Articles by David Roberts

Poll finds melange of random public opinions on energy; nation reels

This poll will no doubt be used by a variety of groups for a variety of political purposes -- mostly good, since it might actually prompt some political action on the coming energy crisis. Whatever works.

But one fact hovers over polls like this, unmentionable in polite company. Not being polite, I'll mention it: The American people are pretty ignorant about the global energy situation -- like, let's face it, most of the world's people are, about most things. In light of that fact, what on earth is the poll supposed to prove?

Does the fact that most people think there's no energy crisis, but Bush isn't doing enough to address it, make that a coherent position? Does the fact that 3 out of 10 people think oil's going to run out within 25 years give that number any special weight? Some 89% think oil companies are to blame for our energy problems. Does that make it so?

Polls like this are thin, because on broad, complex, and not-very-often-discussed issues like this, the public just doesn't know. They rely on their leaders to know stuff like this, and to lead.

There's a chicken-and-egg quality to polling, where public officials cite polls to justify positions and policies, despite the fact that public opinion was basically shaped by those positions and policies.

Facts are facts. Leadership is leadership. We'll know it when we see it.

Oil producing countries need us, and not just as consumers

There are many folks more qualified to comment on geopolitics than yours truly -- swing a dead cat and you'll hit one -- but let me venture a thought.

It is sometimes said that coming shortages will render oil less fungible; the idea is that rather than simply dumping oil into the world market, oil-producing countries will use their leverage for geopolitically nefarious purposes. The leverage they can gain from the oil will come to be worth more than the price of the oil on the market.

Two things weigh against this. One, the more nefarious of the oil-producing countries tend to depend almost entirely on oil revenue. They might could hurt oil consuming countries by shutting off exports, but they'd hurt themselves as much or more.

The other just occurred to me after reading this Christian Science Monitor piece about Kuwait. Here's the nut:

Kuwait's energy sector has survived the past 30 odd years on fields explored and developed in the 1970s and 1980s. With most of these fields aging and declining, the government is eager to open new fields.

To do this, however, it needs the advanced and complex technology that only international oil companies can bring in.

Fields are aging and declining all over, and the need for technological means to squeeze out the last drops is sure to devil any country that depends on oil revenue. They can't just shut the world out -- the world contains not only geopolitical rivals and consumers, but experts.

I'm still inclined to think that oil will be fungible as fungible can be (I sure do like the word "fungible") right up until a) it runs out, or b) nobody needs it any more.

Of course I'm probably muddling all sorts of issues together here and making basic mistakes of ignorance, but hey -- they gave me a blog, so I put words on it.

Kempthorne nominated for Interior Secretary

It's official: Bush has nominated Idaho Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to succeed Gale Norton as Secretary of the Interior. More on Kempthorne here and here.

That was remarkably fast. I wonder what the back story is.

Update [2006-3-16 15:0:19 by David Roberts]: Via Ezra Klein, this amusingly concise statement from LCV:

WASHINGTON, DC – League of Conservation Voters (LCV) Senior Vice President for Political Affairs and Public Education Tony Massaro today issued the following statement after President Bush nominated Idaho Governor Dirk Kempthorne to be his Secretary of Interior.

"During his career in Congress, Governor Kempthorne earned a paltry 1% lifetime LCV score. Enough said."

Indeed.

‘Eco-terrorism’: A new debate is born

Check out these letters to the editor in the Toronto Star. The first one is from the head of the U.S. Humane Society:

The Star allowed the so-called "Center for Consumer Freedom" to cross the line when the group falsely accused the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) of supporting "the eco-terror problem." The suggestion that the HSUS supports any illegal action, or that it has ties to eco-terror groups which it has repeatedly denounced, is patently untrue and outrageous.

The HSUS has repeatedly and publicly criticized individuals and groups who resort to intimidation, vandalism, or violence in the name of supposedly protecting animals. We believe harassment, violence and other illegal tactics are wholly unacceptable and inconsistent with a core ethic of promoting compassion and respect.

This is exactly what CCF wants: For this to be the subject of conversation. It doesn't matter if the allegations against HSUS are absurd. It doesn't matter how convincingly HSUS demonstrates their absurdity. The point is that HSUS's "connection to terrorism" is now a "debate." And as any good mainstream media reporter knows, every debate has two sides, even if one side is full of shit. You can expect to see "he-said she-said" stories on this issue pop up more and more often in mainstream media outlets.

The more the public sees mainstream groups tied to terrorism, the more those groups can expect to be marginalized. It's all going according to plan.