Bart Anderson’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I'd like to see a wider sample of reactions to the bill. If Grist only posts reactions that it agrees with, we will all have lower IQs. Here are some other reactions:

  
  Dennis Kucinich

  I oppose H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009.  The reason is simple.  It won’t address the problem.  In fact, it might make the problem worse.
  
  “It sets targets that are too weak, especially in the short term, and sets about meeting those targets through Enron-style accounting methods.  It gives new life to one of the primary sources of the problem that should be on its way out– coal – by giving it record subsidies.  And it is rounded out with massive corporate giveaways at taxpayer expense.  There is $60 billion for a single technology which may or may not work, but which enables coal power plants to keep warming the planet at least another 20 years.

  Bill McKibben (Greenpeace interview)

  ...  You can't do what needs to be done with the current constellation of political forces. I was in the White House a month ago and the clear message was 'Make us do it.' Build us a movement that gives us the room to do the things that we want to do. Because they don't have it now.

  Climate Change Activists Dismayed by Some of Bill's Provisions (Washington Post)
  

  many green groups seem to be supporting the bill -- now stuffed with benefits for emitters such as utilities, manufacturers and farmers -- while holding their nose. "We're not saying, 'Kill the bill,' " said Frank O'Donnell, of the group Clean Air Watch. "But we're saying it sure as heck ought to get better in the Senate, or it's going to be a sorry day."

  Bart / Energy Bulletin

  On Reactions to passage of the House climate and energy bill posted 4 months, 1 week ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Excellent points.

  One quibble about Twitter and Iran.  Yes, Twitter helps get news out that otherwise would get lost. However, one still has to put the events into context, and most Americans are not able to deal with the complexity of stories like Iran. We tend to think of heroes and villains, a comic book view of the world.

  This is the truth of Idealism (e.g., the quote from the Buddha at the beginning of the essay). Ideas, context and framing matter.

  One of the advantages of alternate media is that we are able to develop the ideas which are taboo in the mainstream media.

  Bart Anderson / Energy Bulletin

  On We are what we think: Why the press fails us and how to fix it posted 4 months, 2 weeks ago 6 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  >> After all, sports is a business, and the fans are the customers.
  
  This is a strange sentiment.  I thought that sports were what people did for pleasure and exercise and as an excuse to get together.  At any rate, those are the sports that I like to participate in.

  It seems that any time consumerism gets into the picture, people's IQ goes down, their weight goes up, and greenhouse emissions skyrocket.

  I guess this is a subject for people who like spectator sports more than I do. There are definitely ways to make them greener.

  But my tendency is to say, to heck with them. Turn off the tv, get out of the car, go out and run around around, play with your kids and neighbors. It's cheaper, greener and better for you.

  On Blowing the green whistle on sports posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I've discussed peak oil and energy issues for years on Gristmill.  Almost always I've ended by learning something new, and having respect for other people on the thread whether or not we agree.

  There are toxic styles of argumentation which destroy the possibility of mutual respect and community. They leave people feeling hopeless and confused.

  The best thing to do is to avoid conversation with such people. Any intereaction will be txoic.. Lesson learned.

  On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 4 months, 3 weeks ago 44 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Washington Monthly has an excellent article on Henry Waxman, the Congressman behind the bill:  http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.homans.html

  Marathon Man
  ("Henry Waxman's climate change bill won’t make it into law this year. That’s why he’s the right guy for the job").

  Excerpt:

  Waxman has borrowed his negotiating tools from USCAP, leaving open the question of how exactly the emissions allowances will be allocated—how many will be auctioned off, and how many will be given away. The proposal would also include a system of emissions offsets, which would allow federal regulators to count carbon-absorbing resources like forests against the pollution limits.
  
  While such flexibility is the greatest strength of Waxman’s plan, however, it’s also its greatest weakness. The bill’s wiggle room improves its chances of passing Waxman’s committee and later the Senate—but, if abused, could also gut the bill of its effectiveness. "The [draft] bill includes two billion tons of offsets, which is far too many," Greenpeace’s Steven Biel says. "You could meet the requirements under this cap with no emissions reductions at all for twenty years or more." There is also the cautionary tale of Europe, where a poorly conceived emissions-trading system did little to reduce actual emissions in its first several years while saddling industries with copious red tape.
  
  Ultimately, the biggest obstacle to Waxman’s goals is the fact that climate change is exactly the kind of problem that Congress is least well calibrated to confront: a threat of existential scale but unclear contours, where all short-term incentives point in the wrong direction. ...

  - Bart / EB

  On Why do U.S. environmentalists remain irrationally committed to a losing strategy? posted 4 months, 4 weeks ago 32 Responses