Articles by David Roberts

What does the stimulus fight portend for the climate/energy fight?

The battle over the stimulus bill was the first big challenge of the Obama presidency, and the way it played out is instructive. What will it mean for the coming climate/energy fights?

First, let's get clear on the basic shape of what happened. Obama went into this thinking that an enormous financial crisis and a wide consensus among economists that large federal stimulus is required would be an opportunity to establish an early spirit of pragmatic "post-partisanship." If not in the face of a huge crisis, if not around an indisputably necessary bill, then when?

This is what Obama campaigned on and what he led with in office. He had dinner with conservative pundits. He had extended policy discussions with Congressional Republicans at the White House. He included a far greater percentage of tax cuts in his initial proposal than anyone expected (or most economists recommended). He worked with Congressional Dems to remove some of the small programs Republicans complained about (like re-sodding the National Mall). He did more reaching out, listening, and conceding to the opposing party than Republicans have, cumulatively, in the last 15 years, despite entering office fresh off of huge victories and sky-high public approval.

What did it get him? In terms of Republican support: zilch. Nothing. In the end he got zero votes in the House and all of three in the Senate, after several hundred thousands jobs had been stripped from the package. Republicans carpeted the media demagoguing individual spending programs from the bill and claiming Obama's bipartisanship had "failed" because, well, because they refused to participate. Karl Rove has announced, basically, that Republicans triumphed by giving Obama nothing and that they would not offer him a shred of credit no matter what happens to the economy. The GOP House minority whip says explicitly that he's modeling his leadership on Newt Gingrich. Seriously.

MoveOn preps for gigantic green economy campaign

This hit my inbox yesterday:

When FDR became president, a group of progressive activists asked him to push for some really big changes. His response? "I agree with you. I want to do it. Now make me do it."

President Obama gets that we need to transform our economy. He's passionate about creating millions of green jobs and investing billions in renewable energy. And he's appointed great leaders like Energy Secretary Chu to help him.

But unless we create a massive green-economy movement across America, Obama won't have the mandate he needs to overcome the oil companies and make fundamental change. As president, Obama's extraordinary power comes from the people outside Washington. And that's us.

So we've worked up a big plan to build a green-economy groundswell. It'll mean tripling our field organizing team, mobilizing hundreds of thousands of MoveOn members to take local action, and running ads targeting powerful interests that stand in the way. It'll be MoveOn's biggest long-term campaign ever.

If President Obama is going to transform our economy, he needs all of us standing behind him giving him strength. Are you in?

I'm in!

(But, just to be picky, it's overcoming coal companies that will be the biggest challenge ...)

What is the 'best available control technology' for CO2 from coal plants?

My monster post on EPA regulation of CO2 yesterday seems to have scared everyone away. So let me ask a simpler question.

As things stand, regulating CO2 at power plants under the Clean Air Act would require that such plants install "best available control technology" (BACT) for reducing or eliminating CO2 emissions.

Here's my question: for a coal-fired power plant, what is the best available technology for limiting CO2 emissions?

Carbon sequestration might be "best," but it's not "available," despite all the hype. It hasn't been tested; there are no clear regulations governing it; it's horribly expensive; etc.

Far as I know, though, that's basically the only way to reduce CO2 emissions at a coal plant.

So if that's not available, and nothing else is available, what can a coal plant do but ... stop burning coal?

Does that mean a BACT requirement under the Clean Air Act would effectively shut down every coal plant in the country in one fell swoop, thereby eliminating 50 percent of the country's electricity generation? Will it force all coal plants to switch to natural gas, causing natural gas prices to skyrocket? If not, what does it mean? Anyone? Bueller?

Wow

Now CEI is going to bat for the bottled water industry. Is there any malignant industry these guys won't shill for?

"Billions of tons of wasted, useless plastic and transportation emissions: they call it pollution. We call it life."