Articles by David Roberts

Share the truth

Eric Pan contacted us recently to let us know about his new website, Share the Truth, which is set up to spread the word about An Inconvenient Truth.

You can go and 1) if you're a global warming believer, buy a ticket for a skeptic, or 2) if you're a skeptic -- or just undecided -- get a free ticket.

Extremely clever idea. Go support it!

Interview with Jeff Goodell, author of Big Coal

I'm not sure what I expected when I picked up Jeff Goodell's Big Coal, but I was pleasantly surprised. It is neither a number-and-graph-filled wonkfest nor a provincial, narrow examination of a particular set of companies. Instead, it's an engagingly written narrative that travels through every stage of coal -- from extraction through travel through burning -- and ends with a broad examination of the consequences for the climate. I really can't recommend it highly enough. It's a book even your grandma could enjoy. I hope to post some more on it soon.

But for now: I'm meeting with Goodell on Wednesday for a nice long chat. What should I ask him?

An Ontario twofer

Ontario's really going for the gold. It's building two new nuclear plants (the first in North America in decades) and reneging on its promise to reduce mercury air pollution.

Sources say the Liberal government's recent decision to break a 2003 cornerstone campaign promise and keep open the province's pollution-spewing coal-fired generating plants well past 2009 is behind the policy U-turn.

Well done, Ontario!

A geo-green third party?

Thomas Friedman -- la moustache de la sagesse -- has a column up (NYT $elect; reprinted in full here) suggesting that his "geo-green" shtick would be a good basis for a third party presidential candidacy. God love The Mustache for bringing energy issues to a broad audience, but this column is dopey.

Let's start with this:

What might a Geo-Green third party platform look like?

Its centerpiece would be a $1 a gallon gasoline tax, called "The Patriot Tax," which would be phased in over a year. People earning less than $50,000 a year, and those with unusual driving needs, would get a reduction on their payroll taxes as an offset.

Putting aside the rather paltry size of the tax and the difficulty of determining "unusual driving needs," this seems sensible enough, though a broad carbon tax would be preferable. But:

The billions of dollars raised by the Patriot Tax would go first to shore up Social Security, second to subsidize clean mass transit in and between every major American city, third to reduce the deficit, and fourth to massively increase energy research by the National Science Foundation and the Energy and Defense Departments' research arms.

What a bizarre list. Social Security is fine. If it's deficit-killing expenditures you're after, why not start with healthcare? And I'm all for mass transit, but is it more important than getting alternate sources of energy online? If reducing the deficit is so important, why does Friedman -- and virtually every other pundit -- insist that a gas tax be revenue neutral?

This, however, may be the most extravagant claim: