Uncategorized

Mallaby on Gore

The Washington Post's Sebastian Mallaby -- a member in good standing of the more-centrist-than-thou Beltway club -- thinks the Bush administration is making Al Gore look good:

Six years ago, Bush narrowly defeated Gore, apparently because voters thought he'd be a nicer guy to have a beer with. But after years of governmental bungling, of willful indifference to truth, the national mood seems to be changing. Voters have seen that nice guys can screw up. And technocrats with diagrams and charts have never seemed so interesting.

Elite opinion, which was so devastating to Gore's 2000 campaign, seems squarely behind him this time around.

Update [2006-5-22 15:28:21 by David Roberts]: Via Kevin Drum, Margaret Carlson makes a similar point.

Big greenish taxi

As gas prices have risen, hybrids have become a substantially better buy than they once were. Still, it depends on how much you drive: the more miles you log, the more money a hybrid can save you.

So I'm heartened (though far from shocked) to see that cab companies are starting to realize this. Cabbies drive a lot. That's their job, after all. And higher gas prices mean that they're starting to run up enormous fuel bills, which means that switching to hybrids offers an immediate benefit to a cabbie's bottom line.

Orwell would be proud

Rep. Richard Pombo today introduced his latest bill to open ANWR to energy exploration called ... wait for it ... the "American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act."

Unbelievable

From Congressional Quarterly (subscription):

House Republican leaders this week plan to push at least one energy policy hot button during floor action before departing for a week-long Memorial Day recess: authorization to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

What's it going to take? A stake through the heart? A silver bullet? Perhaps environmentalists should consult this guide.

No.

Today, when asked whether he would see Gore's new movie, Bush said, "doubt it." I doubt it too. Who needs truth when you've got truthiness?

But Bush also said something more insidious:

... in my judgment, we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects, and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and, at the same time, protect the environment.

Should we "set aside" the question of whether human activity is driving climate change? I think not.

A while back, I wrote a post on this subject. I never put it up -- I was thinking of making it into an op-ed or something, but I never got around to it. Anyway, it's relevant to this question. So I've put it below the fold.

CEI and the bounds of the socially acceptable

Speaking of the CEI ads, I've been giving them some thought.

I worry that they will be a flash in the media pan, and quickly fade from memory. That would be a lost opportunity.

Here's a suggestion for a group that has the money and will to organize (maybe MoveOn): Don't let this drop. Find out every single corporate sponsor of CEI, contact them, and ask them if they agree with the content of the ads. If they agree, publicize the hell out of it. If they don't agree -- as Ford claims not to -- ask them why they're supporting an organization that's muddying the waters on this vital issue. If they refuse to respond, publicize the hell out of that.

Our development director questioned me about the Ford post. He said (paraphrasing), surely Ford shouldn't be held accountable for everything CEI does. After all, organizations that fund Grist don't necessarily agree with everything in our pages.

On most issues, I would agree. If Ford had disagreements with CEI over, say, accounting regulations, but supported their other work, fine. Reasonable people differ about accounting regulations.

Scientist cited in CEI ad repudiates misuse of his work

ThinkProgress brings news that the scientist who authored one of the studies shown briefly in the second CEI ad has issued a statement blasting CEI for using his work to "confuse and mislead the public." Good for him.

Americans and Climate Change: From science to values I

"Americans and Climate Change: Closing the Gap Between Science and Action" (PDF) is a report synthesizing the insights of 110 leading thinkers on how to educate and motivate the American public on the subject of global warming. Background on the report here. I'll be posting a series of excerpts (citations have been removed; see original report). If you'd like to be involved in implementing the report's recommendations, or learn more, visit the Yale Project on Climate Change website.

Below the fold is the beginning of the report's second chapter, which is about transitioning the climate-change debate away from science talk and toward values talk. The first part focuses on the role that religious communities could or do play. I must admit I found some of it irksome -- evangelical leaders said openly that their members are more likely to trust business leaders, don't want to hear about gloom and doom, and don't want to hear that they will have to sacrifice. Um ... these are not exactly praiseworthy biases. Perhaps instead of asking everyone else to cater to them, evangelicals should change them. But don't let me skew your perceptions -- read it and let me know what you think.

How to talk about global warming, by Bill C.

Reuters reports some talking points on global warming from former prez Clinton:

Going With the Flow

Underwater turbines to be tested in New York river Avoiding the bickering over wind power and biofuels, a Virginia-based company is seeking clean energy in the watery deep. Within a few weeks, Verdant Power will submerge turbines in New York’s East River to draw energy from the tides. The first phase of the project will […]