Latest Articles

How climate skeptics like Fred Singer operate

Several posts ago, I reproduced a few emails to and from well-known climate skeptic Fred Singer.

Since then, I've had a few other exchanges emailed to me. They give great insight into how skeptics work the system to promote their view.

Here's the best one:

DOE hasn’t opened Yucca nuclear-waste dump, must pay millions for breach of contract

As if the saga of Nevada’s Yucca Mountain wasn’t ridiculous enough, a court has ruled that the Department of Energy’s failure to open the nuclear-waste repository on time will have a price tag of $116.5 million, payable to Xcel Energy for breach of contract. And just to remind you of the ridiculousness, in the words […]

Umbra on household help and homemade cleansers

Dear Umbra, I recently moved in with my investment-banker boyfriend. So far, my efforts to teach him to have more fun with less stuff have been largely successful; however, I’ve hit a roadblock when it comes to his cleaning lady. My first question, Umbra, is this: what are the social and ecological implications of hiring […]

Designers lament what will happen when there are no seasons

Forget melting ice caps, disappearing polar-bear habitat, and rising seas that will inundate major metropolises (metropolii?) worldwide — the real issue I’ve got with global warming is the impending devastation of the fashion industry. "The whole fashion system will have to change," says Beppe Modenese, called the founding father of Milan Fashion Week. "[It] must […]

Study suggests link between DDT exposure and breast cancer

Women exposed to the pesticide DDT as children are five times as likely to develop breast cancer, according to a study published in Environmental Health Perspectives. Draw your own conclusions.

A utopian realist agenda

Recently Nordhaus and Shellenberger (N&S) posted on Gristmill, wrote in The New Republic, and published a book, all with the aim of offering a better alternative to the mainstream environmental agenda. In my estimation, they made three important points: Americans would respond to a positive vision of the future; global warming can only be solved if, in addition to regulatory policies, we embark on a program of public investment; and the public is quite open to the idea of public investment.

Unfortunately, they didn't do much with that great start. I think I know why: the central thrust of the conservative movement since Reagan has been to inculcate the idea of "government bad, market good," and the idea of making a virtue of public investment runs totally counter to a conservative world view. So in order to be politically relevant, N&S look to the two institutions that conservatives and moderates have been able to agree are legitimate sources of public investment: the Pentagon and government-supported R&D.

But that "won't work," as N&S declare about the possibility of mitigating global warming with a regulations-only policy framework. To be brief, the Pentagon is part of the problem, not part of the solution; and while R&D is always a good idea, the level of their combined program is only $30 billion per year, which would be great in this political climate but won't do much for the global climate.

These negatives shouldn't blind us to their advocacy of a positive vision and a public investment approach. One of the reasons public investment is not discussed more often in the environmental community, much less taken seriously as a policy approach, is that we have what I will call the problem of the political superego: before any such policy can even be considered by the conscious mind, the political superego dismisses it out of hand.

Which leads me to two of my favorite quotes: "The maximum that seems politically feasible still falls far short of the minimum that would be effective in solving the crisis," spoken by Al Gore at a policy address at NYU in 2006. The other, by Mathis Wackernagel and William Rees, the authors of Our Ecological Footprint: "In today's materialistic, growth-bound world, the politically acceptable is ecologically disastrous while the ecologically necessary is politically impossible."

I want to use the phrase "utopian realism" to express this dilemma, and to point to a possible way out of it. The word "realist" means that the policies advocated are a realistic way out of our global crises, from a technical point of view. "Utopian" has two meanings here -- first, that the political chances of these policies being implemented seem utopian; but second, that the implementation of these goals could inspire action. (The sociologist Anthony Giddens has also used the term "utopian realism", in a roughly similar way.)

So I ask you to try to keep your political superego at bay for a few paragraphs, as I lay out a possible positive vision of public investment.

Today is World Vegetarian Day

It’s World Vegetarian Day, everyone! Go celebrate by pissing someone off.

Why $100-per-barrel oil would be no big deal

At current levels of around $80 per barrel, oil prices have leapt nearly eightfold since 1998. Many observers would have predicted economic disaster from such a leap, but the global economy just keeps chugging along. An interesting article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal reports that many analysts figure that $100/barrel oil is on the way […]

Important article on social norms and pro-environment behavior

This article is a little slow getting started, but valuable nonetheless.

U.S. Navy must notify N.C.-based Marines of exposure to contaminated water

Some 1 million Marines stationed at North Carolina’s Camp Lejeune between 1958 and 1987 drank, cooked with, and showered in toxic water; under a defense reauthorization bill amendment recently approved by the Senate, the U.S. Navy would be required to, um, let them know. The federal government closed the base’s wells in the mid-’80s after […]