Uncategorized

The Spirit is Willing, But the Fest is (Two) Weeks

Grist staff takes semiannual, semi-deserved break; readers mourn While most of you have already trundled out the grill and scooped the beetles out of your pool, Grist staffers haven’t yet tasted summer. In fact, we’ve been perched on stools at the pun assembly line for the last six months — and our backs are starting […]

The Supreme Court has expanded eminent domain to the point of absurdity and invited corruption.

I was just getting ready to write a long and involved post on Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court decision extending eminent domain, when lo, Andy beat me to it. So I'll try to keep it short (for that, Andy, our readers thank you.)

I do not share Andy's ambivalence. I think it's a terrible thing. I'm all for eminent domain, but this is ridiculous. Kelo crosses a fairly bright line for me and gets my nascent libertarian instincts all fired up.

More below the fold.

Supreme Court extends eminent domain powers

If I had an adamant opinion about the Supreme Court's decision today to extend eminent domain by determining that "economic development" qualifies as "public use" and its implications for city planning, I would certainly be posting that right now. But it's only been about eight hours since they released their opinion, and if I could come up with a well thought out opinion on such a complicated issue that fast, I'd probably be on the Court itself. I have been further convinced that these are nine of the smartest and most well-read people on the planet, though.

So instead of that adament and definitive opinion, I'll just outline some of the issues I was thinking about as I read through Stevens' opinion and the dissenting remarks of O'Connor and Thomas. (Kennedy also wrote a concurring opinion.)

I'll do it below the fold though.

The latest editorial on climate change at the Wall Street Journal is a sign of desperation.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page -- in contrast to their news dept., which is still top notch -- is a notorious den of hackery. So when I first read this editorial, my reaction was ... eh. It's a farrago of fusty flat-earth falsehoods. Every right-wing talking point on climate science is unimaginatively passed along, without any sign of awareness that each of them has been carefully and repeatedly debunked.

The folks over at the invaluable RealClimate have done the yeoman's work of putting together a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal. They leave the editorial a smoking pile of rubble, but if you'd like to read a few people kick it while it's down, you can check out David Appell, Media Matters, Chris Mooney, and Tim Lambert.

For my part, I more or less agree with Appell: The editorial is a sign of desperation. It's a sign that flat-earthism on climate is becoming less and less acceptable in polite circles. Note the tone of baffled umbrage:

Recall that as recently as 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution assailing Kyoto's provisions. Bill Clinton never even brought the Protocol up for a vote. But all of a sudden such limits are said to be a political "inevitability" in a Republican Senate. Energy Chairman Pete Domenici says he's open to the John McCain-Joe Lieberman mini-Kyoto, and New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman is proposing an amendment that would impose even stricter limits on fossil fuel use.

Ah, the plaintive sound of being left behind.

That would be nice, but several factors could make it unlikely.

In my more purely optimistic moments, I come close to agreeing with Marshall Brain (founder of HowStuffWorks):

As oil gets more expensive, we will replace it with less-expensive technologies in a completely natural way. Therefore, peak oil will be a non-event.

But I can't quite get there.

I share a great deal of faith in the power of markets, unlike some of my fellow-travelers, but this seems naive and flat-footed to me. Here's why:

• Oil's current market dominance in the transportation and agricultural sectors is not "completely natural." It's propped up by innumerable subsidies, tax breaks, favorable trade deals, etc., etc. -- all secured as a result of its unprecedented entanglement with the ruling class. It maybe that its unnatural market position has been propped up -- or will be propped up -- past the point when a "natural" transition will be possible.
• Brain acknowledges that, in today's market, "supply and demand for oil are almost perfectly balanced," and that any disruption on either side could cause a spike in the price of oil, but seems to brush that possibility off. Peak oil, though, will not happen in a vacuum. It will happen in a context wherein the U.S.'s general financial situation is execrable, with spiraling deficits and an aging population, propped up by Chinese bond purchases. The housing market could tank. The airline industry could go belly-up. Another terrorist attack could happen. China could bomb Taiwan. India could invade Pakistan. Point being, the oil market is not the only fragile system we rely on -- lots of them are pretty fragile right now. A few disruptions could cause a mutually reinforcing cycle of ... crap.
• We live in a global marketplace. "Natural" market transitions involve winners and losers, and there's no guarantee that we might not "naturally" lose out to, say, Japan, or China.

But regardless, let's hope Brain is right.

China’s emerging car market.

Headlines this morning announced that China's state-run oil firm, the China National Offshore Oil Company, has bid US $18.5 billion for Unocal, the California-based energy company, topping Chevron's bid.

Looks like someone is anticipating a large jump in the number of cars in China; after all, only 1.2 percent of Chinese citizens owned cars in 2000, according to this Wired article. It also notes that:

The booming Chinese auto market, which grew by 76 percent in 2003, is an obvious lure. It's a market still under central control - for the moment, anyway - which means that if Beijing wants to go green, it can go in a huge way.

Guess they don't want to. Or maybe they are bidding on Unocal to turn it into a 100% renewable energy company...

Bodman on board

Good catch from Mike at GCC: U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman, in a speech before the National Petroleum Council, basically admitted the core peak oil argument -- that supply is declining and remaining reserves are going to be harder and harder to get to.

So someone in the U.S. government, at least, knows what's coming. Maybe he should chat with his colleagues.

Markets

One of my pet peeves is the argument that clean energy is inferior because it relies on government subsidies -- as though oil, coal, and nuclear simply rose to the top of the market heap through pure merit. Bullsnot.

So, in the grand blog tradition of linking to posts that agree with you, do go check out this Brad Plumer post on the ancient practice of market-gaming by industries, with a special emphasis on oil.

Subsidizing cancer

Here's your fun juxtaposition for the day.

Read this.

Then read this.

Efficiency

Jamais at WC just put up a long and fascinating post, but I warn you number-phobes -- it's got numbers. If you just want the short, sweet point, here it is:

An aggressive focus on improvements to efficiency amounting to an average of 3-4% annually over the century could mean a world where everyone can live well without risk to the climate. To say that the effect of improving the efficiency of use is dramatic is perhaps an understatement. Without it, avoiding disastrous greenhouse effects will be nearly impossible; with it, avoiding the worst-case scenarios is almost over-determined.