Comments Hal 9000 has made

Interestingly, I remember Colin Beaven pursuing, albeit briefly, a "sense of the Congress" resolution on the need to address greenhouse gas emissions through Grist comments during his experiment. While I didn't regularly follow Colin's blog my wife did and I had the sense that his experiment was more community-minded--at least in an internet/virtual community kind of way--than Ms. Kolbert's article suggests.

However, an admittedly unfortunate side-effect of eco stunts is their use to support the delayer/denier meme, "If Al Gore is so worried about climate change, why hasn't he made radical lifestyle changes? Unless he sells his mansion and gives up air travel, climate change must not really be a problem." Of course, the logical fallacy of this, as Kolbert suggests, is obvious: one person's lifestyle change is the proverbial drop in the bucket. However, the delayer/denier crowd uses the backdrop of eco stunts to legitimize attacks on the personal virtues of environmental leaders and to distract the distractable from the messaging environmental leaders are trying to get out.

We need strong leaders like Al Gore pushing for federal legislation and international treaties to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions significantly and rapidly because that's what the science demands (recognizing that some contributers here have concluded that western society is beyond redemption and that whatever incremental steps we take now, societal collapse is our ultimate destiny). Asceticism will never appeal to a broad cross-section of the American public and radical self-sacrifice is inconsequential as a motivator for broad-based action. As interesting and heartful as personal experiments with asceticism may be, they shouldn't distract us from the urgent and primary need, moral and scientific, for the United States to act now at the federal and international levels.

Campaign Promises

Here's a brief summary of the position President Obama staked out on his website during the campaign: an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050; 100 percent auction to ensure that industries pay for every ton of emissions released rather than a system that gives some or all emission rights away for free; $15 billion per year of auction proceeds invested in the development of clean energy, energy efficiency, next generation biofuels (I know, not a Grist favorite), clean energy vehicles, and habitat restoration and efforts to assist fish and wildlife to adapt to climate change; remaining receipts used for rebates and transition relief to assure that families and communities are not adversely impacted by the transition to a new energy, low carbon economy. The people who elected President Obama need to hold him to this by nudging him to lead rather than follow and by providing political cover for the positions he has staked out.On How awful does a bill have to get to lose your support? posted 9 months, 4 weeks ago 32 Responses

Moving the Center

President Obama ran as a centrist and as a post-partisan pragmatist. More importantly, however, he won the nomination and general election in large measure because of his superior grass roots campaign organization. With climate change last on the list of the American public's priorities, the only way to improve what is currently possible politically is to move the public in the correct direction. To do this, shouldn't large environmental and climate groups hire organizers from the Obama campaign to educate and form the volunteer communities that elected President Obama again?  On As meaningful as his presidency is, Obama will not act fast enough on the climate crisis posted 10 months ago 11 Responses

Property Rights and Transaction Costs

This seems like a good example of a technical efficiency that needs a corresponding legal and transactional efficiency to go with it. Assuming that a ground source system involves mutiple parcels of private property, each with a bank loan, the social cooperation here would legally take the form of a cross easement and maintenance agreement among each property owner. The agreement would be of record, grant appropriate property rights to each property owner, run with the land (i.e., be permanent) and provide for the common maintenance, repair, and replacement of the system. Because of provisions typical to most loan documents, lender approval of the easement and maintenance agreement would probably be required. Thus, if each property owner has to hire an attorney to knock the agreement out and get lender approval for it, the transaction cost and legal issues may become an issue or barrier to getting things done. Legally, it would be easier to do this for multi-family housing, whether owned by a single entity or put into the condominium form of ownership, because the developer can just make it so. Well systems placed within public rights of way and connecting to private property would probably require a law change. My ultimate point in noting the above is that our laws should serve the identified efficiency needs and not stand in their way. And, in a gross simplification, our property laws particularly tend not to provide for or consider more modern and necessary values such as cooperation, conservation and preservation. Thus, I agree with the point about cooperation and note, in addition, that our laws and legal system should adapt to further it.On With heat pumps, smart cooperation is as important as technology posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

Biblical

MLK's "I Have a Dream Speech" quotes Isaiah (make the mountains low, etc.) to imagine a transformation to justice for all people. This yahoo (can I refer to a Lt. Gov. as a yahoo?) perhaps didn't have Isaiah in mind when he literally argued for Wal-Marts on devastated mountaintops, but he's essentially imagining and arguing that we need to clear even more pathways for the god of consumerism. As if. Anyway, I thought it an interesting comparison of images and the quote itself a depressing perspective on our societal priorities and the quality of our current leaders.

If interested, this is the Isaiah quote, 40:3 - 5 (from The Message translation of The Bible):

Thunder in the desert!
   "Prepare for God's arrival!
Make the road straight and smooth,
   a highway fit for our God.
Fill in the valleys,
   level off the hills,
Smooth out the ruts,
   clear out the rocks.
Then God's bright glory will shine
   and everyone will see it.
   Yes. Just as God has said."
 On Appalachian Mountains: old and in the way posted 1 year, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Homeowner Info

The "cabin" featured in the article is owned by one of the second generation owners of this business: http://www.neilkelly.com/.  This may help with some of the speculation in the posts about the owner's motives, resources, and interests.

More broadly, the accumulation of wealth is either our dominant cultural imperative or near the very top of the list. Given the enormity of the task of cultural change, it seems inevitable that we'll at least partially "green" our culture through this imperative. For example, the notion of individual home, commercial building, and neighborhood energy independence should really be appealing within our existing culture as an alternative or supplement to centrally owned and generated power.

Given the effect of the dominant culture's values on the environment, it's also obviously critical to challenge cultural assumptions and  promote change to values that no longer serve the culture. Bill McKibben's dissection of "more is better" in "Deep Economy" and works on the "pursuit of happiness" (once basic needs are met, most people find satisfaction, happiness, and meaning in common pursuits and relationships, not things) are useful examples.

These ideas may also provide a helpful backdrop for the "cabin" article. On one hand, it's easy to write off a second home, especially of this magnitude, as ridiculously conspicuous consumption. On the other hand, "green" was at least a value the homeowners considered when the home was built. Since many Americans do own second homes the consideration of "green" as a value matters culturally. Finally, the dominant value behind the choice to build a second home at all may really be relational--the "pursuit of happiness" through the creation of community and relationships (a "cabin" as a retreat building that will endure for decades for a multi-generational family business). Obviously, there are more environmentally benign ways to create community, but, given the range of choices the "cabin" owners could have made, it could have been much worse.On Cabins are not 'earth-friendly' posted 1 year, 4 months ago 20 Responses

350 Focus

A non-binding sense of the Congress resolution at a time when urgent action is required is an interesting approach. However, given the result of recent legislative efforts there will clearly be a climate change legislation vacuum for a year or so. Thus, a grass roots effort to keep this at least marginally in the news and to advance the James Hansen/Bill McKibben "350 ball" is appealing.

My very humble sense of the draft resolution is that it may present too many targets for opponents in the recitals, but if your representative and staff are supportive, that's obviously key. Recitals or preambles to resolutions are typically agreed statements of fact. Behind even a simple non-binding resolution relating to climate change policy, there are obviously many loaded issues. Even seemingly established scientific facts will be contested or denied. Introducing the Stern Report invites a cost debate. Referencing IPCC reporting invites a debate about ranges of outcome and uncertainties. International cooperation is another loaded topic.

With this in mind and with the intent of focusing on the "350 ball" and the Hansen paper as much as possible, here is a variation on your resolution. Thank you for your leadership by example; it is a very powerful. Also, my representative is Earl Blumenauer, D. Oregon, who should be interested in sponsoring your resolution:

Sense of Congress resolution:

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that United States and international climate change policy must protect human civilization and the environment by stabilizing the  atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at levels that will prevent increases in average global temperature that threaten human civilization and the environment.

Whereas;

Common human activities, including certain forestry and agricultural practices and burning fossil fuels to heat buildings, to generate electricity, and to power motor vehicles, ships and aircraft, have caused significant emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to the atmosphere from human activities have caused and will continue to cause the average global temperature to increase.

Environmental policy is generally intended to protect human health and the environment from unacceptable risks associated with human activities that cause pollution.

The best available climate science identifies unacceptable risks to human health and the environment should atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide remain above 350 parts per million (ppm) for an extended period of time (beyond 2100).

The best available climate science identifies unacceptable risks to human health and the environment should atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide continue to increase significantly above current levels in the near term (within the next 10 to 20 years).

Because the current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 387 ppm, compared to a pre-industrial level of approximately 280 ppm, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide are increasing at a rate of approximately 2 ppm per year, and the necessary actions to reduce and stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide to acceptable levels will take decades to implement, establishing a target atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration against which to measure the efficacy of policies, laws and regulations is a useful early action.

Therefore, be it Resolved;

It is the sense of the House of Representatives that:

Until the best available climate science dictates otherwise, United States and international efforts should be coordinated to reduce and stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at no more than 350 ppm. These coordinated efforts should occur within time frames that will reduce  risks to human health and the environment resulting from human-caused carbon dioxide emissions to acceptable levels.
On A 'sense of the House' resolution to adopt 350 ppm as America's official climate target posted 1 year, 5 months ago 13 Responses

Out of the Abyss

DR's characterization of the article, "deeply disturbing--not to say nightmare inducing" strikes me as the likely reaction of a significant majority of Americans to this information. If a majority of Americans are or would be deeply disturbed by the facts and the policy choices they represent, it seems vital to our democracy to get the facts out.

Unfortunately, getting the facts out and changing the politics, as the article suggests, will be extraordinarily difficult. For all the Bush administration's faults and incompetence, it has, with a substantial assist from the MSM, effectively shielded its military and terrorism policies (and even its mistreatment of our military personnel) from criticism under the umbrella of patriotism. The Bush Administration's simplistic mantras and messaging ("you're for us or against us" and "support the troops") repeated ad infinitum by the Republican noise machine are blunt but ultimately effective political tools that help squelch reasoned debate. As I noted in an earlier post, the MSM assigned the three candidates who advocated real change in our foreign policy and military spending, Dennis Kucinich, Mike Gravel, and Ron Paul, to the lunatic fringe. In a piece on the Huffington Post a few weeks ago even Bernie Sanders conflated our response to terrorism with military preparedness because, I suspect, he didn't want to appear soft on defense or anti-military.

Under the circumstances, I think a useful grass roots approach is one adopted by religious and social activist groups advocating for the poor. In recent years these groups have argued convincingly that budgets are moral documents. Military spending to provide reasonably for our common defense is moral. The Bush administration has sunk unthinkable wealth into pre-emptive war, torture, extraordinary renditions, the projection of power across the globe, the disruption of democracy and democratic movements in other countries, and the privatization of our military. These are not morally defensible choices nor can they be hidden within the rubric of providing for our national defense.

Our spending choices represent our basic societal priorities, a point also emphasized by religious and social activist groups. Thus, our budget says we are militarists who will use the blunt instrument of military power to impose our will on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, as many of the Tomgram contributors have shown, military power is not a substitute for diplomacy and the improper use of military power leads to blowback, including terrorism. Thus, despite massive military spending, the Bush administration's foreign policy and its response to terrorism have generally been ineffective.

Finally, and obviously this is disheartening to those of us who think an ordered, effective, and timely response to anthropogenic climate de-stabilization is one of our government's highest priorities, blowing the bank on our military and taking the military budget off (or mostly off) the table shapes the climate debate. We need escape hatches in our climate change legislation because we might not be able to afford the actions necessary to reduce GHG emissions as the science demands but we can afford 183 F-22 Raptors (originally conceived to counter Soviet fighers) at $390 million a pop (including development costs)?

Still waiting for the peace dividend. . . .On The Pentagon that ate America posted 1 year, 6 months ago 7 Responses

Iceland

Not that The Dalles isn't a good spot, but Iceland may be ideal:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/22/renewab ...On New server farm projected to use 103 MW of power posted 1 year, 7 months ago 20 Responses

The End of Nature

My take on this is that it's a dangerous toehold to cede to free marketeers, especially at the ecosystem level.

Paul Hawken made us more aware of the value of "natural capital" and argued for preserving it as a commons for the benefit of all. The free marketeers want to bring "market efficiencies" to  bear on "ecosystem services" in the belief that this will provide us with wetlands (or flood control, clean water, clean air, and so on) at the correct cost (what's wrong with free?). To do that, the "ecosystem services" will be commodified, engineered, managed, parceled out and sold for a profit. It's not just free market theory but centuries of property law that are pushing us toward this result.

As a countervailing value, Bill McKibben (and many others) essentially ask what is nature worth and what is lost when no part of the planet is free from human influence? Assuming we can substitute engineered "ecosystem services" for natural capital, and obviously there are tremendous risks if we try and fail, is this really a good idea? Is the efficiency of the market a higher societal value than the preservation (restoration) of natural environments?On On the oddity of privatizing nature posted 1 year, 8 months ago 31 Responses

New Description

Immortal?On Please stop calling them 'skeptics' posted 1 year, 8 months ago 40 Responses

Ignoring the Denial Machine

If the denial machine didn't wield political power it could be ignored, much like most posters here tend to ignore denial machine science. However, the denial machine's corporate backers probably wield more political power than any other players in this game. Chief Justice Roberts for example, was demonstrably more sympathetic to the plight of ExxonMobil and how it could avoid punitive damages than to the fishermen and Native Alaskans whose livelihoods and culture were destroyed by a drunk piloting a supertanker.

Movement conservatism has also demonstrably succeeded in mobilzing large blocs of voters to support corporate interests. One strategy for achieving this outcome has been to appeal to voters who make decisions first and foremost based on their cultural values--in short, appealing to voters who will vote values above their own economic self interests. The denial movement, as a subset of movement conservatism, ultimately relies on values for its positions. Movement adherents may play games with rationalism, but the movement itself ultimately rejects it.

I can't speak to the specifics of David's conclusions because they are based on his personal observations, but it is absolutely legitimate to pose the questions and to explore the motivations and values of denial movement members.On Skeptics and ressentiment posted 1 year, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Collapse

It has been a while since I read Jared Diamond's Collapse, but recent posts by Joe Romm, Jon Rynn and others certainly support the notion that our political and cultural institutions, of which the media is a critical part, may ultimately fail us. I don't rely on the MSM extensively for environmental news, but there is at least some reasonably good in depth reporting on issues that are immediate, such as droughts, water supply, and wildfires. This makes sense because the immediate is news. I also agree with the premise that scientific predictions of critical events that may happen because of climate destabilization in 5, 10, 20, 30, 50 or 100 years are also news and should be reported as such. However, because predictions lack immediacy, the reporting treats the predictions as opinion. The reporting then balances puts scientific predictions on one side of the scale and a variety of contrary opinion on the other side of the scale without proper regard for the relative weight each is due.

Simplistically, we're not very good at predicting, understanding and addressing problems that result from our actions when the problems aren't immediate and obvious. Perhaps at least in part in recognition of this, some environmental and religious leaders such as Jim Wallis have promoted the addition of a specific moral or ethical component to decision-making (e.g., our governmental budgets should be viewed as moral documents, corporate law should be changed to permit the consideration of profitability over the long-term rather than quarter to quarter, we should consider the effects of our actions on future generations).

Interestingly, raising ethics and morals as one way to fill the gap that seems to prevent us from grappling with future problems effectively yields yet another delayer response. Beyond the simplistic denial of science or the patently obvious defense of near-term self-interests is the "ordered moral priorities" argument: "we will achieve more social good spending dollars now on immediate problem X than we can possibly hope to achieve by spending scarce dollars now to address uncertain future problem Y." This argument has been frequently discussed on Grist in other threads, but I think it underscores one of the fundamental problems of our media and politics. As Jon Rynn continues to argue, the science indicates that we need significant transformational change now in order to respond to climate destabilization in an effective and timely manner. "Collapse" demonstrates that cultural change isn't easy and that some societies will chose extinction over change. The delayers use our existing cultural norms to distract, confuse and ultimately to delay, minimize or prevent change. If we can't identify the denier/delayer response as outside of accepted cultural norms and if we're unwilling to consider necessary cultural change, we may well end up like the Vikings in Greenland.On What if the MSM simply can't cover humanity's self-destruction? posted 1 year, 8 months ago 33 Responses

Thanks

Thanks for picking up this thread regarding cuts in military spending as a source of funds to green the economy. Bush's budget proposal, out today, calls for more deficit spending to support, among other misplaced priorities, tax breaks for the wealthy and increased military spending. Of course, these priorities are funded in part by cuts in programs that serve the most needy in our society. See this post by Bernie Sanders for more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/bushs-pr .... Also, an important component to Johnson's work is to show how ineffective our military spending has been from a security standpoint (it's not just an economic failure, it's a security failure, too!). As we identify better ways to spend our tax dollars and to clarify the financial resources needed to address climate change through useful federal spending, let's remember reduced military spending, coupled with more intelligent foreign policy, will actually improve our security. Bottom line: we can and should be more secure than we are at far less cost to taxpayers. On Converting the permanent military economy to a green economy posted 1 year, 9 months ago 41 Responses