh, their constituents. Voters are pissed about high gas prices and home-heating costs, and they can't help but notice that oil companies are swimming in huge piles of cash. Of course Republicans aren't going to do anything that might offend the oil industry, but they need to look like they're doing something. What's the answer? A hearing! So they drag five oil executives to Congress. The results defy parody. Virtually every paragraph of this Reuters story is a masterpiece of black humor. It begins: Under fire for high fuel prices, five major oil companies on Wednesday warned the U.S. Senate against levying a windfall profits tax and showed little interest in donating money to help poor Americans pay winter heating bills. Well, that should set voters' minds at ease! But it immediately gets even better:
It strikes me that Wal-Mart and Arnold Schwarzenegger are doing something similar: trying to peel eco-activists off from the larger progressive coalition. And while two data points don't exactly make a trend, it's something greens should be pondering. Consider: Wal-Mart recently announced some high-profile and fairly substantial sustainability reforms. Meanwhile, as this collection of Alternet coverage amply demonstrates, they continue to screw workers, bust unions, skimp on health care, and drive out local businesses. Somewhere in some boardroom, the calculation was obviously made that the company could afford some sustainability, and that it would help deflect activist attention, but that other reforms would cut too deep into the bottom line. Schwarzenegger, meanwhile, has not been perfect on green issues, but has presided over some remarkably forward-thinking reforms, most notably California's landmark auto-emissions limits. Yet, as Kevin Drum points out, for the most part he's been a "standard issue business-pandering Republican." Of course, Wal-Mart is getting bashed now more than ever, and Arnold's very expensive slate of state initiatives just got crushed, so the strategy doesn't seem to be working. But still, it's something to think about: If environmentalists get what they want (or at least some of it), should they overlook egregious misconduct in the areas of, say, labor and healthcare? How strongly do greens stand with the progressive coalition?
The Kansas Board of Education has hit on an innovative way to stop the abuse of science: They just passed new science-curriculum standards that "rewrite the definition of science, holding that it no longer is limited to searching for natural explanations for natural phenomena."
Last week, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) introduced to the Congressional record a Resolution of Inquiry (H. Res. 515), cosigned by around 150 House Democrats, "demanding that the White House submit to Congress all documents in their possession relating to the anticipated effects of climate change on the coastal regions of the United States." (Press release; PDF of the resolution.) The idea, according to InsideEPA.com (as quoted by Roger Pielke Jr. -- I don't have the required subscription), is to put pressure on moderate Republicans, who are increasingly coming around on the climate-change issue. Observers say the ROI will present House Science Committee Chairman SHERWOOD BOEHLERT (R-NY), Rep. VERNON EHLERS (R-MI) and Rep. WAYNE GILCHREST (R-MD) with a critical choice between siding with their party in deflecting attention from the president's climate policies and their environmental records, which have won them praise and endorsements from environmental groups. Their decisions on the matter may prove crucial during their 2006 primaries, where at least one is expected to face a tough fight against a more conservative GOP candidate. What to make of this?
This is the second part of a two-part essay by Jason Scorse, Assistant Professor of International Policy Studies at the Monterey Institute of International Studies. Go here to read an introduction and part one. ----- Does this mean private property rights solve everything? Of course not; however, the worst forms of environmental abuse generally occur in areas where property rights and markets are non-existent, or where the market is distorted by perverse subsidies that encourage over-exploitation. Even with enforceable property rights and a solid system of environmental accounting, markets are not perfect and are subject to unintended consequences. Global warming presents a particularly difficult challenge. The atmosphere is the world's preeminent open access resource, and exclusion is impossible. Some of the solutions currently being discussed for long-term climate management are enforceable limits on greenhouse gas emissions through a system of tradable atmospheric pollution permits. While some environmentalists oppose pollution permits on the grounds that they establish a "right to pollute," all industrial activities require some level of greenhouse-gas pollution and tradable permits may provide both the cheapest and most equitable way of achieving targeted reductions (big greenhouse polluters like the U.S. would likely end up buying credits from less-polluting nations). One concern many people express regarding private property is that resources that typically were free or available at little cost to almost everyone are now being "commodified." Common examples include water and botanical genetic resources. While we can all agree that everyone should have access to clean drinking water, the fact is that billions of people, for a variety of reasons, do not. Sometimes the water has been contaminated, the aquifers have been depleted, regions have suffered droughts, or the public agency in charge is corrupt. In addition, water purification and delivery are extremely expensive and entail complex systems of infrastructure and maintenance. Privatization of water systems in many instances can bring much needed capital into areas that lack infrastructure and actually improve people's access to clean water, including the poor. There are other instances where privatization has led to large rate increases and lower levels of access. The appropriate response is to ask why privatization has worked well in some areas and not in others, not to condemn it across the board. (Consider: food is also necessary for life, but no one is waging a battle against farmers who happen to be in the private business of bringing food to your table.)
I knew some cool stuff was going on down in San Francisco, but this report from Clean Edge is pretty amazing. Apparently, when mayor Gavin Newsom said last year that he wanted to implement Clean Edge's recommendations, he wasn't kidding. Joel Makower reports on the past year's progress: The Mayor has named a clean-tech manager, Jennifer Entine-Matz, to coordinate citywide clean-tech initiatives, market and execute San Francisco's clean-tech business attraction strategy, and work with the new advisory council. The Board of Supervisors last month approved a payroll tax exemption for qualified clean-tech companies doing business in San Francisco. Several city agencies are working to create a fast-track permitting program for new commercial buildings that meet the LEED green-building standards. The Mayor recently signed the Precautionary Purchasing Ordinance, which creates a comprehensive system for the city to identify, purchase, and use environmentally preferable products. San Francisco is the first city in the U.S. to adopt an ordinance of this kind. There's plenty more -- check out Joel's post and the report. Looks like San Fran is on track to become the country's greenest city, and Newsom is on track to become one of my political heroes.