Articles by David Roberts

Significant turning points in the rise of the domestic wind industry

"The wind industry now employs more people than coal mining in the United States," reports Todd Woody.

Jerome a Paris notes another portentous development:

For the fourth consecutive year, the US set records in 2008 for the construction of new wind farms, with more than 8,300MW installed in the year, making the country the leader for both yearly installations and, for the first time in many years, overall installed capacity (nudging out Germany which has long been the world leader).

(Despite that, he thinks 2009 will be a rough year for wind, thanks to the late renewal of the PTC and the credit crisis. He recommends a few ways the feds could support wind over the speed bump and help its long-term growth, namely stable, predictable federal rules, preferably a feed-in tariff.)

And finally, in Salon, Jeff Biggers writes about the battle over Coal River Mountain -- the cosmically evil Massey mining subsidiary that wants to blow the mountain up to get at coal vs. the scrappy grassroots coalition that wants to build a wind farm instead. Could this be another turning point in the making?

Kingston, coal ash, and the coal lobby’s grip on the EPA

The American News Project files a report on "The EPA and the Curse of Coal Ash." Fantastic, affecting stuff, as always from ANP. Watch:

More on conservatives and carbon taxes

Bill Chameides, all around smart guy and dean of Duke's Nicholas School, takes a look at the rash of conservatives supporting carbon taxes (which I addressed the other day in more, um, colorful terms):

Some of my colleagues believe it's the poisoned pawn ploy -- since taxes are not viable politically, kill climate legislation by favoring a carbon tax.

I have a different hunch.

His hunch is that conservatives want to raise a carbon tax (which is regressive) in order to lower income taxes (which are progressive) -- in other words, they want a regressive tax shift. These newly minted carbon tax fans are longtime champions of that agenda:

Coincidentally, Inglis and Laffer just happen to favor replacing our progressive tax system with a more regressive one (see here and here). Inglis has earned the Citizens for Tax Justice's highest rating for his opposition "to progressive taxes," and Laffer is a highly vocal proponent of the flat tax that would replace our progressive tax system with a single tax rate for all Americans.

Many things about the tax vs. C&T debate are uncertain, but one thing I have no doubt about is that James Inhofe and Rex Tillerson are not participating in good faith. If those two guys told me the earth was round I'd be rechecking satellite photos.

Shorter work week as stimulus

Economist Dean Baker (co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and one of the good guys in that dismal profession) takes up one of my pet obsessions: a shorter work week:

One innovative policy that would provide a quick boost to the economy and jobs -- and lasting gains in reduced unemployment -- is a tax incentive for shorter workweeks or work years.

...

How would this help the economy? The tax break would allow the employer to compensate workers for fewer hours up to some limit, say a maximum of $2,500 per worker. That would cut work hours but maintain staffing levels.

As a result, workers would be getting just as much money as before the reduction in hours -- but putting in 10% fewer hours. If workers have the same amount of money, then demand in the economy will be the same. At the same time, firms would then need to hire more workers to meet this demand, since they would be getting 10% fewer hours from each worker.

I once did a column in Fast Company on the ecological benefits of a shorter work week. This seems like one of those things that's substantively win-win but sociopolitically completely out of reach. People have weird attitudes about work.