Articles by David Roberts

Harder than it looks?

We're constantly hearing about how insanely popular the Toyota Prius is -- the celebrities, the cachet, the waiting lists.

Is it possible that said popularity is just a blue state phenomenon?

I ask because we recently got an email from a reader, Linda, who's having trouble selling hers. No, really!

My husband received an international assignment so we are moving to Belgium. We have decided to sell my beloved 2004 Prius. I live in Pocatello, Idaho, and in this land of conservatives, where they are sure that global warming is a figment of Al Gore's imagination, there appears to be no market. I've had an ad in various papers for over a month and no calls. It is salsa red and comes fully loaded (package #7) with everything except GPS. The blue book value on this gem is $23,360, I bought it for $24,800. I'd be willing to negotiate around $23,000. It has 13,600 miles and is in excellent condition with seat covers and even a 1.25 inch hitch for a bike rack in back. (I could throw in the bike rack too, if someone wants it!)

So, Gristmill readers, I'm curious: Do you have any tips or advice for Linda? Or ... do you want her Prius? Tell us all about it in comments!

FYI: Linda's phone number is (208) 232-8207.

The Supreme Court has expanded eminent domain to the point of absurdity and invited corruption.

I was just getting ready to write a long and involved post on Kelo v. City of New London, the Supreme Court decision extending eminent domain, when lo, Andy beat me to it. So I'll try to keep it short (for that, Andy, our readers thank you.)

I do not share Andy's ambivalence. I think it's a terrible thing. I'm all for eminent domain, but this is ridiculous. Kelo crosses a fairly bright line for me and gets my nascent libertarian instincts all fired up.

More below the fold.

The latest editorial on climate change at the Wall Street Journal is a sign of desperation.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page -- in contrast to their news dept., which is still top notch -- is a notorious den of hackery. So when I first read this editorial, my reaction was ... eh. It's a farrago of fusty flat-earth falsehoods. Every right-wing talking point on climate science is unimaginatively passed along, without any sign of awareness that each of them has been carefully and repeatedly debunked.

The folks over at the invaluable RealClimate have done the yeoman's work of putting together a detailed, point-by-point rebuttal. They leave the editorial a smoking pile of rubble, but if you'd like to read a few people kick it while it's down, you can check out David Appell, Media Matters, Chris Mooney, and Tim Lambert.

For my part, I more or less agree with Appell: The editorial is a sign of desperation. It's a sign that flat-earthism on climate is becoming less and less acceptable in polite circles. Note the tone of baffled umbrage:

Recall that as recently as 1997 the Senate voted 95-0 for the Byrd-Hagel Resolution assailing Kyoto's provisions. Bill Clinton never even brought the Protocol up for a vote. But all of a sudden such limits are said to be a political "inevitability" in a Republican Senate. Energy Chairman Pete Domenici says he's open to the John McCain-Joe Lieberman mini-Kyoto, and New Mexico Democrat Jeff Bingaman is proposing an amendment that would impose even stricter limits on fossil fuel use.

Ah, the plaintive sound of being left behind.

That would be nice, but several factors could make it unlikely.

In my more purely optimistic moments, I come close to agreeing with Marshall Brain (founder of HowStuffWorks):

As oil gets more expensive, we will replace it with less-expensive technologies in a completely natural way. Therefore, peak oil will be a non-event.

But I can't quite get there.

I share a great deal of faith in the power of markets, unlike some of my fellow-travelers, but this seems naive and flat-footed to me. Here's why:

• Oil's current market dominance in the transportation and agricultural sectors is not "completely natural." It's propped up by innumerable subsidies, tax breaks, favorable trade deals, etc., etc. -- all secured as a result of its unprecedented entanglement with the ruling class. It maybe that its unnatural market position has been propped up -- or will be propped up -- past the point when a "natural" transition will be possible.
• Brain acknowledges that, in today's market, "supply and demand for oil are almost perfectly balanced," and that any disruption on either side could cause a spike in the price of oil, but seems to brush that possibility off. Peak oil, though, will not happen in a vacuum. It will happen in a context wherein the U.S.'s general financial situation is execrable, with spiraling deficits and an aging population, propped up by Chinese bond purchases. The housing market could tank. The airline industry could go belly-up. Another terrorist attack could happen. China could bomb Taiwan. India could invade Pakistan. Point being, the oil market is not the only fragile system we rely on -- lots of them are pretty fragile right now. A few disruptions could cause a mutually reinforcing cycle of ... crap.
• We live in a global marketplace. "Natural" market transitions involve winners and losers, and there's no guarantee that we might not "naturally" lose out to, say, Japan, or China.

But regardless, let's hope Brain is right.