Articles by David Roberts

Dueling NPR stories illustrate surreal disconnect around climate discussion

Two NPR stories illustrate one of the most frustrating things about the climate debate. First there's this one, which makes the important and necessary point that the climate problem -- or specifically, the "reducing emissions enough to stabilize the climate" problem -- is much, much bigger than most people understand, and that we're going to have to spend trillions of dollars in coming years if we want to save our asses.

Great, right?

Then the following day we get part two of the story, which says that the sheer size and severity of the problem mean we need a new approach. What new approach? Well, according to Dan Sarewitz of Arizona State University, we need to "invent our way out of the problem." Huh? Apparently, that means we don't want any of those nasty, politically difficult policies that raise the price of dirty energy. Those are too hard. "Doomed," he says. Instead he wants a new paradigm:

The players: House and Senate

I’m trying to get a handle on the prospects for federal climate/energy action in the next year or two. Initially I was going to do a quick overview post on it, but the post got way (waaay) out of hand. Now it is many thousands of words and counting, so I’m going to break it […]

Senate hones in on crucial need for country: more cars

I was chatting the other day with Jack Hidary, chair of SmartTransportation.org, about the "cash for clunkers" bill he's been pushing up on the Hill (watch him debate the bill with all-purpose dumbass Patrick Michaels here).

On balance I'm a big fan of the idea -- offering vouchers toward the purchase of new fuel-efficient cars or transit passes to those who turn in old gas guzzlers -- though there are reasons for caution, well-described by Rob Inglis here. After all, there's a lot of energy and emissions involved in manufacturing new cars. Would removing the oldest of the gas guzzlers still be a net economic and climate gain? It's a subject worth investigating and debating.

You know what isn't worth investigating or debating? You know what policy would absolutely, certainly, no-doubt-about-it suck from both an economic and climate perspective? Just giving people tax money to buy new cars, with no restrictions. You know, just to get more cars made and sold and on the road.

Naturally, the Senate is taking the latter route.

We are ruled by idiots.

Whose idiocy is worse?

Here's an exchange from Obama's interview on CBS the other night:

Couric: Sen. Mitch McConnell said over the weekend that surely you're privately embarrassed by some of the product that came out of the house version and let me just mention some of the spending in this package: $6.2 billion for home weatherization, $100 million for children to learn green construction, $50 million for port modernization water and wastewater infrastructure needs in Guam, $50 million for the NEA, the National Endowment for the Arts. Even if some of these are a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars, Mr. President, why are they included in this bill designed to jumpstart the economy and create jobs right now?

Obama: Lets take that example. I'm stunned that Mitch McConnell use this as an example.

Couric: We actually got these examples, so you can't necessarily blame him

Question: Which would be worse, that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell thought those were hi-larious examples of non-job-creating uses of public money ... or that a major news organization like CBS thought so?

Discuss.

Obama's answer beneath the fold: