Comments rh has made

  • hits the nail on the head

    Dave,

    You're exactly right on this. This is the speech I've actually been fearing for quite some time.

    What is of almost greater concern to me is that the Republicans who are fighting what would have been a  completely limp approach are still going to be in the Senate in 2009 and will be very likely to throw up as many parliamentary roadblocks as possible (see  Coburn, Tom) regardless of who is elected in November.  

    This is just a reminder that we're not nearly as close to federal action as we need to be.

    And another 15+ years of emissions growth? As you say, that'd be nothing short of a disaster.On Thoughts on Bush's latest speech on climate change posted 1 year, 7 months ago 10 Responses

  • agree with Ryan

    The federal funding for this comes as the same DOT chair, Mary Peters, who is behind this plan axed the funds for extending Metro to Dulles Airport here in DC. I'm a big fan of congestion pricing, but if you look to where it's been successfully implemented (like London), the cities had excellent public transit already and the revenue from the congestion pricing were plowed back in to make it even stronger. I've seen nothing that makes me think that the transit link and the congestion pricing link will be made my current administration members. So, unfortunately, I just don't think we're going to see the benefits here in the States with the possible exception of Manhattan (it's proposed here in DC, but here you're dealing with 3 jurisdictions that are going to have their own views on this).

    Oh, and JD? Nice straw man. How about looking at the growth in road miles vs. growth in transit miles over the same time period? I might be wrong, but I'm thinking we built a few more roads than transit lines...funny how that'll drive down your miles traveled on transit, eh? On A comprehensive solution to end congestion posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

  • Perhaps you should tell that to the DOT

    More people may want to ride trains, but if the current leadership of the Department of Transportation has its way, there will not be any funding available for those trains.On Defying conventional wisdom, NC residents express desire for public transport posted 1 year, 8 months ago 27 Responses

  • Revkin's bio

    Dr. X,

    Quite a swipe you took at Mr. Revkin there. But before you implied that he hasn't had any scientific training, perhaps you should have gone to Google and typed in "bibliography Andrew Revkin" like I just did.

    Had you shown him at least a little respect and taken the time to do so, you would have seen that "(h)e has a biology degree from Brown University and a masters in journalism from Columbia."

    You're certainly welcome to agree or disagree with him, and that's what Gristmill's all about, but no need make incorrect implications about the guy.

    cheers,
    rh
    On NYT author discusses recent story on climate 'centrism' posted 2 years ago 17 Responses

  • He's quoting Socolow and Pacala

    Amazing:

    Those lines you quoted above are taken directly from Socolow and Pacala's stabilization wedges.

    And in fact, I would consider that leadership. Doing any one of these will mean a significant turn away from business as usual. All 7? Well, that's where the leadership piece really matters. Friedman is using these to illustrate the enormity of the issue ahead of us. While he may not mention plug-in hybrids, he also doesn't rule out anything, which, considering the scale of this problem, is appropriate.On Friedman in the NYT Magazine posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

  • Kit Bond using Grist in a sentence

    Who would've thought?On Liveblogging is the new black posted 2 years, 8 months ago 27 Responses

  • smarter legislation and taxation needed

    While voluntarily giving up your car and going vegetarian are good things, if we're planning on waiting for enough Americans to do that to make an impact on climate change, you might as well go ahead and start putting the sandbags around your house...

    So, why not just get rid of the perverse incentives that are already in place? Sure, the real estate lobby and the road building lobby love the mortgage interest tax deduction, but just getting rid of that would help a lot of problems (not the least a serious revenue crunch the fed gov't may be facing soon). It made a lot of sense post-WWII, but 60 years later it's not the greatest public policy tool.

    I really think the market can drive some impressive changes, BUT only if the signals are correct. If the signal from the government is that you can build a large house on a 2 acre lot 25 miles from anywhere, well, that's probably what you're going to get.

    Of course, considering the current atmosphere inside the Beltway, I'm living in fantasy land right now. But, I put this out there because once we as a society decide to get our heads on straight about some of the issues we're facing, it may not be nearly as difficult to make changes as many pundits claim.

    rh
    On The most inconvenient truth posted 3 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • Time article also on this topic

    This article discusses why people in the danger zone are unprepared for whatever may come even with all the recent disasters that have happened.

    http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1229102,...

    (and yes, I do have a box in the basement with water and food, just in case)

    rhOn Hurricane director thinks coastal-dwellers are morons posted 3 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

  • Carbon tax & Mr. Gore

    I'm with Dave - I think the way to go is some of both. Doing it right would mean the right level of rebates to the lower- and middle-classes coupled with an excellent sound bite that describes how this improves their lives.

    What concerns me is that in the current political environment (yes, the one we actually have today as opposed to the one many posters here would like us to have) I see no way that Congress could actually develop a smart new tax. Yes, the carbon tax is very rational and makes sense from a lot of perspectives and offers lots of flexibility, but the reality is that it's going to get completely twisted by the usual suspects to be something "those tax-raisin' liberals" are doing and Rove would use it to plow over anyone to the left of moderate Republican.

    And if you need some "proof" of the current Congress' lawmaking skill, look no futher than the energy bill that was signed into law just before Katrina hit.

    But, I guess the important thing is that Gore is beginning this dialogue at a higher level than it has been in the past, so that's a step toward making this a higher priority.

    rh
    On Capitalism v. environmentalism: a poll posted 3 years, 3 months ago 6 Responses

  • it's articles like this...

    that help me to understand why the Republicans continue to be able to run roughshod over the Democrats (and their some of the time leftward allies) in this country.

    Werbach makes an honest attempt at doing something that could actually make a difference and it doesn't take a week for someone to tear it down.

    Way to go, Team Left!

    rh
    On In working with Wal-Mart, activist Adam Werbach is abandoning his principles posted 3 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • trying to wade through here

    So, I'm trying to keep up, but here's a question that doesn't seem to be answered in the 50+ comments thus far:

    If nuclear energy is so great, why isn't Wall Street rushing to build more plants, at least in the United States?

    Pretty basic, but could someone clear this up? Regardless of whether we have enough fuel for plants or whatever your like or dislike of nuclear power, who is going to pay to build these? Until we get there, all of this seems pretty theoretical. Even with the huge subsidies out there for nuclear, there still doesn't seem to be much on the horizon domestically. Why?

    RH
    On No nukes is good nukes posted 3 years, 5 months ago 62 Responses

  • missing the point

    I feel like a lot of you don't seem to see what Nathan is getting at.

    I work on a college campus that is very engaged. I know that our students don't want to be standing on a street corner asking for money - they want to roll up their sleeves and do something. This is an incredibly engaged generation, but c'mon, asking for checks on the street? That's not where it's at for them, I can assure you.

    I ask again, if this is so effective, then why in the hell are environmental groups so marginalized in the national debate? If they have so many of those check-writing members calling their senators and faxing their Congressperson, why does climate change rank below gay marriage in the national debate?

    And to whoever mentioned the RNC, Focus on the Family, etc. as other groups who canvass - they grab people on single, visceral issues - immigration, gay marriage - not some undefined idea of the "environment" and the notion that it should be "saved."

    Maybe it's time to say "Yep, this has worked in the past, but if we keep going with it, we're still going to be in the same place 10 years from now."  And with climate change looming over our heads, we cannot be in the same place ten years from now. It's time to try something new to engage an electorate that is not engaged on this right now.On Why green-group canvassing operations need an overhaul posted 3 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

  • Thanks Nathan!

    I want to thank Nathan for writing this. This is something I've noticed for a long time.

    As someone who has been involved in starting up non-profit organizations, I think that having the very people who may be the best source of new ideas and energy for your organization standing on a street corner essentially begging for change is borderline insanity.

    It shows an incredible lack of savvy on the part of environmental groups to send out students who are incredibly engaged on their own campuses out to arm-twist people who already get it. Why not have them really get to work on these issues instead of asking me to send the PIRGs a check each month?

    I've stopped and had conversations with these kids more than once and I can tell they're really engaged, but I walk away with the feeling that they want to get more from it.

    (and to add my own local note, for those of you canvassing Davis Square in Somerville, trust me, you're preaching to the choir!)

    If this were such a great method to get people involved, then why aren't other groups of various political persuasions doing it?On Why green-group canvassing operations need an overhaul posted 3 years, 6 months ago 28 Responses

  • Dave nails it as always

    Dave,

    Well said. My sense for a long time now has been that the solutions that are being fronted by politicians, if all were taken together, might reduce demand growth a bit, but we'd still be doing nothing to actually reduce demand.

    We Americans are currently proving that $3/gallon gasoline does little other than make us complain more than usual. So, it would seem that high prices, by themselves anyway, aren't the way forward either, not if we're going to see the real reductions climate change demands.

    I'm not sure what it's going to take to get people to realize the dangers of us bumping heads with China and India over "our" oil or what the reality of 380 ppm is going to mean soon enough, but judging by the embarassing political pandering of the past couple of weeks (does anyone else feel slightly more slimy??), this little dust-up hasn't been nearly enough to get people to really consider the realities we're facing...

    rhOn America's place in the world posted 3 years, 7 months ago 8 Responses

  • Not that expensive

    Grist's own Amanda Griscom Little did an interview with Matt Simmons (Twilight in the Desert) recently. I also saw him speak at Harvard a couple of months ago.

    In both cases, he says that oil at $65/barrel is...

    wait for it...

    $.10 a cup!

    How much did that 16 oz. bottle of water in your hand cost you? Kinda puts things in perspective, huh?On Gas prices posted 3 years, 7 months ago 28 Responses

  • unfortunately, I'm not surprised

    I'd like to say this is surprising, shocking, unexpected...

    but somehow I can't.

    rhOn Katrina aftermath watch, wrist-slash edition posted 3 years, 7 months ago 1 Response

  • They DID sell their other land

    While it's great that at least 200,000 acres have been protected, what about the 5.1 million acres they just sold to timber investment companies?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/05/business/media/05paper.html

    1 step forward, 42 back...

    rhOn The biggest Nature Conservancy financial commitment ever posted 3 years, 8 months ago 2 Responses

  • Natural gas, I think

    It's my understanding a lot of the plants use natural gas. Probably b/c they were built in the go-go 90's when natgas was going to be $2/therm forever...

    Hope that helps.

    rh
    On Now they're burning coal to make ethanol posted 3 years, 8 months ago 13 Responses

  • the last line

    Did you catch the last line of the article?

    "We should go back to what it was. Nothing like Katrina will happen again in my lifetime anyway."

    Hmm...gambling in casinos apparently isn't the only gambling going on...On Casinos and high-rises battle trolleys and bike lanes for the Gulf Coast future posted 3 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

  • Great commentary Dave

    I have been pondering this problem you pose in the last paragraph for a long time.

    My sense is that it can't be the so-called greens that frame the discussion, at least not in the U.S.

    Up til now, "greens" have been framing the discussion, and many on the right have managed to broadly paint "greens" with a liberal, leftist, communist, "Earth before people" paintbrush, and for all intents and purposes, that view seems to have stuck with the general public, at least on the surface.

    For instance, take renewable energy.  Greens have been flogging it since the '70's, and where have we gotten? 5% non-hydro renewable penetration? And if you ask a "green" why it hasn't improved? Well, as you said, "People need more facts!"  

    What's needed is a realization that climate change goes way beyond environment.  This isn't an environmental problem, per se.  The "environment" will be just fine, at least on a long enough timeline (if that timeline is on the scale of hundreds of thousands of years).

    This is a human problem, and we as a society have to deal with it.  So that means many more of society's players besides the "greens" need to take up the cause.  We need doctors and public health specialists thinking about the health impacts, teachers and professors thinking about how to integrate this into their educational mission, business people thinking about the opportunities to profit on reducing emissions, planners thinking about mitigation, etc.

    In short, like you say, we need the people that we in American society see as being solutions-oriented stepping up to lead on this.  And unfortunately, my sense is that much of the public sees "greens" as obstructionist, not solutions-oriented.

    Would love to hear responses.

    RHOn There aren't that many skeptics left, and they aren't the problem posted 3 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

  • already happening

    Amazing,

    I agree that we need to immediately get a renewable policy off the ground, but if we stopped putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this afternoon, what's already up there is more than enough to generate those hugely expensive storms you speak of, renewable policy or not.

    We have a bigger problem than most people realize...and what's the response?

    As Speth points out, we decide to build another 100+ coal plants.

    Yikes

    RHOn Short and blunt posted 3 years, 9 months ago 10 Responses

  • Rush Limbaugh has picked it up

    From Rush Limbaugh:

    If you haven't read State of Fear you ought to get it and you ought to read it, because he puts it in novel form, but documents how many of these groups actually try to create accidents and disasters on the eve of big conventions where they're going to be trying to raise money, how it is all a fund-raising operation; it all has its own political agenda.

    See here for all the - ahem - details.

    Chris Mooney has   more here

    RHOn Bush and Crichton again posted 3 years, 9 months ago 2 Responses

  • If it makes you feel better...

    Dave,

    Thomas Friedman has posted a decent counterpoint to his NYTimes colleague, Mr. Tierney.  He also questions our VP's "tough"ness and professed faith in markets.

    He makes a really interesting point how our military defends not only "our" oil, but also Europe's, so they can take their steep gas taxes and pay for domestic needs instead of keeping shipping lanes to the Middle East open.

    Unfortunately, it is behind the TimesSelect wall (which is why Lexis Nexis is so nice!).

    RHOn Tierney: Market = fairy godmother posted 3 years, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • Thanks Dave!

    Glad you posted this - I was waiting to see if you would.

    Friedman also said that he could wait 3 years and see if a Democrat is elected and then see if things change, but that he doesn't think we've got 3 years to wait on these issues.

    Glad to see there is some sense of urgency from a writer Washington pays attention to...

    RHOn SOTU: The Mustache responds posted 3 years, 10 months ago 1 Response

  • techonology research?

    What I find amusing about all this (I have to laugh to avoid a deep, dark depression) is the president's emphasis on technology.

    As Joe Romm has pointed out, we have all the technology we need.  What we need to do is get that technology deployed in a meaningful way that has more than a 1 or 2% impact.

    I see touting "technology" as just another piece of the "We're spending billions on climate change research" argument - you should read it as "By continuing to spend money on research, we can put off actually doing anything!!"

    (and don't take that as an attack on research - it's not. I strongly support research, but research without a commercialized product doesn't do us much good...)

    And no, Dave, to answer your question, it certainly isn't an answer that meets the scale of the issue at hand.On In brief: no posted 3 years, 10 months ago 4 Responses

  • My apologies

    Amazing,

    Thanks for the clarification.  I didn't read your second post closely enough. My mistake.

    I absolutely agree that we should eliminate the subsidies and tax breaks.  I misread and thought you were asking for a "policy" that would take windfall profits.

    Thank you for clearing that up.On Who will advocate for green measures that don't make anyone money? posted 3 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

  • one more thing...

    Amazing,

    To take away part of the energy industry's profit through a windfall policy is a new tax. Let's call a spade a spade.

    I won't make a judgment call on whether I think it's a good idea or not, but it's certainly a tax.

    My two pennies.

    rh
    On Who will advocate for green measures that don't make anyone money? posted 3 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

  • supply v. demand

    Dave,

    I think you're really making a great distinction here.  Working on demand is the only realistic way forward if we're going to stop growing the amount of energy needed, and eventually turn back towards using less than we do now.

    I was at a conference last week and saw the head of EIA make a presentation about the energy outlook for 2030.  And the reality is, everyone in a position (gov't, corporations) to make change happen is absolutely counting on more supply (adding 1.1% a year if you're interested).

    So, the question is: how do we get away from the paradigm of providing what it is that we want (lights, mobility, etc.) through some other means than constantly supplying more energy?

    And Dave, I agree with you here - I don't know the answer.  But I do know we as a country have to get serious about finding a good answer, and get serious about it really soon.On Who will advocate for green measures that don't make anyone money? posted 3 years, 10 months ago 10 Responses

  • Sorry, Bobby

    While I think RFK Jr. has been a huge and important presence in the enviro community, I can't agree with him on this one.  This project needs to be built, and built now.

    He wants to send the windmills 5 miles further out, in the interest of the fishermen?  Or, is it b/c at 5 miles further out, he knows the windmills would be beyond the horizon and thus invisible?

    And please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these being built on a shoal precisely because it's shallow? What sort of commercial navigation is taking place on a shallow shoal?  The Alliance is grasping at straws, and RFK Jr. seems to be the latest one...

    C'mon Bobby! Join us and support this project! On Climate change is pushing this easygoing enviro over the edge posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • Sorry, Bobby

    While I think RFK Jr. has been a huge and important presence in the enviro community, I can't agree with him on this one.  This project needs to be built, and built now.

    He wants to send the windmills 5 miles further out, in the interest of the fishermen?  Or, is it b/c at 5 miles further out, he knows the windmills would be beyond the horizon and thus invisible?

    And please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't these being built on a shoal precisely because it's shallow? What sort of commercial navigation is taking place on a shallow shoal?  The Alliance is grasping at straws, and RFK Jr. seems to be the latest one...

    C'mon Bobby! Join us and support this project! On RFK Jr. and other prominent enviros face off over Cape Cod wind farm posted 3 years, 10 months ago 57 Responses

  • Friedman's article

    I liked how he took Cheney's "personal virtue" comment and spun it.On The Mustache of Understanding speaks truth posted 3 years, 11 months ago 3 Responses

  • Also in WaPo

    The Washington Post picked up on this today in their "Reliable Source" column, complete with quotes from Mr. Norquist. He says "I want everybody -- all of our activists -- to have the best arguments for the global warming thesis."

    (Thesis eh? Also defined as " A hypothetical proposition, especially one put forth without proof." Hundreds upon hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles, but, hey, no proof, right?)

    Read more hereOn And other thoughts from a 'clueless' enviro. posted 3 years, 11 months ago 6 Responses

  • production, but not "all-in"

    Hi Rod,

    I think I mis-read what you were saying before.  You were saying O&M costs and I thought you were talking about total costs.  My mistake.

    While O&M costs are technically accurate, they don't reflect the real costs which includes the high upfront costs, often pegged at $1200-1500 kW to build, if not more.  (For instance, see http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo04/assumption/pdf/tbl38.pdf)

    When you include the "all-in" costs (upfront costs + O&M), nukes aren't much of a bargain...especially when considers the subsidies nukes have received over the past 50 yearsOn Is the world ready to waltz with nuclear again? posted 3 years, 11 months ago 10 Responses

  • Source please!

    Hi Rod,

    Could you post the source for your figures so that we all can examine them?

    As someone who happens to think markets work at least somewhat efficiently, I'd be incredibly surprised to learn that nukes do electricity at $.0167/kWh vs. $.11+/kWh for gas because if that were really the case, this country's entire base load would be nothing but nukes.  

    Of course, wasn't that the argument made back in the 50's, that "Hey, it'll be so cheap we won't even meter it!"  Aren't those same investors that you mention the same ones that have stayed away from nukes for 25 years?

    Count me skeptical...On Is the world ready to waltz with nuclear again? posted 3 years, 11 months ago 10 Responses

  • thanks Lurking

    I think both Lurking and I are thinking the same thing here.  We (the royal We, being those of us who read Grist) need to do all we can to support people who are making green(er) choices, even if they're not doing it for "green" reasons.

    If you ride a bike, that's better than driving. Period. End of story. I really don't care what your reason is, and neither does the climate. If you do because you're "green," great, but if you don't, well, hey, at least you're riding a bike.

    Poking fun at how much the yuppies "need" to learn ain't the way to go if we want to actually reduce emissions...On Bike guy, meet clue. Clue, bike guy. posted 3 years, 12 months ago 17 Responses

  • a different view

    As a road cyclist, I know exactly what's being described here. While I think this article is a bit ridiculous, shouldn't we be trying to be a bit more IN-clusive (as in: the more people riding bikes, the better) instead of becoming more EX-clusive (as in: poor, sad yuppie, when will you learn)?

    My $.02...On Bike guy, meet clue. Clue, bike guy. posted 4 years ago 17 Responses

  • This is an important commentary

    Glad to see this is getting talked about.

    To add another ridiculous instance of point hoarding - I know of a new green building that is attempting LEED certification:

    Item: Buy green power for half the building's usage.

    Cost: ~ $2,500

    LEED Points: 1

    Item: Public Transit (it's an urban location)

    Cost: $0

    LEED Points: 1

    Item: 26 kw solar array and solar hot water that will meet most of the building's needs

    Cost: ~ $500,000

    LEED Points: 0

    What's wrong with this picture?On LEED green-building program confronts critics and growing pains posted 4 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

  • This is an important commentary

    Glad to see this is getting talked about.

    To add another ridiculous instance of point hoarding - I know of a new green building that is attempting LEED certification:

    Item: Buy green power for half the building's usage.

    Cost: ~ $2,500

    LEED Points: 1

    Item: Public Transit (it's an urban location)

    Cost: $0

    LEED Points: 1

    Item: 26 kw solar array and solar hot water that will meet most of the building's needs

    Cost: ~ $500,000

    LEED Points: 0

    What's wrong with this picture?On Top green-building system is in desperate need of repair posted 4 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

  • Other places to look

    Just a quick note: lots of colleges and universities are working in this area and are helping to support local, sustainable agriculture through education and their own purchases.  

    If you're looking for more information about what's happening in your area, you might want to see what the local college is up to.

    Just a thought.

    rhOn To create a truly sustainable food system, we'll need to make some fundamental changes. posted 4 years, 1 month ago 26 Responses

  • Thanks for saying this!

    It's so important that this is being said about how personal virtue or consumer education isn't the (only) answer.

    "If we could just educate them a little more and get them to conserve more, then they'd get it, and everything would be just fine!"

    Isn't that the attitude the environmental community (and I'm generalizing here of course) has taken for 20 or 30 years?

    Note the quote from the WH press sec:  "You can get it back - it's like squatters' rights," said Trent Duffy, the deputy White House press secretary. "You don't have to give up parking permanently."

    Is there anything in that statement that would make it seem as though he "gets it"?

    For better or worse, we have to get past the notion that educating people and getting them to change their behavior will be the final answer.On Personal conservation habits will never be enough posted 4 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses