Uncategorized

What should I ask him?

Tomorrow (er, later today) afternoon, I'm having lunch with renowned science journalist David Quammen, author most recently of The Reluctant Mr. Darwin. (For more on Quammen and a bibliography, see here.)

Reluctant is an entry in Norton's "Great Discoveries" series, meant to be short, brisk, accessible works on topics of scientific import. It is all those things, but never cursory. It never feels dumbed down. I highly recommend it.

Also check out this interview he did with Salon. It touches on some of the animal welfare issues discussed here recently.

So, anyhoo ... what should I ask him?

NGO cozy with human-rights nightmare Burma?

The accusations in The New Republic about the Wildlife Conservation Society's cozy relationship with the government of Burma, which has one of the worst human rights records in the world, should disturb all committed environmentalists. Our goals do not exist in a vacuum and it is not alright to focus myopically on biodiversity conservation without taking into account other serious issues.

So no matter what you think about animal welfare and animal rights, I hope everyone out there will express some concern about turning a blind eye to human rights abuses in order to promote environmental goals. That's a value judgment for sure; one that I stand by wholeheartedly.

Like peanut butter and chocolate

Today, Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) took to the Senate floor to give what was billed as a "major speech" on climate change. (Full transcript here.)

Inhofe is, of course, famous for being one of the Last True Skeptics, resolutely resistant to the idea that global warming is real, much less dangerous. It is, he says, the "greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He's an implacable foe of any energy legislation that doesn't begin and end with drilling. (His latest gambit was an attempt to punish California for its recent climate legislation.)

He's also, as it happens, a budding media critic. His office at the Senate Environment Committee has taken to publicly attacking journalists who fail to demonstrate sufficient balance (a mix of truth and falsehood) and objectivity (refusal to distinguish between them).

Now, some might find nefarious motives for Inhofe's skepticism, and no doubt his indebtedness to the oil and gas industry plays some role, but veteran Inhofe-watchers realize that on this issue, he is a True Believer. Whether that is more or less scary than simple corruption I leave to the reader.

What's remarkable about this particular speech is its windy, compendious breadth. Inhofe comes off like nothing so much as an assiduous right-wing blogger who's spent hours in his Cheeto-scattered basement combing the net for every rumor, half-truth, and slander he can find, collecting them all into some half-ass database of delusion.

It's a bravura performance, though one can't help wonder when Oklahomans' more pressing concerns are being addressed.

I don't have the time or energy to refute every piece of disinformation, but here are some highlights, so you'll know what to look for the next time you discuss the subject with a conservative skeptic:

Cool

According to the Bucharest Daily News (on the cutting edge of automotive news stories -- who knew?), Nissan plans to bring plug-in hybrids to market by 2010.

Also, the California Air Resources Board ZEV Symposium, aka Electric-car-a-palooza, starts tomorrow. If Sacramento is not in your travel plans, try the webcast.

Value judgments are inescapable

In the ongoing debate (which has been great) over the extent to which environmentalism should expand beyond notions of sustainability to the welfare of individual animals, I have never once challenged the core belief that preventing species extinction is of paramount concern to all environmentalists. But once we unpack that assumption a little more, we will discover that the entire realm of environmentalism is fraught with contentious moral and value judgments.

Pretty much what you’d expect

As we speak, Sen. James Inhofe is on the floor of the Senate making a "major speech" called "Hot & Cold Media Spin: A Challenge To Journalists Who Cover Global Warming." The full transcript is not yet available, but you can see a press release with excerpts.

Or you can watch it live here.

At least at the moment, he's spouting the "it's not a problem but even if it were Kyoto wouldn't do anything because it's too weak" argument that I still fail to understand. If it's too weak, do something stronger. No?

More later.

Update: Now it's the "restricting dirty-energy development in the developing world would keep them poor forever" argument.

Update: Now he's citing Bjorn Lomborg, with whom he recently canoodled.

Update: Now he's saying global warming activism is cover for an insidious quest for global governance.

Update: Now it's the "technology is the answer, especially nukes" argument.

Update: Now it's the "scientists used to predict global cooling" argument. More on that here. In short: no they didn't.

Update: Ooh, now a cheap shot at Gore, saying he's just using global warming to get in the White House. Yeah, that makes sense.

Update: I've counted about 50 uses of the words "alarmist" and "hysteric" so far.

Update: Apparently James Hansen, legendary climate scientist, is nothing but a "political activist."

Update: Now he's attacking NYT's Andy Revkin for writing a children's book.

Update: "Balance" is slowly catching up to "alarmism" and "hysteria."

Update: Gore's An Inconvenient Truth is one of the "sickest scientific propaganda films" ever. Sick! He's quoting Richard Lindzen about the movie. For "balance," you know.

Now it's a droning recitation of alleged errors in Gore's film -- all of which have been debunked ad nauseum. Wonder if his fellow senators know that, though.

All right, I gotta go to a meeting. All I'll say is, debunking all the bullshit in this speech would require a long, long, long time. I'll be back later with the transcript.

Couldn’t get enough signatures

Well, sorry, all you third-party valorizers. The Green candidate in Pennsylvania's senate race has been booted from the ballot. He couldn't get enough legitimate signatures, even with Republicans working so hard to help him.

Why are Republicans working so hard to help him anyway? They must agree with many here that They're All the Same, and instead of accepting The Lesser of Two Evils, it's time for The System to be taken on by some Outsiders (Who Agree With Me).

Read it

Don't miss this week's op-ed in The New Yorker from Elizabeth Kolbert (Grist interview here; Field Notes from a Catastrophe review here). It's about transformers ... sorta.

It begins by looking at the president's and Congress' failure to push for stringent energy-efficiency standards for distribution transformers, the little boxes that convert current from the grid into usable juice for households:

Orrin H. Pilkey, shoreline expert, answers questions

Orrin Pilkey. What work do you do? I am a retired professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment at Duke and am still actively engaged in research and writing. The North Carolina Coastal Federation is the only environmental organization I belong to because I want to make sure my views bear the stamp of […]

Short and sweet

I've taken issue with plenty that Roger Pielke Jr. has written, but this interview in the Daily Camera strikes me as wholly sensible. (Try here if you prefer to listen.)