Articles by David Roberts

Barton investigates oil company that dared lower prices

I meant to mention this a couple weeks ago, as it is truly hilarious ... in a macabre, recoil-in-horror sort of way.

Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has used his position as head of the Energy and Commerce Committee to launch an investigation into Big Oil. Not Exxon or Chevron, mind you, and not about record profits or price gouging. No, he's going after Citgo, the oil company that actually dared lower its prices for low-income customers:

Public service announcement

My second favorite movie of all time, Network, has recently been released as a two-disc special edition. Watching it will make you a better person.

Sierra Club direction

This is good news:

If greens stopped driving and flying, not much would change

In the course of an unrelated post, Tim Lambert makes a point dear to my heart. Like so:

And what of environmental activist-author Dr Tim Flannery, who believes climate change to be "the greatest threat facing humanity", yet who is able to put aside his worries about human-driven ecological destruction long enough to conduct a 20-city US tour promoting his latest book about climate change?

I used a calculator linked from Flannery's site and found that Flannery's tour would release about 6,000 kg of CO2. Flannery says that we'll have to reduce our emissions of CO2 by about 70% to stabilize the climate. That's 17,000,000,000,000 kg less CO2 per year. This is somewhat more than 6,000, so if Flannery did not go on the trip it would not solve the global warming problem. If Flannery on his tour is able to persuade a few people to reduce their emissions the reduction will be much more than 6,000 kg.

Lambert is more concise and artful than me, as usual, but I keep making the same basic point: The constant charge of "hypocrisy" against anyone who a) advocates against global warming and b) contributes to it by driving/flying/owning a house/having a child/whatever is dumb. It's a game best left to the rightwingers and climate contrarians who so fervently love it.

The collection of public figures -- scientists, celebrities, environmentalists -- publicly advocating for action on global warming is, in relative terms, tiny. A generous estimate would put it in the thousands. There are, in contrast, billions of people driving/flying/owning a house/having a child/whatever. If every single person who spoke out publicly on climate change stopped driving/flying/owning a house/having a child/whatever, it would make no appreciable difference on the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

It would, however, massively curtail those folks' ability to spread the word and create change. Is that what we want?

I won't say that the personal habits of environmentalists have no symbolic value, but it's only a little bit -- and it's meaningless in substantive terms. It's a weapon used to bludgeon socially and environmentally concerned public figures into silence. The last thing greens should do is join in.