Articles by David Roberts

Defeat from the jaws of victory

Call it environmentalism, Bush style. A new federal tax credit will help allay the extra cost of purchasing hybrid vehicles, but the Byzantine formula for calculating the savings provides greater financial incentives for buying heavy SUVs than more fuel-efficient cars.

Read the rest at Wired.

(Via TP.)

Personal virtue is not enough for environmentalists

A point I try frequently to make: If you want real, substantial, lasting environmental change, it is not enough simply to recycle or drive less or shop at Whole Foods or buy organic cotton t-shirts. It is not enough to advocate that others do so. The kind of environmental change we need will never happen solely through personal virtue. There just aren't enough virtuous people.

What's needed are structural changes -- changes in gov't policy and regulation at every level, changes in the way we build and run our communities, changes in the practices of large corporations, changes in international norms and treaties. Political advocacy, in the broadest sense, is the obligation of any true environmentalist.

Now, why do I pound on this point, even at risk of being a big downer for all the chipper eco-strivers who so love Umbra?

Look no further than this headline: "Environment High in Personal Values, Low in Political Priorities for U.S. Voters"

Grrr ...

Slam debunk

So, there's a buzzed-about new book called The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, by Aussie scientist Tim Flannery.

Naturally, it's brought the flat-earthers out of the woodwork.

And when the flat-earthers come out, Tim Lambert follows. Read his delightfully compact, action-packed festival of debunkery, in which he makes typically quick work of the skeptics. Like skeet shooting ...

opposes it in a speech to businessfolk

Thanks to reader EM for drawing our attention to a speech given by Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin to the Economic Club in New York on Oct. 6.

He begins with lots of happy talk about the many shared interests of Canada and the U.S., and concludes by raising two problems. The first is familiar to devotees of Canadian politics: trade disputes, namely over softwood lumber and beef.

The second -- and this, I must admit, came as a surprise to me -- is U.S. desire to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Martin objects on environmental grounds. The cynic in me assumes there must be some other angle here. Perhaps he's maneuvering on behalf of Canadian energy producers. I'm not sure. Maybe someone more familiar with Canadian politics can educate us in comments.

Anyway, here's the relevant passage from the speech: