Articles by David Roberts

Let’s put energy sources on a level playing field and let them duke it out, nuclear included.

(I'm not sure "agnosticism" is really the right word here, but this is the "blogosphere" where you're supposed to generate "buzzwords" that are "viral," so what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.)

The nuclear debate continues. This Felicity Barringer piece in the NYT -- about a few high-profile green defections on the subject of nuclear power -- kicked off a new round of back-and-forth. (See also this piece about the resurgence of the nuke industry in the UK.)

Let me just rip off this intro bit from a post at Corpus Callosum:

There has been a fair amount of blogbuzz lately, about the subject of nuclear power: not the type of power that comes from having really big bombs, but the type of power that is used to generate electricity.  There are posts on the subject at Crooked Timber, Tapped, Mark A. R. Kleinman, Washington Monthly, and Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal.

All the posts he cites are worth reading, many with good discussions in the comments.

The position I'm coming around to is hinted at in this post by Nathan Newman, and echoed in this John Tierney column (which marks the first and likely last point of agreement between me and Tierney). It is twofold:

Military fails to get exemptions from enviro laws — this time.

Carl Pope discusses some "outbreaks of enlightenment" in Washington, D.C. Check 'em out.

Of particular note is the fact that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) refused to insert language in the Defense Authorization bill that would have exempted the Defense Department from several environmental laws. The Pentagon has been after Congress for such exemptions for years, with mixed success. (We've reported on it many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times. We've also reported many, many, many, many, many, many times on the Pentagon's various environmental sins.)

Every time, the DoD talks vaguely of how "training" and "readiness" might be threatened. And never -- never once -- has it been able to cite an example wherein actual training or actual readiness was impacted, at all, by environmental compliance. It's about a) the money, and perhaps even more so, b) Donald Rumsfeld's umbrage at the thought that a bunch of commie treehuggers can tell him what to do.

A mug’s game

Ah, this is too good. A mug bearing a map of the world that, when filled with hot liquid, shows the effects of global warming.

Why isn't there more stuff like this?

(Via Jeremy at WC)

Bush wants to ride his bicycle bicycle bicycle

Via Chris, a pointed column from Marc Fisher in the Post today makes the point that Bush's blithe bicycle rides through wilderness refuges are ironic in light of the fact that he's consistently cut funding for them. Do you think he sees the disconnect? As with so many questions regarding this administration's environmental policies, it's hard to decide which answer would be worse.