Articles by David Roberts

Whitman’s behavior after 9/11: ‘Conscience-shocking’

Hot off the wires:

A federal judge blasted former Environmental Protection Agency chief Christine Todd Whitman on Thursday for reassuring New Yorkers soon after the Sept. 11 attacks that it was safe to return to their homes and offices while toxic dust was polluting the neighborhood.

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts refused to grant Whitman immunity against a class-action lawsuit brought in 2004 by residents, students and workers in lower Manhattan and Brooklyn who said they were exposed to hazardous materials from the collapse of the World Trade Center.

...

She called Whitman's actions "conscience-shocking," saying the EPA chief knew that the fall of the twin towers released tons of hazardous materials into the air.

For background, see here.

Oil problems

Matt Yglesias makes a great point about the "oil addiction" business.

There are three kinds of problems that people tend to have about oil. The most politically salient of them is that people are concerned that gasoline costs too much. The most longstanding of them is that gasoline is bad for the environment. The chic high-minded one is that gasoline is bad geopolitics.

People keep wanting to get on the right side of all three of these concerns, but it's worth appreciating that they're somewhat in tension.

There's some great discussion in the comments too.

SOTU: Doing more with less?

This New York Times story is a rich source of humor and irony. There's one last thing from it I meant to mention (prompted by reader Joe).

Toward the end of a long article about Bush's grand new Advanced Energy Initiative comes this:

The Energy Department will begin laying off researchers at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in the next week or two because of cuts to its budget.

A veteran researcher said the staff had been told that the cuts would be concentrated among researchers in wind and biomass, which includes ethanol. Those are two of the technologies that Mr. Bush cited on Tuesday night as holding the promise to replace part of the nation's oil imports.

The budget for the laboratory, which is just west of Denver, was cut by nearly 15 percent, to $174 million from $202 million, requiring the layoff of about 40 staff members out of a total of 930, said a spokesman, George Douglas. The cut is for the fiscal year that began on Oct. 1.

Try laughing. It helps keep the tears at bay.

Big political players in their midst derail possible climate-change statement

There's been a lot of talk lately about the burgeoning Christian environmentalist creation-care movement. I'm all for any and every group getting on board with saving the planet, but my sense has been that the amount of press and hype this has received from outside the movement is rather out of proportion to any organic growth from inside the movement. It would be great for environmentalists -- frequently tarred (often by evangelicals themselves!) as communists and pagans -- if they received the support of a powerful bloc located squarely at the center of the right-wing's base. It would also be a great story. So environmentalists and the press have conspired to pump it up.

Recent events, however, have cast some doubt on the staying power of creation care. As the Washington Post reported today, a group of more than 20 evangelical leaders sent a letter (PDF) to the National Association of Evangelicals asking it to put an immediate kibosh on plans to take a formal position (and issue a formal press release) on the dangers of global warming. I've posted the entire letter below the fold.

The NAE immediately caved. Richard Cizik -- who was so eloquent on the subject of climate change in his interview with Grist -- said, "The NAE was never going to adopt a policy on climate change." Sure, they just sent the letter for the heck of it.