Articles by David Roberts

Pombo gets no love

Remember that absurd website hosted by the House Resources Committee (read: Dick Pombo)? The taxpayer-funded one that slanders the entire environmental movement as greedy alarmists? Environmentalists are irritated about it. Pombo, as is his wont, doesn't give a damn:

"It's all part of the policy debate," Pombo said. "Hey, these groups can't scream that my site is political and turn around and say their stuff is educational. They can't have it both ways."

This is stupid. Nobody would ever see the website if people didn't make a fuss about it. It deserves mockery, nothing else.

In happier Pombo news, Defenders of Wildlife recently released a poll (press release; PDF summary) showing that if the election were held today, Pombo would LOOOOOOOOSE! Ahem.

A major factor in Pombo's drop in support is the fact that a majority of voters now believe that he "puts corporate interests over the people's interest."  53% of voters believe that the above description describes him well, while only 30% say it does not describe him well.

And remember, this is in a deeply, deeply Republican district.

I wonder how much of this is attributable to the general decline in Republican popularity, how much to events, and how much to the campaign by green groups. Some signs point to the latter -- these numbers are sharply down from last September, and Pombo now boasts some of the worst re-elect numbers of any Republican incumbent. Says the summary:

Why are mayors so much smarter than national pols?

On May 10-11, the U.S. Conference of Mayors held a National Summit on Energy and the Environment (press release). They put together a document of best practices (PDF) developed in their various cities. And they agreed to develop a Energy/Environment Conservation Action Agenda (they sure do love capital letters, those mayors) to be released at their annual meeting in June. Here are six steps to be included in the agenda:

1) Invest more money in transportation options including public and mass transit, bike paths, etc.

2) Encourage at the local, state, and federal level the building or rehabilitation of more energy efficient buildings in both the public and private sector.

3) Encourage automakers to make more energy efficient cars as well as encouraging individuals to buy vehicles that are more energy efficient including alternative fuels, hybrids, and plug- in hybrids.

4) Encourage more investment in renewable and alternative energy through additional incentives.

5) Encourage more mixed-use development to allow people to have more walkable communities.

6) Encourage the public and private sector, as well as citizens, to do their part in conserving energy.

Bizarrely sensible.

I suppose it's to be expected that city leaders are somewhat wiser and more judicious than national politicians -- there's more direct accountability and fewer opportunities for media posturing. But we're talking several orders of magnitude here. Why the massive disconnect?

(via EB)

Why skeptics are skeptics

A few months ago, on the Scientific American blog, George Musser lamented the malcommunication between global warming skeptics and proponents. He asked readers who were skeptical about the GW consensus to tell him why in comments. They did, to the tune of 170 comments.

In a follow-up post, Musser tried to summarize and taxonomize the objections (then, in response to tons of feedback, tried again).

I doubt we have many skeptics here, but if you're curious about what trips laypeople up -- rather a wider array of things than I would have thought -- it's worth checking out. And now I can finally close that tab on my browser.

Immigration

Back when all the immigrant protests were happening, I thought about posting something on the debate within the environmentalist community over immigration. (See this Christian Science Monitor story for a good rundown.)

But you know what? It's a stupid debate, and I think anti-immigration enviros are a tiny, tiny minority whose voice is amplified by media hungry for controversy.

You'd be hard-pressed to find a better example of short-term, misanthropic thinking than trying to cut off immigration to the U.S. for environmental reasons. It's a political loser, a moral loser, an economic loser ... it's a loser of an argument.

Just thought I'd mention that.