Dave gives Obama's speech short shrift. I would argue that this speech -- taking it to the automakers on their home turf, apparently to some applause -- is a big-time deal. The same could be said of the speech what Dave wrote in starry-eyed fashion when the outlines of the TXU deal became public: "The 'tipping point' concept is cheap from overuse these days, but to me this is the clearest sign yet that we have entered a fundamentally new stage in the fight against global warming."
Sure, the policy recommendations behind the speech may not be the boldest out there, but can you imagine a presidential candidate giving this speech even a year ago, let alone at this point in 2003? In 1999, Gore was running as hard as he could from Earth-in-the-Balance-like proclamations like this one by Obama today: "The auto industry's refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out."
I'm interested in others' thoughts. And keep your eyes on Grist -- as the race heats up, we will be conducting the definitive green interviews with presidential contenders.
Chuck Norris on Copenhagen
The U.S.-India climate ‘partnership’
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
Comments
View as Flat
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:53 pm
07 May 2007
Permalink
Pangolin Posted 7:03 pm
07 May 2007
Consider that your average asphalt road has a higher oil content than oil shales that are being mined, crushed, and heated to extract fuels. Our cities and suburbs are literally paved with money.
In this other Gristmill Post the guy on the electric bike has to negotiate an obstacle course of potholes to get his speed up. The roads in my town and your are falling apart because you have to use fuel and burn fuel to fix them.
In the long run ultra-light rail or Personal Rapid Transit systems can facilitate the transition from private automobiles to a public transit system. The key to these systems will be keeping the infrastructure, the tracks and vehicles should be kept as light and therefore as cheap as possible.
If you think cars on roads are viable in the long run look at the condition of the roads in your town. Then go fill your tank.
Another PRT link, and one last.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 11:24 pm
07 May 2007
It is rather amusing, how we are all treating Obama as a kind of exotic, attractive object in a store, which we pick up, handle and look at with some interest, and then we put it down on the shelf again, saying, "OK, let's see what else there is, we can always come back."
While I am not quite so cynical as Ron at this point, I think Ron's observations are important. But what strikes me is that Obama is not really committed yet to a solid energy policy.
It would help to understand what is most important to Obama -- and I do not think it is energy. The Detroit speech showed that right now, he is interested in finding political support. We have to ask: Yes, he went to Detroit and "talked tough" to auto-makers on CAFE standards, etc.; but between the lines, what was he really communicating to them? Surely that cute witticism from a few years ago, "There are only two kinds of businesses, those that use e-mail, and those that will," is coded language? Tough-seeming, but not really tough? A dirigiste, working on their side?
And surely there was a message here for the labor unions. There are many more actively voting union members than bosses, after all. (Or at least there used to be.)
On coal and ethanol, Obama badly needs environmentalist advice. Here too, he is apparently being political, knowing full well that "energy independence" is a big selling point with many Republicans.
The sooner he sits down with David Roberts, the better. I am happy to grant that he does sincerely want to help the country and the world. But he could definitely some increased contact with Grist.
On "dirigisme": The Wikipedia article is OK, but I do not think it quite makes clear why, on the one hand, it is ideologically an attractive best-of-both-worlds blending of socialism and laissez-faire capitalism, on the one hand; and on the other, why it was in fact historically abused in France, and ended up being considered a failure.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 12:11 am
08 May 2007
I think re-writing Obama's speech by replacing certain parts would be a great exersize for some of us radicals. What would we like him to say if we were his speech writers?
Then we send him a link to the artcile? What do you think? We gotta get proactive.
This '08 cycle is a BIG chance to re-evoltionize the environmental debate and global energy policy along with it.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog
Permalink
WKB Posted 3:10 am
08 May 2007
Edwards has never held any appeal for me, but he attended a Step It Up event and endorsed the 80 percent reduction in carbon by 2050.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:26 am
08 May 2007
GM Volt in production in 36 months.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
Expect an estimated 150 equivalent miles per gallon when you use this electric battery and gasoline-combination to drive approximately 60 miles per day.
150 mpg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
John Bailo, The "Denier Guy"
You Read It Here First
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:40 am
08 May 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 3:52 am
08 May 2007
The cumulative (2007-2025) cost to the U.S. Treasury of reaching that target, assuming that the $0.51/gallon volumetric ethanol excise tax credit (VEETC) is extended beyond 2010, would be almost $350 billion.
That calculation assumes straight line growth over 19 years from an assumed domestic consumption of 7 billion gallons in 2007: $0.51/gallon x 19 years x (7 billion gallons + [65-7 billion gallons]/2) = $348.8 billion.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 5:22 am
08 May 2007
GM Volt in production in 36 months.
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/
Expect an estimated 150 equivalent miles per gallon when you use this electric battery and gasoline-combination to drive approximately 60 miles per day.
150 mpg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Frankly after watch who killed the electric car, and seeing GM's PR that they might not even produce the Volt, that it might remain a concept car. I'm not too encouraged by GM.
What I am encouraged by is Phoenix Motorcars
Within the next 12 months they should have an SUV out on the road with 130 mile electric range with it's "series hybrid" drivetrain.
http://thefraserdomain.typepad.com/energy/2007/04/phoenix ...
_
For those who don't know. A "series hybrid" is a fully electric car, except with the bare minimum components needed to add a liquid fuel generator for extended range and flexibility.
http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-center-how-hybrid-cars ...
_
For the forseable future,
Series Hybrid Electric Vehicles are going to be the best technology to move forward.
Since they have all the flexibility of existing cars, with CO2 emmisions which can easily be orders of magnitude more green than a Prius or a Hydrogen Fuel Cell.
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:37 pm
08 May 2007
===
THE TIMIDITY OF HOPE
Here's one reason Barack Obama talks so much about the audacity of hope: his policies are so meek.
For example, he is clearly afraid to get anywhere near single payer healthcare so he comes up with a plan where the federal government would subsidize the auto companies' healthcare in return for more fuel efficient cars.
Aside from the fact that this is in opposition to far wiser efforts to disassociate healthcare from the work place, aside from the fact it is a corporatist policy that makes government even more a hostage of industry, aside from the subsidy to General Motors and its ilk, Obama not only is afraid of challenging the health insurance industry, he wants government to help further fill its trough. Although less bizarre than Hillary Clinton's 1990s health plan, there is no justification for it other than pure political convenience.
If this is the best he can come up with, there's good reason he's taken the easy way out and applied the marketing principles of Tony Robbins and Marianne Williamson to a political campaign. Having gone through eight years of EST with Bill Clinton and almost that much of AA with George Bush, we should be burned out on psycho-therapeutics as opposed to physical reality but sadly many are taken in by Obama's covert message that if you trust in hope you don't have to worry about the details like pensions and healthcare.
There are several problems with this.
One is that no one has presented the slightest evidence of why Obama's hope and faith is better than that of any of the other candidates.
The second problem is that hope is not audacious at all. Audacious would be doing something now, audacious would be taking a personal political risk because the country needs it, audacious would be saying something unconventional because the conventional is killing us. Audacity is not turning one's back on present needs and praying that the future will straighten it all out.
One of the best kept secrets in America today is the extent to which hope and faith are being used as seedy substitutes for action and reason. Too often, hope is a form of postponement and faith a substitute for action or facing the truth.
But as they say in the 'hood, hope don't pay the cable.
And as Tijn Touber has noted, "If you hang on to hope, you'll always have to wait" and "waiting makes you passive."
Thus, someone like Obama functions as a political sedative. His message is that we don't have to worry so much about what's happening because we can let the future handle it.
This is not audacious; it's either a con or cowardice.
"An optimist is someone who thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is someone who is afraid that the optimist is right."
Permalink