mwildfire’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Well, I was there, and this article if anything underplays what happened at the WV hearing. Ken Ward was inside the hearing room, as I was, and we saw all speakers in favor of the change booed and heckled to the point where you couldn't hear them much of the time (and the recorder was throwing up his hands--he couldn't hear either). But the Corps people running the meeting refused to adjust our time so we actually got three minutes to speak. Each speaker for the status quo got roaring applause and standing ovations, and they mostly faced the crowd, not the Corps people--no wonder much of the crowd thought they were at a coal rally. Even one of the cops apparently thought that, as he refused a police escort to their cars for the last group of pro-mountain activists to leave, telling them, "You knew what you were getting into when you came here." The chief of police is collecting comments as he looks into what happened, and I have read most of the comments--it's clear that what happened outside the building was a lot worse than what happened inside. It took me two days to fully relax after this. Probably one reason there were so few pro-mountain people is that we have been to many hearings which were just as lopsided the other way--where nearly all, or even every single speaker, spoke against a proposed permit, passionately and eloquently--yet I've never seen a permit denied. What reason is there to think these agencies care what the public thinks? Apparently the coal industry thought otherwise about THIS set of hearings, though, as they bused thousands of workers and families to the events, and got them all wound up with outrage and the idea that they would lose their jobs if the change was made. Why did they do this? Do they know something we didn't--like that the Army Corps of Engineers is divided at the top, and those who want to return to the NW21 permits (quick rubberstamp permits) need the cover of "overwhelming public opposition to the change as seen at the hearings"? Bottom line: the situation in the coalfields is kind of like the situation in the South in the Fifties and Sixties, when activists got the federal government to do the right thing--but local regressives made it exceedingly dangerous for black people to exercise their rights, and we have been able to move beyond those times largely thanks to the brave intervention of people from outside who gave them support.On Mountaintop Removal Hearings Get Tense posted 1 month ago 2 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ShellyT: I guess in your view there are two binary possibilities here. Either the bill is perfect and should be supported, or it is not-quite-perfect and should be supported anyway because it's the best we can expect. No such thing as a bill that's utterly and laughably inadequate? I myself see quite a distinction between that and a bill that's "not perfect," and I'm getting irritated with the constant repeating of that phrase whenever people explain why Waxman Markey is so without merit that it is not worth supporting--at least, not by environmentalists. Is it our only shot, the best we will ever get? Quite possibly, but there ARE other bills being proposed, including some with a much simpler and cleaner and likely more effective carbon tax. Apparently it's good enough for you as long as it is called a climate bill, and you don't care what's in it. A key difference between the two sides in this debate lies in whether one believes--as you clearly do--that inadequate legislation is likely to be improved upon later, or as many of us do, that inadequate legislation is likely to be the excuse to do nothing more about this issue for years, until the failures of the bill are glaringly apparent. At that point it will be way too late--we will have catastrophic climate change no matter what we do. That the public doesn't fully understand climate change and that--in the US anyway--the deniers have made good progress of late in influencing public opinion is entirely true, and rectifying this situation probably has more likelihood of leading to a solution in time than any amount of lobbying in DC--unless you have given the campaigns of your targets tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, in which case lobbying might well be fruitful. Unfortunately, influencing public opinion is much easier for the denialists--they have the built-in advantage that most people want to believe them. They have inertia and laziness and selfishness as allies, while we are asking people to make changes--I would argue that they aren't really sacrifices, but most people see them that way--primarly to benefit people who haven't been born yet, on the basis of what scientists claim about a problem that's barely visible as yet. Most people are happy to believe in even less visible Gods, but that's different--they get a payoff in avoiding awareness of death and evading adult responsibility (God is in charge and will take care of it all, and everything will be fine as long as I'm a good boy or girl).On ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 104 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  First, thanks to Grist for opening up this fascinating discussion. To whoever said the people at the front lines don't appreciate actions like those of SOS and would rather have these people fighting at the gates of the coal mines: as one who was arrested at the gates of the coal mines in Februrary, I applaud Hansen for getting arrested there more recently and I applaud SOS and the Yes Men for pointing out that what is being brought forth by the US Congress is completely inadequate. Some assume that shooting down Waxman/Markey and Boxer Kerry will cause all the activists to go home in defeat, while others assume that it would give us a better bill. I tend to think it would give us at least a tiny chance at an adequate bill, whereas passing a bill so heavily compromised that it would make certain derivatives traders rich and up coal profits without reducing GHG probably at all, while still pretending to be a climate bill, will delay actual legislation by years we can't afford. It's hard to say how the rest of the world, specifically the Copenhagen delegates, will view either the passage or failure of what they surely recognise as a completely inadequate bill. I am disappointed in Randy Cunningham, who has posted good things in the past, for here wailing that the progressives have no alternatives suggested, while ignoring all the alternatives posted above his comment--and I note he himself has no solutions to suggest, yet arrogantly "assigns both sides a D"! The reality that has not been adequately faced by either side is that 1--we can't really get where we need to merely by individual virtue ("stop flying and driving") as important as it is for each of us to assume such virtue; and 2--we therefore must have legislation coming first from DC and then from Copenhagen to allow our economies to make the kind of radical changes we need, fast enough. But the US Congress is essentially a large whorehouse--they pass whatever legislation their largest campaign contributors request. Yes, some corporations have issued statements claiming to have concern about climate change, but most will continue lobbying for whatever enhances next quarter's bottom line until the waters close over their offices. So it's pretty hard to imagine any scenario in which Congress passes a remotely adequate bill. I heard recently that Stephen Hawking said runaway climate change could leave us with a planet like Venus where water boils on the surface. No doubt a worst-case scenario, and Hawking isn't a climate scientist, but he's hardly uninformed nor an idiot. It looks like life on Earth may be at stake here, and we're running out of time. Will massive protests help? I think they're likely to be more effective than "calling your (sic) Senators" but of course the mass media covers what it chooses, and it's hard to influence with protests if the mass media doesn't put them on TV. The mass media is owned by the ruling class, which is happy to cover tea party "protests" whose participants are their dupes. So what MIGHT work, in time? I'm sure there are those, like Derrick Jensen, thinking about direct action to bring down civilization before it destroys our planet. Don't expect them to post such suggestions here. I myself am led logically to conclude such people are right--yet can't face the moral horror of actions likely to kill millions or billions of humans; although climate change, together with other crises facing us, is likely to do the same thing and take most other species with us. The sad part is, I believe that while it would be a major undertaking for humanity to solve this problem, it's well within the realm of what's possible technically; and furthermore we could make the transition and find ourselves healthier and happier than before, with no premature human deaths. Unfortunately humanity's fatal flaws in collective decsion-making are such that there is realistically no chance of this happening. It would require, for example, that we stop diverting the biggest part of our collective surplus to finding ways to arrange the premature deaths of those humans currently labelled by our "leaders" as "our enemy." Crazed radicals like me don't view this as a sacrifice, would even embrace the change--but to normal people it would of course be unthinkable. Likewise, only the extremists think it would be a good idea to restrict the rich--but sufficient change might require that we stop diverting such a hefty perecentage of our surplus to ensuring that a tiny fraction of the population, and all their offspring forever, live like emperors without making any contribution. Obviously these two changes are so extreme that we should not contemplate them even if they should turn out to be necessary for the survival of the human race. But we're not discussing such extreme measures here--only whether a bill that's, um, "not perfect" ha ha ha!--should be stopped. Sigh.On ‘No compromise’ faction attacks climate bill posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 104 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I've been having a conversation with a friend about why other scientists have not joined Hansen in upping the ante, underlining how serious this is by making strong public statements and even risking arrest. I say, as long as it's only him, you can see where a lot of people don't think the problem is that serious. If scientists really believed it's such a threat, they might think, why aren't they screaming about it? My friend tried to explain that it's considered unprofessional for scientists to get involved in politics--but heavens, if all life on Earth is threatened, isn't that important enough to violate such norms? And here we see that the New York Times is saying that because Hansen DOES speak out strongly, he can be ignored?? This is crazy. Meanwhile, another piece here says that a lifelong oil man is putting out ads claiming that CO2 will make the planet greener, and now he's setting up a sister organization, to be "educational" rather than direct advocacy, so it can be a charity!On James Hansen on Obama, climate legislation, and the scourge of coal posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 8 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Thanks! Clean, simple graphs like that aren't used enough.On Fossil fuel subsidies dwarf clean energy subsidies; Obama wants to eliminate them posted 1 month, 4 weeks ago 13 Responses