Articles by David Roberts

Cleared that right up

By now, everybody's probably familiar with the sequence of events:

1. Energy bill passes with promises of funding for renewables research.
2. Cuts in actual funding for renewables research.
3. State of the Union speech with big promises of funding for renewables research.
4. Budget shortfalls force firing of 32 researchers at National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
5. Bush launches PR tour to tout energy proposals, schedules visit to NREL.
6. Weekend prior to visit, Energy Department scrambles to rehire 32 researchers.
   
   Now here's the part that really amazes me:
   
   
7. Bush visits NREL, laments "mixed signals," and says this: "The issue, of course, is whether good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. ... I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

"I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

It's like the distinction between substance and perception is just invisible to him. It verges on autistic.

Update [2006-2-22 14:18:33 by David Roberts]: Actually, let me put in more of the quote, since in some ways it's even more incredible:

I recognize that there has been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding. The issue of course is whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone.

Matt Yglesias responds:

I say the government is being run by idiots. There are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone? The MBA presidency? The grownups are back in charge?

The whole episode is really mind-boggling, if one was still capable of bogglement at this point.

The Weinberg Group and manufacturing uncertainty

Some good stuff on Environmental Science & Technology today.

Check out the piece on the Weinberg Group, a scientific consulting firm that specializes in helping chemical companies battle off lawsuits and criticism of their products, by coordinating marketing and hiring scientists to produce contrary studies. The marketing proposal to DuPont about PFOA (PDF) (a dangerous chemical used to make Teflon) that Paul D. Thacker got his hands on is pretty stunning. Among other things, it says:

[W]e will harness, focus and involve the scientific and intellectual capital of our company with one goal in mind -- creating the outcome our client desires. ... This would include facilitating the publication of papers and articles dispelling the alleged nexus between PFOA and teratogenicity as well as other claimed harm.

Greens like to talk about the Precautionary Principle -- preventing the use of chemicals before they've been definitively shown to cause harm. But I doubt most people know just how many resources are available to rich corporations to help them keep selling chemicals that have been shown to cause harm. There's a whole industry devoted to manufacturing uncertainty about issues important to corporations. How about a Cautionary Principle?

They are big — really, really big

In an interesting (albeit hopeless) op-ed called "Imagine a world where ExxonMobil gives back," Gar Alperovitz offers some interesting perspective on Exxon's recent profits:

In the quarter ended Dec. 31, the giant company made $10.7 billion -- the equivalent of more than $115 million for every one of its 92 days, nearly $5 million each hour, more than $80,000 every minute, nearly $1,350 each second.

ExxonMobil's overall 2005 revenues of $371 billion amounted to more than $1 billion a day! The total was larger than the entire economies of all but 16 of the 184 countries ranked by the World Bank. It was 40 percent greater than the gross national product of Indonesia, a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries with a population of 242 million.

More than a billion dollars a day. That's something else.

The whole thing's worth reading.

Everything you ever wanted to know about … everything

So much material. So little time. So many complicated issues. So little expertise.

How about a big fat linky post!

Treehugger has a fantastic interview with Hunter Lovins, long-time champion of sustainability, now president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, Inc. She talks about her current international work, focusing on Afghanistan. I particularly like this exchange, which is relevant to our discussion of poverty earlier:

Do you believe that economic development can go hand in hand with sustainable development?

Yes, and this is a critical point. We know how to meet people's needs for energy, for water, for housing, for sanitation, and for transportation, with much more sustainable technologies than are traditionally brought by development agencies.

Most of what is called development around the world is really donor nation dollars hiring donor nation contractors to deliver last century's technologies, in such a way that the jobs and the economic benefit go right back to the originating donor country.

And when the dollars, the contractors, and the programs leave, the people in Afghanistan, or Africa, or wherever the so-called "development" is being done, are no better off than they were. If anything, they're worse off: perhaps building a massive coal plant for which they've taken foreign debt; or put in some piece of infrastructure that they don't really know how to run, that isn't creating local jobs, and isn't meeting local needs. And, everybody's wasted a lot of money and time. We can do a lot better than that.

Word.

See also Grist's interview with Lovins, and this survey about your rug preferences (really), which Lovins would very much like you to fill out.

-----

Speaking of fantastic interviews with Lovinses, don't miss Discover's short but action-packed interview with Amory Lovins. Just about everything the dude says is quote-worthy, but I think this is my favorite:

If I could do just one thing to solve our energy problems, I would allow energy to compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind it is, what technology it uses, how big it is, or who owns it. If we did that, we wouldn't have an oil problem, a climate problem, or a nuclear proliferation problem. Those are all artifacts of public policies that have distorted the market into buying things it wouldn't otherwise have bought because they were turkeys.

So much wisdom in so few words.