Comments DaveGreenAndRed has made

  • Don't get your hopes up.

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

    Think differently?  Read your history.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    And as for the coal company owners, I'm not at all convinced that they will have lower incomes in the future.  What will actually happen, as climate policy gets closer to what it needs to do, is: (1) the markets will start to send signals discounting the value of coal firm shares in line with future profitability calculations; (2) rational coal firm share owners will sell their shares; (3) the cost of coal firm shares will go down in accordance with market discounting; (4) some will buy the shares at the lower prices, and thus will not require as high returns; (5) everyone else who used to be coal firm shareholders will end up owning other investments that will benefit from the overall economic shift away from rewarding carbon output.  I repeat, today's rational coal firm shareholders will in future own shares in carbon non-intensive firms, which in general will do absolutely better.  Their incomes will not be lower.On Please, can we lay off the calls for sacrifice in the face of climate change? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 18 Responses

  • Victory for Bush

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Fun, but not helpful

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

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

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

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

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

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

      On Climate change skeptics fall for hoax paper posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

  • Missed the point

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

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

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

    We won't shake this myth loose by pointing out how ludicrous it is.  Instead, we have to point out that hummers and SUVs are driven by elites (mainly lazy woosies).  We have to point out that the rich - yes, actually the rich - are elites.  We have to put reality back into the language.  And we have to harp on these points consistently in order to reframe the discussion.On Alan Durning on whether biking is for children and for losers posted 2 years, 4 months ago 26 Responses

  • Hydrogen as a green fuel?? Get Over It.

    The real problem with hydrogen is that it is not an energy source; it is a way of storing and transmitting energy.

    Unlike fossil fuels, there is no abundant source of hydrogen that is economical to access.

    To get hydrogen we have to burn fossil fuels, or otherwise generate electricity (dams, nukes, etc).

    Thus there is always a major environmental cost to hydrogen.  

    It is not a solution to our environmental problems.  

    So get over it.On A guest essay from Geoffrey Holland posted 2 years, 4 months ago 55 Responses

  • Origin of "Clean Coal" framing

    Does anyone know where, exactly, the term "Clean Coal" came from?  I.e. who cooked it up, and when?

    ((It's a brilliant peice of rhetoric, and it needs to be exposed and replaced.)

    Thanks!
    DaveOn For shame posted 2 years, 4 months ago 29 Responses

  • RCMP

    It would be great to know who, within the RCMP, ordered that a skinny bureaucrat be handcuffed, or even arrested.  For those who don't know better (because of seeing too much TV?), when the police want to lay a charge, they don't have to arrest you.  And they don't have to handcuff you.  That they did so strikes me as partisan political work. Incidentally, they have not yet even laid any charges.

    Mind you, the RCMP have always been up for partisan political work.  The former Commissioner announced an investigation into the Liberal Party in the middle of the last federal election.  The Liberals immediately dropped in the polls, never recovered from it, and the Conservatives won the election.  And guess what? No charges were ever laid against anyone in the Liberal Party.  

    Hmmm...  

    And then there are the files the RCMP acknowledges maintaining on hundreds of thousands of Canadians - environmentalists, labour leaders, members of the New Democratic Party, etc...On Excuse Us While We Pick Our Jaws Up Off the Floor posted 2 years, 6 months ago 1 Response

  • The answer should be clear by now

    Above you see the same tired, old rants by global warming deniers.  And lo and behold they are all ready to be found in a google search.  

    We have provided them yet another platform for their nonsense.  It's time to stop doing that.

    Instead of "debating" the winged monkeys of Big Oil, I'd suggest we focus on getting our side of the story out - over and over again - just like they do (Big Oil and its ideological sycophants, while boring, are certainly not stupid).

     On Vote! posted 2 years, 6 months ago 96 Responses

  • Origin of "Clean Coal"

    Does anyone know who coined the term?  Did it come from the coal industry?  Frank Luntz?On Learn how to recognize the shills posted 2 years, 7 months ago 5 Responses

  • 5th E

    I think the difficulty here is not so much disagreement on the nature of the problem (uncoordinated, selfish decision-making results in losses to the commons), but the framing of the solution.  "Property Rights" is a libertarian frame.  Without saying so expressly, it generally carries the implication that the rights will be accorded to individuals or corporations (legal individuals).  

    There are actually two ways to solve the problem.  First is to parcel out the property, so that there isn't a commons to trash.  Second is to coordinate decision making, so there isn't uncoordinated, selfish decision-making.

    By framing the solution as referring to "property rights" we tend to be led toward the first solution and away from the second solution.

    I know, I know, before anyone feels the need to repeat it: the original post spoke of property rights being held by government or otherwise collectively.  I'm just pointing out the fact that the existing framing of the term "property rights" implies individualized ownership.

    Let's move away from trying to put square pegs into round holes and place everything in that property rights category, and be clear that there is another solution: using our collective decision-making capacity and conceiving of ourselves as citizens, not just consumers.  

    Does anyone have a suitable "E" for this one?On The "Four E's" of environmental improvement posted 3 years, 4 months ago 43 Responses

  • Transform our economy

    Imagine a world in which prices were adjusted to bring our economy closer to sustainability.  A  few examples:

    1. What would it look like if organic food were cheaper than food laced with pesticides?  Well, we'd all be buying organic, and farmers wouldn't be using pesticides.

    2. What would it look like if it became cheaper to hire people, and more exensive to pollute?  There would be more employment, and less pollution.

    3. What would it look like if gasoline became significantly more expensive, and a national income supplement were financed from the revenues?  There would be fewer and smaller cars on the road, and poverty would be reduced.

    Get the idea?  

    This is a world within our reach.  All it would take is getting governments to adopt green tax shifting.  That is of course a tall order - it will need significant political will.  And that will happen once the majority of the public supports it strongly.  In order for that to happen, we need to start imagining it and talking about it.On Drop that apocalyptic vision and start imagining a positive future posted 3 years, 4 months ago 56 Responses

  • CSR won't do it

    Hi everyone,

    Before we get too worried about how CSR is leaving the poor behind while it saves the environment and society, let's remember how limited CSR will be at achieving anything other than profit maximization.  

    Corporations are accountable to shareholders: the people who own them, the people whose investments, whose property they constitute.  They are not accountable to the environment, society, the poor or anyone else for that matter.  And if corporate directors tried acting like they were, then they could get sued by their shareholders, as did Henry Ford.  Read up on how Dodge Motor Co got its initial funding.

    Much as I (and many others) wish that large corporations were more broadly accountable, they just aren't.  If you don't beleive me, then read Bakan, "The Corporation", or Micklethwait and Wooldridge, "The Company", depending on your political bent (left or right respectively).  For that matter read Chomsky or Friedman.

    If we want change, we can't wait for corporations to deliver.  We either have to change the structure of business corporation, or replace them with public-interest organizations, like cooperatives and publicly-owned enterprises.

    Cheers,
    DaveOn Has the corporate-responsibility movement lost sight of the big picture? posted 3 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

  • Straight to another source - Toronto Star

    Also see The Toronto Star op-ed, "U.S. oil addiction could make us sick"
    http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid =971358637177&c=Article&cid=1141904468646On How do Canadians feel about fueling America's empire? posted 3 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

  • Canadian Energy Security Strategy

    The US has a National Energy Policy, aimed at securing its energy future.  And that Policy points out that Mexico has the sovereign ability to make its own decisions on energy.  Within NAFTA, only Canada has essentially ceded its future energy security to the market.  And we all know how carefully the market will protect the interests of the average Canadian in relation to those of multinational oil corporations...

    In addition to the report linked in your article, Parkland Institute has another report specifically related to energy security and the environment.  See the link at the bottom of this page: http://www.ualberta.ca/PARKLAND/mediareleases/PRDec1_2005Energy.htm. On How do Canadians feel about fueling America's empire? posted 3 years, 8 months ago 4 Responses

  • Elitists or right wing frame? Time to move forward

    Yes, we have some elitists in the history of environmentalism, and maybe even a few now.  But let's not underestimate (or entirely overlook) the extent to which the right wing has deliberately framed environmentalists as elitists.  

    In reality, the latter has had far more impact than the former.  So let's not get ourselves feeling too guilty about "our roots" to do some real activism.  We've had a lot of hand-wringing about the movement lately, and it's time to get working hard and looking forward, rather than looking backward.On Environmentalism's elitist tinge has roots in the movement's history posted 3 years, 8 months ago 17 Responses

  • Live simply, and change the system

    "While the wealthy may strive for 'simple living,' the poor try simply surviving.

    One answer to this, Ghandi's, was "Live simply, SO THAT others may simply live."

    Personally, I prefer changing the system rather than asking people to change their lives.  But I won't criticize the people who do change their lives.On Wealthy strive for posted 3 years, 9 months ago 18 Responses

  • Seeking a mate? Or just a good time? Volunteer!

    Dear Umbra,

    You left out the best way to meet someone who shares your values and your passion.  Volunteer!  That's where the groovy people are.

    I met my spouse while volunteering for a corporate accountability group.  We have now co-authored many a touching letter and scathing op-ed, attended activist meetings together, and plotted and schemed the downfall of the powerful, pious and polluting.

    Best wishes and good luck,
    DaveOn Umbra on love posted 3 years, 9 months ago 7 Responses