Comments Steven T has made

Yes but

Perhaps my expectations are too low, but we're dealing with a federal government that hasn't enacted a major new type of tax in years.  Indeed, anti-tax hysteria seems to be deeply embedded in the structure and culture of the beltway.  Remember how Clinton was routed with his healthcare plan in 1993?  Clearly the Obama administration is trying to avoid an encore performance.

Now, perhaps they've gone too far in the other direction.  But remember that Congress will weigh in.  If there's the political will, the proposal will be improved.  And if not, then a tougher proposal would have been DOA anyway.

The tide may have turned on global warming, but we don't yet know how far we can push politically.  

The other factor that may be worth mentioning is that the proposal essentially amounts to a back door pollution tax that has the potential to eclipse more conventional taxes, e.g., the payroll tax.  Is that not the general direction we wish to go?  Might this be an expedient way to take the first step down that road?

That's a genuine question rather than a veiled comment.On What percentage of auction revenue is rebated? posted 9 months ago 10 Responses

Journalistic corruptions

Ted Clayton:  Regarding your second posting, you make a reasonable point about the media being slaves to the story.  Yes, that phenomena needs greater discussion.  However, as a journalist I think that Will's repeated basic ethical abuses symbolize the corruption and ineptitude of the national press.  This anything goes attitude needs to change for reasons that go far beyond coverage of global warming.  

Pompey Road:  George Will isn't a journalist.  He's a scholar-turned right-wing columnist/pundit.  Unlike, say, Walter Cronkite, he has never abided by basic mainstream journalism standards of factually grounded, objective reporting.  Alas, today's news media tends to conflate punditry and journalism to the degree that the public can't distinguish between the two.  This is a big reason for the declining ethics of the news media.On Conservative columnist lies to millions of people, again, ho hum posted 9 months, 2 weeks ago 36 Responses

Are the Greens becoming relevant?

wesrolley, I'm with you from an ideological standpoint that the Greens are the place to be.  Indeed, I was involved with them way back in the 1980s, when it wasn't nearly as hip to do so.

What I have found over the years is that the Green culture has been more focused on intellectual discourse and small-group socializing than developing an effective political movement that wins elections and passes laws.

A big part of the problem seems to be that all too many Greens are more interested in wearing the Green Party label than in infusing their city council, county commission, state legislature or federal congress with a green agenda.  

There's a big difference between the two.  The former focuses entirely too much on party building at the expense of movement building.  The former inevitably becomes an insular exercise in futility.  The latter holds out the chance of developing coalitions that can actually implement substantive change.

Perhaps part of the Greens' problem is that their theory of social change is too heavily rooted in the past.  In general, traditional political parties are increasingly irrelevant.  In addition, third parties have virtually no hope of succeeding in the US.  I'm not happy about that, but at some point don't we need to be reality based if our goal is to actually accomplish change?

Yes, we've all been through these arguments before, and they tend to leave everyone frustrated.  But if you are going to pitch the Greens I'm going to tell you, "Been there, done that, didn't work" - at least using the party-focused model.On On Maddow show, Oberstar DeFazio fingers Larry Summers as destroyer of transit spending posted 10 months, 1 week ago 15 Responses

On spectacle

I hope this gets wide distribution because the clip powerfully illustrates what strange depths the Republican Party has descended to.On Sarah Palin pardons a turkey just before another is slaughtered behind her ... live posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

It makes sense in a postmodern way

Dave, sure you win on technicalities, but in the postmodern world no one has a lock on the Truth, right?  See, if Mr. Lutz and friends wish to redefine the meaning of paradigm, why can't they follow their bliss?  After all, it isn't like the typical newspaper is going to question their grasp of the philosophy of science.

Rationality is dead.  Hyper-real spin rules all.  If McCain says war is peace, it must be so.  Or not.  Who knows?  And, really, why even try to sort it all out when there are so many televised fetishes to choose from?  One might even come across Lutz on the Colbert Report lauding the sun spot "theory" while insisting that a Volt can get you laid (with a hairy-legged granola chic).

More seriously, Lutz's views are actually pretty mainstream in the American automobile industry.  In some quarters he is a full-fledged hero for saying out loud what more PC executives, trade journalists and auto dealers quietly believe:  Global warming IS a fraudulent conspiracy against all that is good about American commerce.

Some of this denialism is grounded in highly effective propaganda, but there's also plenty of cognitive dissonance to go around.  Human-caused global warming isn't a big problem because if it is the paradigmatic referents of the auto industry must be dramatically changed.  It's not just about money and power -- it's also about a fundamental sense of identity.   Very psychological.  This is a point that many enviros fail to recognize at their own peril.On GM flack misuses Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science (!) to defend Lutz climate skepticism posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

Say more, please

Wiscidea, fascinating feedback.  Might you provide evidence to back up your rather strongly worded conclusions?  Or are you exempt from upholding your own standards of excellence?On I've been tuned out for a while posted 1 year, 2 months ago 12 Responses

The night is young

I wouldn't be so quick to underestimate a woman who defeated an incumbent governor.  Palin may not be ready for a national stage, but thus far she seems to have more gravitas than Quayle.  At any rate, VPs rarely are the deciding factor in an election.  The Bush-Quayl ticket won in 1988 . . . and mainly lost in 1992 because of a tanking economy combined with the unusually strong third party run of Ross Perot.  He drew a substantial number of conservative voters away from Bush.On Alaskan greens say McCain's VP pick has anti-environmental record posted 1 year, 2 months ago 74 Responses

Corruption hits AP

David, good summary.  Also, thank you for noting Ron Fournier's links to the McCain campaign.  That association is paying off big time.  The early coverage of Biden strikes me as unusually tough from the AP, e.g., this morning AP posted a story listing alleged Biden scandals.  It reads like Rovian talking points.

I think this illustrates the depth of the corruption in DC, where even the nation's leading wire service has succumbed to blatantly partisan reporting.  I hope the major journalism professional associations take a good look at what is happening to the AP.  Society of Professional Journalists:  It's time to grow a backbone.On Reactions and info on Joe Biden's selection to the Obama ticket posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Yes and no

David, I'd agree that Bloomberg is an interesting politician -- particularly for a former Republican.  He also is the latest in a long line of reformist NYC mayors who have had an outsized influence on national policymaking simply because the Big Apple is, um, so big.

That said, I suspect Bloomberg ultimately chose not to make a third party run because his polling told him it would be futile, e.g., he has too much personal baggage for the "demolition derby" of presidential electoral politics.  At any rate, deep down he's a decidedly corporate and technocratic "green."  Better than being a neanderthal, I suppose, and perhaps the best that we can expect at the national level.  But mainly Bloomberg reminds me of how far the Republican party has fallen.  Thirty years ago it used to have a number of really interesting reformists who kept the party from going wacko.  The collapse of the reformist wing of the party has had wide-ranging consequences for the nation.On NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg announces plans for renewable generation in his city posted 1 year, 3 months ago 2 Responses

Choice

I love that Bachmann quote -- it sums up so well the mindset of the wacko wing of the cultural conservatives. On Drilling for Jesus posted 1 year, 3 months ago 5 Responses

Um, no

It takes courage to acknowledge a mistake?  That wasn't a mistake.  That was an intentional Rovian strategy to harass the Obama campaign.  They pulled back only when it looked like the tactic had started to backfire on them.  

Rove and Co. don't do truth.  It's all about winning at any cost.  Call that cynical, but that's the basic political reality of today's Republican party.On McCain now agrees that inflating your tires saves gasoline posted 1 year, 3 months ago 10 Responses

Arnold? A truly pale shade of green...

The key thing to know about the governator is that he is an unapologetic opportunist of an even bigger scale than McCain or Romney.  Few modern politicians have shifted policy directions so dramatically and repeatedly as Schwarzenegger.  He's smart enough politically to recognize that the Republican "brand" is now on the decline, so he is tacking toward the Democrats.  

Arnold seems to have a big enough appetite for political power that I doubt we've seen the last of him after he steps down as governor.  Perhaps the most likely scenario is him running for U.S. senate.  He may well be one of the few Republicans in all of California who would have a chance of winning.  And down the road you can expect him to once again push for a constitutional amendment that allows immigrants to become president.

Arnold may show more "flexibility" than his bedfellows on the rigid right, but his commitment to green is as shaky as the next poll.On Al Gore on Meet the Press posted 1 year, 4 months ago 30 Responses

So tragic . . . after losing all that weight!

On Bush raises taxes on hikers and campers, mysteriously leaving logging companies alone posted 1 year, 8 months ago 2 Responses

Lucy and her football

If you dig below the snark you will find two different political strategies.  Both have been present in American politics for more than a century -- and they are unlikely to go away regardless of what happens with an election or two.

With that in mind, what exactly do commenters expect to accomplish by beating up on each other?  Okay, so snarkiness can be fun (in a mean-spirited, Jerry Springer kind of way), but what's the desired outcome?

As a case in point, does GreyFlcn think that by insulting those who are pro-Nader that he is going to win them over?  Or would he prefer to piss them off so much that they attack Obama as much as McCain?

This thread is exactly what Republicans want to see -- a food fight between the Naderites and Obamaites.  How is it that highly intelligent and environmentally committed folks could fall for such a banal trick?  It's like Lucy offering the football once again to Charlie Brown.

Political Suicide 101.On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses

Caveats on relative experience

Darth, your general point about relative experience is well taken, but I wouldn't press the argument too far.  For example, Romney was in a similar political situation as Edwards -- his poll numbers were looking pretty bad before he decided not to seek reelection.  

As for Guiliani, his political stock was sinking in NYC before 9/11.  Recent stories about graft in his administration pretty much destroy his credibility as a decent executive.  I also wouldn't make too much of his being a mayor, even of such a large city.  Where, for example, is the substantive foreign policy experience?  Pretty much zero -- and it shows in his remarkably inept policy proposals.  He would have been creamed in the general election.

You give Thompson too much credit.  He was widely known as a lazy, do-nothing senator.

McCain?  Sure he has lots of experience, but in his case his age could turn out to be a real disadvantage, particularly in comparison to an energetic Democratic opponent.  The Republicans' biggest challenge this election cycle is to revitalize a rather tired and beat up agenda.  McCain may literally be too old to be an effective salesman.

Huckabee arguably has the strongest executive experience, but look at his record of ethics issues and religious nut rhetoric.  Because of these dynamics he strikes me as being at a disadvantage to GW Bush (who had an uninspired but uneventful stint as Texas governor) or Bill Clinton, who was well regarding in national policy wonk circles for his managerial savvy.

I don't mean to suggest that we should ignore the experience issue.  Personally, I am disappointed that the more seasoned Democratic candidates have done so poorly.  Folks seem to be gravitating to orators rather than proven executives -- even though presidents must run the largest and most complex organization on the planet.  As we saw with JFK's less than stellar stint as president, charisma will only get you so far.On The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 10 months ago 32 Responses

Beware premature optimism

I'd agree that McCain will likely win the Republican nomination, simply because no one else will be left standing.  And let's not kid ourselves -- he may very well be the strongest Republican candidate regardless of who the Democrats nominate.

I suspect that outside of green and policy wonk circles global warming will not be a top issue.  In addition, you can bet that vested interests will dump boatloads of money into attacks against Democratic proposals and candidates.  It wouldn't seem that difficult for McCain and allies to by and large neutralize the Democratic presidential nominee's "ownership" of this issue in at least in some states -- which may be decisive swing states.

This is why I hope folks don't get prematurely optimistic.  Despite the steady drumbeat of scary scientific findings, global warming could be a tricky issue to sell, at least in this election cycle.On McCain will likely take it after all posted 1 year, 11 months ago 8 Responses

On historical revisionism

Odograph, at the risk of sounding like a nitpicker (and an old fart), I disagree with your assessment of Reagan's approach to  budget  deficits.  It is technically true that the budgets the Reagan administration submitted to Congress were smaller than the ones passed, but that actually doesn't say a whole lot.  Even if the Republicans rather than the Democrats had been in charge there still would have been stuff added to the Christmas tree.  That's the nature of the legislative process, particularly at the federal level where, for example, earmarks are ridiculously easy to insert.

Budget director David Stockman was a genuinely radical budget cutter who wanted to roll back the clock 50 years by all but destroying "big gov'mnt" . . . at least when it came to non-military programs.  But the simple fact of the matter is that Stockman's proposed cuts were so draconian that they were dead on arrival.  Even a goodly share of Republicans wouldn't buy into his philosophy.

All this said, the main focus of the Reagan administration was a massive build-up of the military and HUGE tax cuts.  There were varying motivations within the administration for continuing to push this two-pronged agenda even when the evidence clearly showed that this was resulting in budget deficits so large that they vastly overshadowed those of recent Democratic presidents.  Some administration leaders were tax cut true believers who were shocked that the rollback did not result in a vast increase in economic productivity that generated new-found tax revenue).  Others didn't really care about the deficit, either because they were primarily interested in getting their tax breaks and/or military contracts . . . or thought that the best way to put the Democrats in a political box was to create a huge deficit that would make it impossible to add new domestic programs once they retook the White House.

The Reagan quote you offer may, in fact, reflect the man's personal viewpoint.  However, it also represents standard Reagan administration propaganda that papers over the simple fact that its budget policy was truly reckless.  The numbers never added up without embracing "magic" assumptions.  Indeed, what we are seeing now with Bush II is merely an extension of the Reagan administration's basic approach.

Why do I discuss this at such tedious length?  Because the Reagan administration's budget policies are largely built upon the Big Lie that you can have it all:  a balanced budget, huge tax cuts, a military big enough to invade Mars, and -- let's not forget -- a few slabs of pork for all of our friends.

Reagan SOUNDED sincere so many people didn't hold him accountable for this Big Lie.  Let me say this another way:  Reagan perfected the art of budgetary double speak, where you say one thing to cover your tracks to doing the opposite.

The Bush II has taken double speak to a whole new level.  Fortunately, the American public hasn't been fooled to quite the degree that it was by Reagan.  Perhaps the biggest factor is that Reagan was a much better actor than Bush II.  On The renewables revolution posted 2 years ago 20 Responses

Calling a spade a spade

"He is a hack, most scientific publications usually have an avalanche showing how his work is critically flawed each time he makes a new one.  The trick being that you should focus more attention on attack his argument than resorting to attacking him as a person."  -- GreyFlcn

I understand the idea of not calling someone names.  However, it seems to me that it is important to "out" Lomborg for his end runs around rigorous scientific process.  To not do so on such a highly visible issue will contribute to the unraveling of the scientific community's intellectual integrity.  If Lomborg can get away with it, then anyone else can.  At any rate, pointing out that Lomborg's arguments have not stood up to the standard scrutiny the average person would expect of a scientist strikes me as a "nonpersonal" rebuttal if framed correctly.  Indeed, Lomborg's writings can be used as a "teachable moment" for how science shoulud work.

In addition, I do not believe that you can win Lomborg in the court of public opinion if you focus on responding to him point by point.  Even the middle brow (e.g., journalists and policy wonks) will not be able to follow the nuances of each side, so will tend to be at least partially swayed by who is more "charismatic" . . . and perhaps easier to understand.  In other words, "hot talk" will tend to win, particularly if it is wrapped in the flag of faux scientific legitimacy.  

I don't mean to suggest that there is only one way to respond to Lomborg.  If you think a point by point rebuttal is useful, I wouldn't suggest that you stop.  However, others need to explicitly and repeatedly call him on his underlying method of operation.On Lomborg misrepresents possible sea-level rise posted 2 years, 2 months ago 27 Responses

Those who don't know their history . . .

At the risk of feeding the trolls, Bailo presents a kernel of a useful point.  Elitism can be a problem for the environmental movement, albeit not quite in the way that he insists.

If you want to better understand why a movement isn't being successful then I think it is critically important to take a step back and assess how its past informs the ways it currently acts.  In the case of enviros, our leadership had tended to be populated with white, affluent, white-collar professionals.   In my community most leaders have advanced degrees (often in the hard sciences) and tend to be teachers, professors or government workers.  These folks are unusually good at understanding complex science and policy, but often not so good at explaining it to average folks.  So they can be perceived - fairly or not -- as holier than thou.

Just as importantly, environmentalism tends to be more ideologically diverse than, say, the labor movement (ranging from pink-haired Audubon bird watchers to Earth Firsters). Environmentalism is also relatively young compared to the labor, gender and civil rights movements.  The structure and culture of modern environmentalism was effectively formed in the 1970s - at the height of technocratic, policy driven, single-issue political organizing.  Compare that to the labor movement, whose basic form emerged during the 1930s-1950s, when more "fraternal" organizing approaches were dominant.  Or look at the League of Women Voters, which is a lasting vestige of the suffragette movement of the 1910s.  The League is structured in surprisingly different ways than more "modern" environmental groups.

All of this helps illustrate why environmentalism has tended to be slow in building coalitions with the likes of the labor and social justice movements.  Instead, environmentalists have tended to live in a world of their own making, replete with lots of policy insider-speak that may be hard to understand even by fellow environmentalists focused on a different sub-issue.  Mainstream environmentalism also tends to hold at arm's length more militant approaches to organizing because many of our leaders - and funders -- are very much part of the political and economic establishment.  

Do we need to change our ways if we seek to rebuild civil society?  Yes.  Does that mean copying the faux populism of the neo-conservative movement, as Bailo implies?  I hope not.  Should we disown our past?  No - but me thinks we won't successfully adapt without better understanding how we got here.
On It's not that individuals can't do anything about climate -- they just can't do it by themselves posted 2 years, 2 months ago 30 Responses

Agreed, but...

Steffan is right on target.  The trouble is that we have such a large -- and growing -- "governance gap" between what needs to happen and what current structural arrangements will allow.

It isn't easy being a change agent, particularly as the social safety net becomes more and more frayed.  For most people, their "civic voice" is to some degree limited by the conventions of their career track.  Not everyone can work for Grist.  For example, as a government employee I am constantly struck by how often hard-working, intelligent and visionary people are either ground down or pushed out of the system by the heavy gravitational pull toward the status quo.  Young folk may not worry too much about losing, say, their health and retirement benefits, but it's not as easy to take such risks after you turn 40 and have a family to support.

In my experience, the tendency of many to turn inward and focus on modeling sustainability in their private lives is a quite understandable response to activist burnout.  If you did a survey of baby boomer enviros I suspect that you would find burnout dangerously widespread.

I don't mean to be pessimistic.  Instead, I'd like to cultivate a more realistic discussion about strategies and tactics for avoiding burnout . . . and a cynical turn inward.On Alex Steffen on individual action in context posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

The devil in in the details

Sure, David.  Useful words of wisdom.  But then I quickly find myself asking the follow-up question:  What to do about holier-than-thou syndrome?  

I don't think this is a simple dynamic.  For example, we might take into account the techno-scientific complexity of big-ticket issues such as global warming, as well as the increasing polarization of American political life.

When thinking about the differences between Democrats and Republicans, a useful reference book is "The Two Americas" by pollster Stanley Greenberg.  He shows how each party consists of shifting coalitions of psychographic groups.  Whatever else you can say about the Apollo Project, it does make a fledgling attempt to look at global warming policies from the standpoint of building a winning coalition.

Does this mean that more "radical" folks here at Grist should go mainstream or shut up?  Eh.  What's wrong with the notion that social change is a team sport that takes a variety of types of people, from radical visionaries to pragmatic implementers?  The key trick is getting these folks to learn to talk past their differences enough so they can work effectively together (as opposed to, say, the Nader vs. Democrats pissing match).

My experience in the enviro movement is that psychology can often play a more important role in group functioning than political strategy or ideology.  Some of the most dysfunctional people I've ever met are in the "vanguard" of enviro groups.  Who needs to worry about FBI infiltration when we do ourselves in with all too much regularity?
On Good ideas, those posted 2 years, 3 months ago 9 Responses

Ron, thanks for the link

The posting and comments were quite interesting.  I appreciate seeing a fairly robust academic debate where 1) artificial disciplinary boundaries can be traversed without too many apologies, and 2) nonacademics aren't sneered at for not grounding their views in some hallowed theory first developed by a Dead White Man.

As my sarcasm suggests, I think that theory is a double-edged sword.  It can help us better understand the world in which we live, but it can also function as an elitist fetish that leads us astray.  The best way to keep the academics honest is for the nonacademics to feel assertive about asking questions when they don't understand something and -- most importantly -- calling bullshit when they sense it.  You may very well be right but just don't know all of the right jargon and citations.
On The next round of McKibben's campaign posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

Ah, ahem, well...

why on Earth should we care?  Because People magazine says so?On Brangelina argue over politics posted 2 years, 4 months ago 7 Responses

Sprawl and affordability

The trouble with sprawl is that it can function as the mac and cheese of the housing world -- it can be much more affordable for those of us who are newer and less affluent home buyers.

Case in point:  The walk score for my house is 11.  Not surprising -- it's in a subdivision that typifies rural sprawl.  Am I ashamed?  Yup.  But that's all I could afford.  I've continuously run the numbers on moving into town but the transaction and moving costs are daunting -- and that doesn't even include the increased borrowing costs due to higher interest rates.  And because home prices are much higher in town, you get "less" house.  I'm all for downsizing, but I don't have the skills to deal with a "fixer upper" that's much older than I am.  In addition, the reduced transportation costs of living in town do not come anywhere near offsetting the additional upfront and ongoing costs of moving.

So what's the alternative?  Making my current house and transportation as energy efficient as possible, and helping my neighborhood become more pedestrian friendly by developing a larger cluster of services.  It would also be great if we could convince the county to extend bus service out here, but the anti-tax movement is so strong that such a step seems unlikely any time soon.

Bottom line:  Even for those of us who are environmentally conscious, it isn't always easy from a cost standpoint to avoid succumbing to auto-dependent sprawl.On Walkable town centers are hip posted 2 years, 4 months ago 45 Responses

Follow the money

In a sense I understand Hillary's pandering; although she is the leading Democratic candidate in national polls, Obama has accomplished what the pundits once said was unthinkable:  He has raised as much money as has Hillary.  This could turn into a very close race for the Democratic nomination, and Iowa could set the tone.  Hillary needs to do well here, and recent state-level polls suggest that this may not be easy.  So like any other cautious politician Hillary is taking no chances with the state's major Democratic voting blocs.

Is it possible for the winner of the Iowa caucuses to come out strongly against ethanol?  Is there any leading Democratic candidate who can afford to not compete in Iowa?  If you answer no to both questions that pretty much sums up the game this election season.

On a happier note, imagine this sweet and gauzy scene four years from now:  Iowa becomes such a hotbed of solar industry that it has the clout to make every presidential candidate -- Democrat and Republican alike -- bow down at the alter of its legislative agenda.

This raises the question:  In which states has the solar industry gained enough economic muscle to start demanding electoral attention?On Hillary pays tribute to Iowa politics posted 2 years, 4 months ago 23 Responses

Gar, interesting numbers

Your cost figures for a carbon fiber plug-in hybrid sound promising.  I haven't, however, seen anything like these numbers in the mainstream automotive press so was wondering where you got them ... and how solid they are.

Do you have any thoughts on the cost of converting body-making and assembly plants from working with steel bodies to carbon fiber?  Although the actual production may end up being much simpler, the logistics would presumably be very different.  Given the industry's high level of automation, I'd imagine that there would be considerable costs in reconfiguring assembly lines, putting in place new robots, etc.

I'm not all that familiar with carbon fiber production so was also wondering how the material lends itself to high levels of mass  production vis a vis steel bodies.  In the past automakers have shied away from fiberglass bodies because, while they can be cheaper for low-volume cars (think Corvette), they haven't been as well suited to high-volume production.  Any thoughts?On Really posted 2 years, 4 months ago 44 Responses

Act short term, but think long term

The article makes sense to me.  What might also be added is that Americans seem to have increasingly short "fad cycles."  What's hot this year could become passe next year.  Or next month.  Or even next new cycle.

Once upon a time solar and wind power were media darlings (really!).  Then they weren't.  Now they are again.  Maybe this time deeper inroads will be made before the tide goes out again.

Beware impatient activism -- it can lead to bitter and cynical former activists.  On Turns out consumers don't care that much posted 2 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Purists and the complexity of social change

This discussion has gotten tiresome, but I suppose that it illustrates the difficulty of talking about the complexities of the 21st Century using the overly simplistic - if familiar - debating tools of the past.

Scratch below the surface and one quickly finds the battle of either/or, white/black, good/evil logic chains.  One way they manifest is in looking at social change in purist terms.  To be crass:  Who's greener than thou, and who's not?  Sociologists have described this process as "boundary maintenance."

Go to pretty much any environmental activist meeting and you can see this at work.  We engage in boundary maintenance so routinely that we have stopped seeing it.  Alas, when we don't see it our activist group is more likely to resemble a knitting club than one that actually accomplishes social change out there in the real world.

One analytical tool for transcending either/or thinking is to pull out a copy of Alan AtKisson's "Believing Cassandra" and play the "Innovation Diffusion Game" he describes in Chapter 9.  The exercise sheds light on how social change is a complex SYSTEM.  Us green visionaries are only one small part of it.

Embracing that perspective requires a certain amount of humility, because it beckons those of us with more utopian visions to acknowledge that we will likely never see them fully realized.  Indeed, even achieving a small part of our vision may REQUIRE us to make our peace with those holding very different attitudes.

Offsets are nothing more than a tool for trying to bring together people with differing agendas.  Like all large-scale social experiments, offsets are going to have contradictions that drive purists nuts with indignation.

David does a good job of pointing out the logical weaknesses of purist arguments against offsets.  My only criticism would be his apparent wrapping of offset participants in the flag of idealism.  Right now the "industry" may be new enough that it is dominated by idealism, but I would expect that to decline as the practice becomes more "mainstream."  Outright corruption is always a possibility.

In other words, it is POSSIBLE that offsets could start to function somewhat like medieval indulgences.  Does that completely negate the potential value of offsets as a social change tool?  In my view, no.  At least not yet.
On Many offset critics appear to be shadowboxing posted 2 years, 4 months ago 76 Responses

Prius is a pawn in a global chess game

I sure hope folks don't assume that tougher U.S. fuel-economy regulations could single-handedly stop the gas-guzzling excesses of automakers.

The biggest problem is globalization, which has fostered a corporate monoculture within the auto industry.  Thirty years ago you could find a striking diversity in the basic approaches of the world's leading automakers.  Today that diversity has largely disappeared.  Toyota's product line is now very close to that of GM's in its range of models.  For example, you can no longer buy a small pickup from Toyota, but they'd be quick to give you a rebate on a big truck just like GM's.

Also note that it doesn't just matter what kind of vehicles an automaker produces -- it also matters how many it puts on the road.  Turning the Third World into one vast, autocentric dystopia will not make it any easier to address global warming.  Yet Toyota is right there with all the other big players slugging it out for domination of emerging markets in China, Indonesia and India.

George Romney, when he was the iconoclastic head of tiny American Motors during the early 1960s, lambasted the Big Three as "economic imperialists."  He was right.  Japan's new Big Three -- Toyota, Nissan and Honda -- now operate much the same way as Detroit's.  The Prius is merely a pawn in this global chess game.On Car company on national tour to pimp hybrids posted 2 years, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Dumbing down the debate

The problem with Charles Barton's argument is that it oversimplifies a multifaceted debate.  For example, in arguing that enviros "catastrophize," Charles sidesteps a crucial question:  Shouldn't solutions to energy problems be as simple, low-cost and decentralized as possible?

Technocrats like Charles tend to avoid this question because, at root, they like to make fancy contraptions.  To them, simplicity isn't elegant -- complexity is.

I have enough engineers in my family to understand the allure of complex, wiz-bang technologies.  However, as Charles Perrow has pointed out, the more technologically complex a social system, the more potential it has for things to go wrong.  You don't have to be a neurotic catastrophizer to recognize this (e.g., we still don't really know what to do with nuclear waste).

Beyond issues of risk assessment, I think it is also important to look at the political implications of energy choices.  Some choices concentrate wealth and power; others disperse it.  I prefer to do the latter when reasonably cost-effective.

The more technologically complex an energy source, the more likely it is to lead to concentrations of wealth and power.  It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to recognize that renewable energy sources offer far, far more potential for giving "power to the people" than nuclear.

Technocrats tend to either work for large corporations or are fellow travelers.  Thus, I would expect Charles to airily dismiss the political value of dismantling the oligarchies that dominate the nuclear and fossil fuel industries.  Yet that cuts to the heart of any meaningful energy policy debate in a democracy.On So much good stuff, so little time to blather about it posted 2 years, 5 months ago 17 Responses

The party box

Storm Dragon, I don't "object" to the Greens participating in the presidential election.  If the party wants to field a candidate, that's its right.  I also am not opposed to voting green if it makes sense strategically, e.g., in 2000 I voted for Nader because Bush had already clearly won the state where I was living.

I just don't think that it is in the short-term best interests of the enviro community to support a Green presidential candidate in 2008 as a matter of national strategy.

Beyond that, your point about state election laws illustrates how the traditional party structure can severely limit a movement's options.  The Green party must focus on running candidates for positions where it may not make sense to do so.  

I personally would rather see the greens organize as a trans-party coalition that ran or supported candidates wherever it made sense.On It makes Senate Dems act like wussies posted 2 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

Pie in the sky

"I think its time to vote Green in '08."

Sure, and then a Republican wins.  Like it or not, the simple fact of the matter is that our political system is built around two parties.  It's been a century and a half since a third party has managed to supplant an existing one.  Given the strikingly amateurish way that the Green Party operates in my state (Washington), I don't see any indication that the Greens can become a dominate party any time soon.

So, alas, it really does come down to trying to reform the Democrats.  Given the powerful political interests out there, no one should be surprised if the likes of Obama make unsavory compromises along the way.  Major social change is hard.  

Yes, we need to push Democratic candidates as much as we can.  Nevertheless, you can all but bet that they will in some way disappoint us.  I hope that doesn't lead to a replay of 2000.  At least from my perspective, a reasonably moderate Democrat would be leagues better than a continuation of a Republican-controlled White House.On It makes Senate Dems act like wussies posted 2 years, 5 months ago 23 Responses

Interesting spin

Automotive News has the following article posted on its website today:

Detroit 3 hear they've already 'lost' on CAFE

Automakers that oppose higher fuel economy standards won't block congressional action this year, a Senate Democrat who switched positions on the issue warned today.

"The issue is over," Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., told the CEOs of the Detroit 3. "You have lost the issue."

---

The article goes on to explain the same legislative machinations as the NYT article.  Apparently Detroit can win by "losing."  Dorgan, by the way, comes from one of the 11 states that automakers (including Toyota) have deluged with anti-CAFE propaganda.On Holy $%#! posted 2 years, 5 months ago 9 Responses

Anti-intellectualism?

David, you said it very well.  I don't think the problem is just with the elite pundits, either.  I found myself gravitating away from journalism and toward academia because too many of my journalism colleagues seemed to be insidiously anti-intellectual.  

What I mean by that is they tend to suffer from an intellectual form of ADD.  Usually these folks are pretty bright and curious about a vast range of subjects.  Alas, they can also be quite shallow, e.g., fixating on the horse race aspects of election campaigns.  Bring up a theoretical idea and it tends to be dismissed as idle chatter by pointy headed losers.

That caricature does have some basis in reality, but it is overly glib and dismissive.

Global warming will not be stopped unless we start to think differently about some pretty fundamental issues, such as the nature of democracy in a world where one generation can do permanent and widespread damage to the next without its consent.

Scholarly theory matters.  Gore understands this better than 95 percent of today's public figures.  This is but one reason why he is such a remarkable statesman.On The media continues to prove his new book right posted 2 years, 6 months ago 5 Responses

The color purple?

Ahem.On Keeping an eye on the 'wingers posted 2 years, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Fear and global warming

Fear seems to work best when applied to a clear and present danger.  Case in point:  I once had a staunch lefty planning professor who insisted that global warming wasn't worthy of much attention because "it wouldn't happen for another century."

It seems easier to engage the fear of vested interests than the general public, e.g., that the Not So Big Three will go bankrupt if substantive fuel efficiency laws are passed.  Economic sky-is-falling scenarios play quite well even among those who aren't hard-core Republicans.

All of that said, I do think that fear is a useful tool in advocating for global warming policies.  Just-the-facts presentations are the kiss of political death.  Some degree of exaggeration is inevitable during policy debates on ANY subject, and are particularly likely on one as abstract as global warming.  We don't have to lie or distort the truth to "frame" it in more widely understood ways.

In the end global warming is an ethical issue, much like slavery.  If we still have a commitment to democracy, we don't have the right to unilaterally impose great hardships on future generations, less powerful nations and the rest of the biosphere.

We had a revolution a few hundred years ago under the credo of "no taxation without representation."  What's the easily understood credo for global warming activists?On How best to pitch the climate change message? posted 2 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses

On foul-tempered guests

Why do the right-wing commenters sound so similar in their basic rhetorical approaches?  It's like they all went to the same propaganda-training school.

I assume that the "professionals" are drawing from the best research money can buy, so it may be short-sighted to offer feedback.  However, one thing I don't understand about the personally dismissive tone of many wingers (e.g., referring to Al Gore as a "sore loser") is why they think that scores any points.

Do they think anyone who reads a left-leaning blog like Grist will somehow be swayed by rhetoric that engages in snarky personal attacks rather than sticking to the issues?

If not, why is it worth their time to even comment?On This is getting old posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

What's that smell?

amazingdrx, I agree with your stance on nukes and "clean" coal but am troubled by your calling Brand and Co. traitors.

Perhaps it's because I'm old enough to have seen all too many eco-purges that backfired, but I don't see the point in demonizing Brand.  Sure, we disagree with him on this issue, but he could be helpful on another one where we do see eye to eye.

Purges only work when you already have a clear majority of support . . . and even then they have a tawdry smell.  On What was it like 430 million years ago posted 2 years, 7 months ago 16 Responses

Effective responses to invisible revolutions

I would describe global warming as an "invisible" revolution because it threatens to irreversibly change civilization and the biosphere and yet is so subtle and insidious that the problem often flies under the radar of standard policy responses.

In the end I don't think you can adequately respond to global warming with our current structures of governance, particularly here in the U.S.  We really do need significantly different constitutional foundations.  Yet I don't see much move in that direction, e.g., most discussions about globlal warming tend to be rather technocratic in nature.

To my way of thinking global warming is ultimately grounded in a political question:  Who gets and who pays?  To hold that question rightly you must view the issue from trans-generational, global and biospheric perspectives.

Challenging Lomborg's myopic thinking is useful.  However, we also need to stretch our imaginations to envision the systems of governance we will need to make meaningful progress on this issue.  Such exercises were the genesis of the Great Society, the New Deal . . . and even the American revolution.

The Bushies know how to think big.  What about us?On Is climate change the most important global problem? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 31 Responses

Ignorance is apparently bliss

"A scientist is an individual thinker."

Jabailo's missive shows a remarkable lack of understanding of how the scientific community operates.  Academia as a whole is very "tribalistic."  Almost all "new" theories are, to a significant degree, built upon the shoulders of existing thought.  Indeed, group think can often be so pervasive that deviating very far from orthodox positions can be downright dangerous to one's scholarly career (particularly prior to receiving tenure).  

Not that long ago global warming was considered a fringe idea in ANY of the natural sciences.  Now it has risen to the ranks of common wisdom -- and not just in one isolated discipline, but in a diverse range of fields that may not have talked much to each other in the past.

The term "paradigm shift" is vastly overused, but I think it fits in this case.  If the esteemed historian of science Thomas Kuhn were still alive, I suspect that he would point to global warming as one of those rare subjects which transforms the thinking of an entire generation of scientists.

Jabailo can attempt to minimize this transformation all he wants by pointing to bureaucratic interference, but he is merely showing his ignorance.  He seems to be so blinded by his hatred of Al Gore that he can't seem to recognize that something very big is happening here.On The innerworkings of it all posted 2 years, 7 months ago 69 Responses

There's a movie in here somewhere...

"For me, the whole world will be Brazil as nature continues to heat our planet with beneficent global warming -- fun loving, healthy, at the beach, and looking good!"  -- Texeme

Man, that's a 21st Century version of Dr. Strangelove!On Helpful hints for global warming deniers posted 2 years, 8 months ago 19 Responses

Lutz and the dirty hippies

Lutz is GM's version of Spiro Agnew -- the tough-talking guy they send out to beat up on dirty hippies.  Lutz is always good for a colorful quote, but he's also remarkably neanderthal in his views.  And, of course GM's P.R. department will invariably insist that Lutz emphasize coming attractions rather than explain away past sins. (You don't think Lutz wrote that email without "assistance," do you?)

All that said, Lutz is right about one thing:  The auto industry has gone through quite a bit of change since GM pulled the plug on the EV1.  I don't say that to endorse any of GM's promised "green" offerings, which strike me as too little, too late.  However, it's too bad enviros don't spend more time reading up on auto industry news before unleashing their letter-writing campaigns, because a more carefully crafted message might have a greater impact.
On Read his cranky email to a consumer posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

Green scare, anyone?

The reason these fine folks are linking environmental protection and communism is to set the stage for a green twist on a standard technique by the U.S. right:  Make being a leftist illegal.

Remember McCarthyism?  It destroyed the lives of a whole generation of lefties after WWII.  This was a repeat of what happened after WWI.

I'm not suggesting that folks get paranoid, but that it wouldn't hurt to take a look at how the right has historically whipped the nation into a mass psychosis that made a wave of repression politically acceptable.

The rise of global warming as an issue is a double-edged sword:  This visibility can lead to important policy advances, but there is always the possibility of a powerful backlash, particularly if times get bad.On 'Supporting global warming initiatives is tantamount to endorsing communism and the one world order' posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

Playtime's over

For all of bertignac's wordage he/she hasn't actually SAID anything substantive yet.  This is a classic gambit of "professional" trolls.  It works particularly well on lefty blogs where the "civility" card trumps all.

Hey, bertignac, time to tell us something useful:  If you are so interested in the science of global warming, what do you think of the IPCC findings?  If you disagree with them, then which research do you prefer?  Most importantly, why?

I take it that you like Ihofe's policy positions on global warming?  If so, please explain.  Which ones and why?  If not, then what do you see as a reasonable course of action?On Even by his standards, this was pathetic posted 2 years, 8 months ago 38 Responses

Just a hunch, but...

I've spent far too much time over the last few years studying 20th Century American history.  After following the hearings today I kept on finding myself thinking that this may be one of those watershed moments when American political discourse dramatically shifts.

Those shifts are usually more apparent in hindsight.  Not surprisingly, most of the initial press accounts didn't play up the Gore testimony anywhere near what I think it deserves.  I wouldn't worry too much about that, because what was most important about today was what happened within the governing class.  One of their own competently argued in favor of some pretty radical policy proposals (at least within the U.S.).

David, thank you for giving so much attention to the hearings.On For today anyway! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Can we get real?

Al Gore a single-issue candidate?  He's far and away the most well-rounded of any of the potential Democratic candidates because of his years of experience in Congress and the executive branch.  

What's with the state of American democracy that we dump so heavily on our most experienced leaders?  Have we gotten to the point where you can't run for the presidency unless you are a "stealth" candidate whose record is too slim to slime?

I'm not saying this because I think Gore should run.  As I've mentioned before, I'm not sure that's his highest and best use.  but why the cavalier attitude about experience at running the largest and most complex government in the history of the planet?On But he's losing weight! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

Who ya gonna write?

I don't consider this hit piece to be an accident.  The Times has a habit of cultivating conservative reporter/propagandists so as to protect its credentials with the right.  Call it the Judith Miller gambit.

A good way to make the Times pay for its journalistic sins is to write letters to the various journalism professional groups.  For example, a letter to the editor -- or even an essay -- in the Columbia Journalism Review could make the Times stand up and pay attention.On Coming tomorrow posted 2 years, 8 months ago 19 Responses

Honest inquiry? Oh, Lordy!

Okay, so you don't like Gore.  That's your right.  What I don't buy is your argument that your post represents an "honest" attempt at inquiry.

What's so honest about taking an aging hit piece from disreputable right-wing group and presenting it as if it were a recent news article without drawing upon any of the counter-evidence that have recently come out -- including the correction from USA Today?

Since you say that no one should be above honest examination, let's inquire as to how you teach.  Do you instruct your students to start by figuring out their own bias, and then cherry picking the evidence to confirm it, facts be damned?  And then when they get called on it, excuse their propagandizing as "honest" inquiry?

That's what your post suggests.  And that undercuts your credibility on this blog.
On An opportunity for reflection posted 2 years, 8 months ago 35 Responses

New words, old song

Newt's comments are an updated twist on the old right-wing bashing of the "undeserving poor."  You've got to "otherize" them before you can downgrade them to second-class citizen status . . .  or even remove their "citizenship" altogether. On He thinks the poor people in New Orleans didn't do enough of it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 4 Responses

Three thoughts

First, this little dust up illustrates the importance of "green" leaders -- elected or not -- having fully functioning quick-response media teams.  We've been through a full news cycle and where is Gore?  A quick and strong response was needed to squelch this inevitable swiftboating attempt.  If Gore finds that engaging the swifties is beneath him, then he needs to step aside and let a new generation of more media-savvy leaders take center stage.  Seriously.

Second, the right seems to do a much more effective job of manipulating memes on progressive blogs than vice versa, e.g., by the creation of an ensemble of "characters" who spin the meme of the day from multiple directions.  They exploit our admirable desire to take fellow commenters at face value and respond in a civil and thoughtful way to their arguments.  What to do?  Frankly, I don't know.  Might be worth discussing, though.

Third, I suspect that the Democrats will only win the White House in 2008 if their nominee can effectively respond to swiftboating attempts that go well beyond anything we've yet seen.  That's why I'm not just assessing the candidates' policy positions; I'm also watching closely to see how well they react to attacks.
On Share with friends and family posted 2 years, 9 months ago 42 Responses

Swiftboat tactic No. 132: The hypocrisy card

Zarkov, it's too bad you don't display more originality in attempting to swiftboat Al Gore.  How about reaching farther afield than the Drudge Report?On Starts with an Al posted 2 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses

Ghost dance, anyone?

I'm hardly an apologist for high-tech globalization, but Kunstler's new localism smacks of a quaint green fundamentalism that sounds, how you say . . . problematic?  What he's proposing now is what some of us older greens were doing back in the 1970s.  Look how fast that bus tipped over.

Was this merely a failure of execution?  Me thinks not.  The forces of techological change and globalization were too strong to stop, and in this day and age escape from the dominant paradigm is getting more and more difficult.

We need to transcend either-or visions like Kunstler's in favor of something more subtle and multi-tiered.  A glocalism, if you will.  On Characteristically grim posted 2 years, 9 months ago 8 Responses

Not so fast

I am not an uncritical defender of the "death of environmentalism" theory, but I do think that Jason is too quick to dismiss it.

The 2006 elections certainly don't prove a whole lot.  So the Democrats won.  We can debate how much environmental issues played a role in that victory, but at the end of the day what most matters is action.  Global warming won't be adequately responded to with bumper sticker slogans -- it will take aggressive governmental action.  That will not be any easier to gain approval for and implement than civil rights for Blacks during the 1960s and 70s.

Business-as-usual activism simply doesn't have the capacity to tackle such a large and complex problem as global warming.  Contemporary environmentalism is too short-term, fragmented and reactive.  N/S's vision may be flawed, but at least it gets us to start thinking out of the box.   This is even more necessary in the wake of the 2006 elections, where we now have a modicum of political power to pursue a proactive policy agenda.On Yes posted 2 years, 10 months ago 36 Responses

No surprise here

This tactic is played all the time by vested interests.  However, there are two particularly large dangers with this gambit when applied to global warming:

1.  The Bush administration has taken such a hard-line position that any proposal, however, modest, could be viewed as a welcome "first step."
   
2.  Most people don't understand the numbers well enough to judge what is needed.  

It's the politics

Ross Gelbspan has made a pretty convincing argument that Gore "lost" the 2000 presidential election because West Virginia went Republican for the first time in many moons.

Political reality:  The coal industry and its allies have considerable power.  How to deal with that?

Obama seems to be charting a centrist course, not unlike Mr. Clinton.  Is that selling out?  I dunno.  If I had to choose between McCain and Obama, that's a no brainer.  Am I happy about the prospect of having to choose between tweedle dum and tweedle dee?  Nope.

Perhaps even in a post-Bush era, the real action on global warming will occur at the state and local levels.On It's ... medium posted 2 years, 10 months ago 7 Responses

Greenwashing and blue sky

Sure, Toyota and Honda are doing a better job than the Not So Big 2.5 in "greening" their vehicle lineup.  However, remember that Toyota in particular is talking out of both sides of its mouth.  While it has been a leader in hybrids, it has also invested heavily in full-sized pickups and SUVs that aren't any more fuel efficient than Detroit's offerings.  Meanwhile, you can no longer buy a subcompact pickup because Toyota -- like all of the imports -- have supersized their trucks.

Toyota is following in the footsteps of Nissan, who was the first of the imports to introduce a truck that goes head to head with Detroit's.  Even Honda is inching closer to the industry norm with the introduction of a mid-sized pickup (and is reportedly developing a V10 engine for its Acura luxury brand).

These market shifts by the imports have important political consequences.  Once upon a time the imports squarely challenged Detroit's contention that tougher fuel-economy standards 1) could not be met, and/or 2) would end civilization as we know it.  Don't expect the imports to act as an aggressive political counter-weight anymore.  

Regarding Amory Lovins, he makes good points about the potential for increasing the efficiency of automotive design.  However, his proposals can have a blue sky quality.  For example, his most radical fuel economy increases are based upon using high-tech materials that have their own trade offs and side effects.

My sense is that technology alone will not save us.  Good, old common sense will go a long way to increasing automotive fuel economy.  One simple thing you can do:  Next time you are in a Toyota dealer, complain to the salesperson about the lack of small pickups.On American automakers stuck with unsold gas-guzzlers posted 2 years, 11 months ago 5 Responses

Are we playing too much insider baseball?

My scholarly side can empathize with the expressed concerns.  If one is dedicated to the pursuit of scientific "truth" then a chronic case of self-questioning can be a useful accountability tool.

The trouble is how to translate the "insider ballball" of the scholarly realm into the public sphere, where values can matter much more than the latest scientific findings.

Scientific memes have so dominated global warming discourse that all too often we forget that this issue is first and foremost a a political crisis of unprecedented constitutional proportions.  That crisis will not be resolved by greater scientific "certainty" regarding any particular scenario.  

What level of commitment do we have to protecting the rights of future generations against risks imposed on them by current citizen-consumers?  That is a question for the philosophers, not the number crunchers.  The latter may have played a crucial role in legitimizing the general scope of the hazard, but that bridge has now been crossed.

Scientists will be scientists.  But their day-to-day food fights have become an increasingly large distraction for those of us primarily or exclusively operating in the public sphere.On What do the climate scientists think? posted 2 years, 11 months ago 24 Responses