Climate Politics

Everything you ever wanted to know about … everything

So much material. So little time. So many complicated issues. So little expertise.

How about a big fat linky post!

Treehugger has a fantastic interview with Hunter Lovins, long-time champion of sustainability, now president of Natural Capitalism Solutions, Inc. She talks about her current international work, focusing on Afghanistan. I particularly like this exchange, which is relevant to our discussion of poverty earlier:

Do you believe that economic development can go hand in hand with sustainable development?

Yes, and this is a critical point. We know how to meet people's needs for energy, for water, for housing, for sanitation, and for transportation, with much more sustainable technologies than are traditionally brought by development agencies.

Most of what is called development around the world is really donor nation dollars hiring donor nation contractors to deliver last century's technologies, in such a way that the jobs and the economic benefit go right back to the originating donor country.

And when the dollars, the contractors, and the programs leave, the people in Afghanistan, or Africa, or wherever the so-called "development" is being done, are no better off than they were. If anything, they're worse off: perhaps building a massive coal plant for which they've taken foreign debt; or put in some piece of infrastructure that they don't really know how to run, that isn't creating local jobs, and isn't meeting local needs. And, everybody's wasted a lot of money and time. We can do a lot better than that.

Word.

See also Grist's interview with Lovins, and this survey about your rug preferences (really), which Lovins would very much like you to fill out.

-----

Speaking of fantastic interviews with Lovinses, don't miss Discover's short but action-packed interview with Amory Lovins. Just about everything the dude says is quote-worthy, but I think this is my favorite:

If I could do just one thing to solve our energy problems, I would allow energy to compete fairly at honest prices regardless of which kind it is, what technology it uses, how big it is, or who owns it. If we did that, we wouldn't have an oil problem, a climate problem, or a nuclear proliferation problem. Those are all artifacts of public policies that have distorted the market into buying things it wouldn't otherwise have bought because they were turkeys.

So much wisdom in so few words.

Dipping Alito in the Water

Clean-water cases go before Supreme Court The Supreme Court will hear two cases with immense consequences for federal clean-water protections this week. Both were brought by Michigan developers who were unable to build on parcels of land when they were denied Clean Water Act permits. The legal challenges amount to a frontal attack on the […]

Addicted to Hot Air

Bush hits the road to tout alternative energy technologies With the American people restless over high home-heating and gasoline prices, President Bush has embarked on a PR tour of electorally important states to promote alternative energy technologies. Yesterday, he touted his plan to increase funding for energy research during visits to solar-panel manufacturer United Solar […]

An interview with Sir David King, Britain’s top scientist and climate crusader

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has earned a rep as a global leader in the fight against climate change, and, at least in part, he has Sir David King to thank for it. Sir David King. King, the U.K. government’s chief scientific adviser and an outspoken advocate of aggressive action to forestall global warming, has […]

What the Bleep Do They Know!?

NOAA scientists join NASA’s with accounts of global-warming censorship Government censorship: It’s what’s for dinner. Some climate scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration whose views on global warming contradict Bush administration policy say they’re being prevented from giving particular interviews or being closely monitored by press handlers. A recent NOAA press release claiming […]

Fiber Tactics

Asbestos trust fund derailed in the Senate Remember the titanic struggle erupting in the Senate all of eight days ago, as a landmark bill to create a $140 billion industry-financed trust fund for victims of asbestos-related illnesses moved to the floor for debate? Well, pack up your lawn chair: It’s over. Yesterday, the bill effectively […]

Facts and figures on poverty in the United States

$35,000 — basic-needs budget for a U.S. family of four (two adults, two children), as calculated in An Atlas of Poverty in America 1 $19,157 — poverty line for a family of four (two adults, two children) in the U.S. in 2004, as established by the U.S. Census Bureau 2 $19,000 — amount spent by […]

Introducing a seven-week series on the intersection of economic and ecological survival

Consider this central paradox of U.S. environmentalism: In much of popular and political culture, the movement is dismissed as the pet cause of white, well-off Americans — people who can afford to buy organic arugula, vacation in Lake Tahoe, and worry about the fate of the Pacific pocket mouse. And yet, the population most affected […]

Less Money, Mo’ Problems

Bush’s 2007 budget slashes funding for energy conservation When President Bush said “America is addicted to oil,” we thought he meant that was a bad thing. Apparently not: Bush’s proposed 2007 budget increases funding for oil and gas drilling on public lands and slashes $100 million from some of the Energy Department’s most effective conservation […]

Obama and Inslee propose to save the American auto industry by paying it to do the smart thing

Don't miss "Salvaging the Auto Industry," a Boston Globe op-ed from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.), two of the Dems' brightest lights on energy issues. (Inslee wrote a piece in Grist on his New Apollo Energy Act.)

Obama and Inslee propose a piece of legislation called the "Health Care for Hybrids" Act. The idea is that the feds would help American auto companies pay some of their enormous healthcare costs; in return, the companies would commit to using the money to develop fuel-efficient vehicles.

I'm a little dubious about the bill on the merits.