DaveGreenAndRed’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Don't get your hopes up.

  This technology ain't gonna be used to reduce emissions.  It will be used to make faster and bigger cars.

  Think differently?  Read your history.  

  For the last 30 years, the automotive industry in North America has overwhelmingly used engine technology improvements to make bigger and faster cars, rather than cars that pollute less or consume less gasoline.

  This technology will be used to do the same thing.  It will enable Ford to increase horsepower while complying with existing emissions / mileage requirements (such as they are).

  Without legislative improvements to those emissions / mileage requirements, Ford won't use this technology to improve emissions or mileage.

  Techno-philes, no doubt, will disagree.  They're a strange, self-deluding species.On Ford Motor Co. unveils greener engine posted 1 year, 10 months ago 12 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  SO the wrong word (and about coal firm owners...)

  Wow, does anyone remember Lakoff's suggestion (and that of many going back to the ancient greeks) that one not use the other side's frames?  

  The global warming deniers are pushing the "sacrifice" frame for a reason - it works.  So don't use it.

  We need to point out that there can and will be continued economic growth even if we reduce our greenhouse gas emissions.  Don't deny the assertion of sacrifice; just point out that we will still have growth - lots of it.

  And then point out that there is going to be a HUGE cost, to your average person, from climate change if we don't fix it.

  And as for the coal company owners, I'm not at all convinced that they will have lower incomes in the future.  What will actually happen, as climate policy gets closer to what it needs to do, is: (1) the markets will start to send signals discounting the value of coal firm shares in line with future profitability calculations; (2) rational coal firm share owners will sell their shares; (3) the cost of coal firm shares will go down in accordance with market discounting; (4) some will buy the shares at the lower prices, and thus will not require as high returns; (5) everyone else who used to be coal firm shareholders will end up owning other investments that will benefit from the overall economic shift away from rewarding carbon output.  I repeat, today's rational coal firm shareholders will in future own shares in carbon non-intensive firms, which in general will do absolutely better.  Their incomes will not be lower.On Please, can we lay off the calls for sacrifice in the face of climate change? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Victory for Bush

  I am surprised by the way many greens are interpreting the events at Bali.  I guess people have forgotten Rio and Kyoto, or are too young to know what happened there.

  The US strategy at Rio, Kyoto, and Bali (and elsewhere) has been to go in very tough, and stay tough.  Eventually the other countries cave in and the agreement gets weakened.  

  And then the US fails to ratify/comply with the weakened agreement in any event.  On this point, please note the warning shot reported at the end of the article: "Just hours after the deal was reached, the White House expressed "serious concerns" about it."

  Upshot: the agreement gets weakened (thus protecting the international financial interests of Big Oil, the GOP's only true constituency) and the US doesn't feel any need to comply in any event.

  How Avaaz and others can claim this is a victory is beyond me.  

  The only victory we will ever get with GOP in the white house - and perhaps with the Dems - is if the rest of the world creates a strong climate treaty and enforces it (againt countries who refuse to sign, ratify and comply) by using trade sanctions.  These were the teeth behind the CFC treaties, which are by far the most successful (only successful?) environmental treaties.On High drama leads to compromise at climate conference posted 1 year, 11 months ago 18 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Fun, but not helpful

  Of course it's entertaining to poke fun at naive / stupid global warming deniers.

  But we have to realize that this kind of hoax plays into the hands of the strategic and intelligent global warming deniers - the ones who are getting paid a lot of money to create confusion.  These are a far more effective crowd.

  This crowd doesn't care if something is a hoax, or is even outed as a hoax.  They only care that it gets published as widely as possible, because for some of the populace, IT WILL STICK NO MATTER WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR FALSE.

  Those who have looked at Big Tobacco's tactics (and anyone who cares about global warming should do so) will know that they have - more than once - funded bogus "studies" that get reported in newspapers.  Later these "studies" get de-bunked, and sometimes the journals and newspapers that reported on them even print a retraction.  But very few notice the retraction.  The bogus studies, in other words, worked.  Just like a hoax.

  So while we high-five and say "good one - we really confused those dummies", guess what the strategic global warming deniers are doing.  

  Yes, they are high-fiving and saying "good one, etc."

    On Climate change skeptics fall for hoax paper posted 1 year, 12 months ago 10 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Missed the point

  Actually, the myth is not just that cyclist are elitist, but that environmentalists are elitist (the creators and proponents of the myth also assert that all cyclists are environmentalists).  

  But the point being missed here isn't that the myth makes no sense.  Of course it makes no sense, as Alan demontrates.

  The point, rather, is that the myth was created, deliberately.  And the only way to kill it will be to replace it, and that means consistently pushing a different view, i.e. framing.

  We won't shake this myth loose by pointing out how ludicrous it is.  Instead, we have to point out that hummers and SUVs are driven by elites (mainly lazy woosies).  We have to point out that the rich - yes, actually the rich - are elites.  We have to put reality back into the language.  And we have to harp on these points consistently in order to reframe the discussion.On Alan Durning on whether biking is for children and for losers posted 2 years, 3 months ago 26 Responses