Articles by David Roberts

‘Eco-terrorism’ is the feds’ new all-purpose excuse to increase domestic surveillance.

Now, I don't really have a conspiratorial temperament. I tend to think that stupidity is responsible for far more of what ails the world than evil -- which is why I'm more optimistic than many of my eco-brethren.

However, this seems worth worrying about. After all, as the old saying goes, it's not paranoia if they're really watching you.

Trying to drum up this sort of frenzy serves dual, overlapping purposes. One, it reignites some of the flagging terrorist hysteria that does so much to prop up the right wing, greasing the skids for a further expansion of domestic police powers. Two, it works to discredit the green movement as a whole, greasing the skids for further deregulation of corporate power.

At the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee show trial yesterday, they trotted an FBI flunky in to proclaim earnestly that the ELF and the ALF constitute the single greatest domestic terrorist threat the nation faces today. (* See correction below)

The first thing to note, of course, is that both these organizations explicitly renounce violence against people and have been responsible for not a single death. Not one.

The second thing to note is that they are not "organizations" as such. They have no leaders, no central coordinating councils or locations. They are loosely affiliated cells, united by a cause. The feds might be able to bust this or that cell, but there's no sense in which they could "defeat" these organizations.

This gives the feds license for an unending, ever-escalating war -- and really, what do the feds love more? They get greater surveillance latitude and any number of extra-judicial powers. After all, it's terrorism!

But of course, it's not really those organizations Inhofe is after anyway, is it?

Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., the panel's chairman, said he hoped to examine more closely how the groups might be getting assistance in fund raising and communications from tax-exempt organizations' "mainstream activists" not directly blamed for the violence.

"Just like al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization, ELF and ALF cannot accomplish their goals without money, membership and the media," Inhofe said.

Yes, let's "examine more closely" the mainstream activists that give us such trouble. I can practically hear the Dr. Evil laugh here.

Make no mistake, this is what they want:

Senate Republicans shoot down an attempt to repeal the SUV loophole.

Speaking of madness -- yesterday Senate Republicans shot down an effort by Democrats to close the so-called SUV loophole, whereby SUVs and light trucks are held to a lower gas mileage standard (21 mpg) than other cars (27.5). I suppose I don't need to argue here how batshit insane such a loophole is. Instead, I draw attention to the arguments of the measure's opponents:

Opponents said imposing a higher fuel standard would place further burdens on US automakers that are already suffering financially, endangering thousands of high-paying jobs. They also said the government should not dictate what vehicles consumers buy.

Oh, U.S. automakers are "suffering financially"? Why is that? I give you Carl Pope:

[After the late-70s oil shocks,] Detroit had two choices -- one was to reach out to the nation and ask for public support in dealing with its underlying challenges. The other was to try sustaining itself by putting ever larger shells of sheet metal on old truck technology, and marketing the results as a passport to freedom and safety high above the road.

The industry took the second path.

They chose a profoundly unwise, imprudent, and immoral path, and their cronies in Congress now argue that we must keep them on it, no, encourage them along it, lest they suffer the consequences of their decision. (Oh, and by removing an exception and holding SUVs to the same standards as the rest of our fleet, we are "dictating what vehicles consumers buy." Eh?)

One hardly knows what to say.

I believe that children are the future …

Lovely.

Global warming probably won’t do the job.

Roger Pielke, Jr. makes a good point over on Prometheus today about the way the debate over energy policy is being framed. He says:

The energy policy debate over climate change has largely been framed as an issue of managing the global climate for long-term benefits with the extra benefits of reducing dependence on foreign oil, increased efficiency and decreased particulate pollution.

He suggests that advocates of a sane energy policy would be well advised to reverse this order, to sell their ideas "in terms of a primary need to reduce dependence on foreign oil, increased efficiency and decreased particulate pollution," with "the resulting side benefit of reducing the impacts of humans on the climate system."

I too have my doubts that global warming will ever serve as an effective driver for public action. Even if the faux debate went away and everybody acknowledged the reality, it's just too abstract and far away, the benefits too intangible. Yes, the ice caps are melting (etc.), but we're talking about making a major shift in the way we live in order to ... what? ... slow but not stop the rise in greenhouse gases so as to avoid the worst impacts of climate change in 100 years? It's just not something that's going to get people in the streets. In a perfect world, maybe, but ours is not that.

What will get people fired up? Security and money. Money and security.