Articles by David Roberts

Every day is Earth Day … or at least yesterday was

I spent Earth Day in a small cabin on a sand spit that juts from the coast of Bainbridge Island, enjoying the sun, the waves, my kids' delighted squeals, and most of all, the four -- yes, four -- hour nap I took mid-day. Ah ... love me some Earth Day!

So I missed my chance to write an inspiring message. Instead, I offer this small roundup of stuff to read:

What’s next in the global warming discussion

If you want to see the conservative punditariat's most ignorant, flat-footed, intellectually irresponsible position on climate change, you can't do better than Jonah Goldberg's insipid column in the L.A. Times. But it's just a collection of smears and discredited half-truths collected from right-wing blogs, so I won't encourage you to waste your time on it.

A far more intelligent conservative, and a far more eloquent statement of the conservative position on climate change, can be found in this post from Ross Douthat. Ultimately, though, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny either.

(Incidentally, both posts focus their ire on Al Gore. We can expect more of that. Particularly on issues on which the merits weigh against them, conservatives love to personalize and demonize, and they made an art form of doing it to Gore back in 2000. Laura Turner makes the point well here.)

Once you strip away the cruft, Douthat's position is basically this: Global warming may be devastating in the long term, but "the kind of economic reforms necessary to do anything significant about the accumulation of carbon dioxide would be immediately and decisively disastrous." And "very, very few governments are inclined to accept an immediate economic calamity in order to forestall a longer-range crisis that may or may not be worse."

The problems with this position are fairly obvious. As Ezra Klein puts it, "if there's a sick patient on your table and you decide surgery might kill 'em, that doesn't erase the fact that there's a sick patient on your table." Douthat offers no alternative proposal. If we take him seriously, what he offers is basically nihilism: It's going to happen, we'll never do anything to stop it, and Al Gore is a butthead. That's not exactly a winning position, substantively or politically.

This is where Douthat -- and conservatives generally -- leave off, but it's where the meaty argument actually begins.

The Sierra Club and Lincoln Chafee

A mini-imbroglio has broken out in the blogosphere over the Sierra Club's decision to formally endorse Senator Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.). A similar dust-up took place late last year over NARAL's decision to endorse Chafee. Both endorsements were largely deplored by the progressive blogs, with a few dissenters.

I'm going to argue for what might seem a slightly odd position: NARAL made a terrible decision; the Sierra Club made a good one.

Start with this premise: For a variety of structural and historical reasons, party discipline has increased sharply in American politics over the last few decades. We more and more resemble a parliamentary system. So the relevant questions here have less to do with Chafee's own positions or votes than with party dynamics -- specifically, Republican party dynamics.

On both abortion and the environment, Chafee is an exception to the prevailing Republican position. But Republican party dynamics are vastly different on the two issues.

Pombo’s Earth Day message

The House Resources Committee -- headed by everyone's favorite Dick, Rep. Pombo (R-Calif.) -- has an Earth Day message for the masses.

To summarize: everything's great with the environment; environmentalists are hysterical fear-mongers; Ronald Reagan rulez.

(hat tip: reader C.L.)