Articles by David Roberts

Just because General Motors calls it green doesn’t mean it is.

Joel Makower reports that General Motors will lead a joint demonstration project "to learn more about consumer awareness and acceptance of E85 as a motor vehicle fuel by demonstrating its use in GM's flexible-fuel vehicles."

The California Department of Transportation will use some flex-fuel vehicles and work with Chevron Technology Ventures to make sure there are filling stations that offer E85 (gas w/ 85% ethanol). A company called Pacific Ethanol will provide the liquid fuel. Filling stations that sell E85 will be receiving "a lucrative federal tax credit."

Joel passes rather lightly over the central problem with biofuels, a problem advocates have never satisfactorily resolved. We're always told that biomass for ethanol could come from crop waste, fryer grease, turkeys, or what have you, but what it inevitably will be made from is whatever's cheapest.

Right now it's cheapest to use corn, sugarcane, soybeans, and palm oil -- heavily-subsidized agribusiness products. Joel holds Brazil up as a model, boasting that it just became a net exporter of sugarcane ethanol. But right there in Brazil rainforests are being plowed down to plant crops, making carbon sinks into carbon sieves.

If there were more confident predictions and fewer just-so stories about how genuinely renewable sources of ethanol will become cheaper than biodiversity-destroying, CO2-increasing agricultural crops, I would feel more comfortable biofuel boosting.

I'm not ready to walk blindly into this future, holding General Motors' hand for comfort.

All Awkward Pauses Considered

I was on the radio, doing a humorless slow-drone thing when I think maybe they wanted some zest and wit and, um, brevity.

New EPA fuel economy regs

The EPA's long-awaited and more accurate fuel-economy calculations will debut next week.

Poor safety enforcement led to the tragedy

The Sago mine disaster was first and foremost an incredible tragedy. (I challenge you to read this story and not get a tear in your eye.) I haven't said anything about it because in my experience most initial reports around accidents like this are exaggerated or plain wrong -- and that was certainly the case in Sago.

But now that the dust is clearing a little bit, there seems to be a growing consensus that the accident was, if not the direct result, at least indirectly related to a woeful lack of enforcement on the part of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. And that, of course, has to do with the coal industry's extraordinary friendliness with the Bush administration (though previous administrations, including Clinton's and Bush I's, share plenty of responsibility).

Start with today's NYT editorial, but for details and background, check out the guest posts from Ellen Smith, the editor of Mine Safety and Health News, over on Washington Monthly: here, here, and here. ThinkProgress also has some good stuff here, here, and here.

Update [2006-1-6 14:28:57 by David Roberts]: More from Jordan Barab.