Articles by David Roberts

Why can’t we change our oil-sucking land-use preferences?

The other day I expressed disappointment at Kevin Drum's fifth peak oil post -- the one where he lays out his recommendations for oil policy. In my inimitably oblique and unfocused way, I was simply trying to say that I wish he'd been more imaginative.

If nothing else, peak oil is going to be a major inflection point in our collective history. It's a sharp turn in the road, and we can't see clearly around the bend. The stakes are huge, and call for a commensurate greatness of mind and expansiveness of thought.

What Drum did is basically gather the conventional wisdom in one place, without considering at all the myriad ways that the CW might be constricted and warped by the vested interests of society's current power brokers. Nor did he deign to consider things that might seem, in the current sociopolitical scene, impossible, or at least out on the fringe.

One example: U.S. suburbia, as Kunstler never tires of telling us, is built on cheap oil. It takes lots of oil to transport goods around the world to a Wal-Mart, and lots of oil for suburbanites to drive back and forth to it bazillions of times. The dominant land-use paradigm in this country is oil-sucking. If oil's running out, it's got to change, right?

Drum doesn't bother to mention the many innovative thinkers out there pondering how we can make cities greener and more attractive (the very subject of World Environment Day). He doesn't consider how we might refashion our remaining farm land and open spaces in more ecologically friendly fashion. He doesn't consider how we might encourage people to buy locally grown food and locally made goods.

Instead, we get this extraordinarily banal post on why people don't like mixed-use developments. (See also the Atrios post that preceded it and the Jim Henley post responding to it.)

It's late, so I'll just make two brief points:

WED

I would be remiss if I failed to point out that today is World Environment Day. So, uh, Happy Environment, everyone!

A new think tank tries to link up justice, poverty, and green issues

There's been a lot of talk since ... well, forever, but especially since the paper that shall go unnamed, about greens forming strategic alliances with other progressive groups. One such proposed alliance is between big green groups and groups working to fight racism and poverty. Most of this, sad to say, is just talk, but Joel Makower brings word of Reclaim the Future, a new think tank from Van Jones' Ella Baker Center that's trying to make it happen.

Reclaim the Future's slogan is "Green Jobs, Not Jails," and as you might gather, the idea is "representing and empowering ecologically sound, urban entrepreneurs and the communities they provide opportunities for." Jones says the goal is to quickly find a kind of showcase project -- an urban green business that's profitably employing recently incarcerated or at-risk youth -- and leverage the hell out of it. "We want to create a demonstration project that gives us the opportunity to go out and build the political constituency that can multiply that by a thousand-fold," he says. To which I say: Godspeed.

I've often thought that all the talk about bridge-building between extant progressive groups isn't going to amount to much. Institutional cultures and habits are deeply ingrained. From Joel's post:

Clinton

I'm listening to an interview with Bill Clinton on public radio. He just claimed that his administration had the best environmental record since the (Theodore) Roosevelt administration -- citing, in particular, the Roadless Rule. He also said that he wanted to raise CAFE standards, but "Congress wouldn't pass it," even when the Democrats were in the majority.

What do you think?

Update [2005-6-3 20:44:39 by Dave Roberts]: In answer to a question about managing China's transition to global powerhouse, Clinton said it's crucial to (among other things) create a new generation of high-tech, high-wage jobs. What jobs? "Clean energy."

Ira Flatow then responded that he had 8 years to advance smart energy policy, and he didn't (though less bluntly put). Clinton had three responses:

• Energy issues had low visibility back then, because other priorities were intruding and oil was cheap;
• the Republican congress enjoyed the oil and coal economy, and still does;
• and he did actually do some stuff, tax credits and such, not to mention Kyoto.

Update [2005-6-3 21:22:14 by Dave Roberts]: A caller just asked him about the hydrogen economy. His answer, paraphrased: Hydrogen is great, and eventually we'll end up there. But it's a ways out. It shouldn't take money from more short-term achievable things like hybrids, compressed natural gas, solar, wind, etc. In general, we should spend far more on the emerging clean-energy economy.

The problem is that the old energy economy -- oil and coal -- is highly centralized, with access to influence, and very well-financed. The new energy economy is decentralized, entrepreneurial, under-financed, and lacking clear markets. The feds should help it along.

Flatow then asked him about nuclear, mentioning that "a lot of green people" are saying it's the answer. His answer, paraphrased: We should "look seriously" at it, and it's clear "we can run safe nuclear power plants." However:

• Will we get enough benefits in the short run given the enormous capital requirements, or would it make more sense to use that money building up renewable energy?
• Should we build 40 new nuke plants before we know what to do with the waste (Yucca was chosen for political, not environmental reasons)?
• Is nuclear more more cost effective than "letting 1000 flowers bloom" with small-scale wind, solar, biomass, etc. projects?

My overall impression of Clinton is basically what it always was: He's a mesmerizing speaker. He talks about progressive issues in a way that seems almost calculated to piss off True Believers, but in the process sells progressive solutions to Middle America more effectively than anyone I've ever heard.