Comments JeffB has made

Science ain't working for the people....

I hate to say this but we need to steal a line or two from the Great Communicator Ronald Reagan.  Ronnie was successful because he didn't care about facts or data...he spoke to our hearts and emotions.  And that is how Americans react to problems these days.  Don't bother me with facts, data, and statistics because a) they are too complicated to understand, b) you can always find some data or statistics to prove a point, and c) your just going to use the data and statistics to manipulate me and I'm not going to let you do that.

So we need to appeal to people's emotions by saying...

"God told us to take care of his creation."

"We need to protect our way of life for our childran and grand-children.  So we need to make sure there are places to fish, hunt, and go 4-wheeling.  If there is too much development, everyone will be at the same fishing hole, duck blind, mud waller...."

"We shouldn't be sending our money to the Arabs who just support terrorists."

"Americans are the smartest and most innovative people on the earth who can do anything that they set their mind on.  So we should be smart enough to figure out how to run our air conditioners without having to take off the tops of mountains.  I can't believe that we're letting the Germans and Spanish get ahead of us."On Seeing the light in the Pew poll on Americans' top priorities posted 10 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

States will lead......

David
I came to the conclusion quite some time ago that any expectation for there to be national action on climate change is an unrealistic expectation.  We are in the unfortunate situation where a significant portion of the public at large believes science to be politicized.  This is reflected in results from a 2008 Gallup poll which indicate that 70% of Democrat respondents believe climate change over the past century to be due to human activities but only 40% of Republicans to have the same belief.  Importantly, this is a decline from 52% which was the response for Republicans in 2002.

http://www.environmentmagazine.org/Archives/Back%20Issues ...

With over half of Republicans doubting climate change (and I'd expect that the most of the doubters are from the Republican base which have disproportionate influence on a congressman's position), we should expect continued intransience in Congress.  This will most likely happen in the Senate were Senate rules make it easy to stall controversial legislation.

So what is the most likely outcome....

I'd expect the Obama administation to take steps addressing climate change where only executive action is permitted.  We can also expect legislation on climate change to be incorporated in omnibus legislation which is difficult to stall.  Most importantly, I expect the Obama administration to make it easier for progressive states like California to take action.  So look for the states to take the lead.On What the Obama presidency means posted 10 months, 1 week ago 26 Responses

The best argument yet for no new drilling

The best argument yet for postponing drilling on OCS and Anwar is - we need to save some oil for  our grandchildren.

The pro-drilling pols really don't have an answer to that argument.On House Dems fail attempt to make Big Oil drill on the land it's got posted 1 year, 4 months ago 5 Responses

Piss Poor Journalism

Fact check.  Fact check.  Fact check.

If you are concerned about the environment, you can't fall into the same sloppy journalism as the institutional main stream media.  Those who are resistant to change will use such sloppiness to discredit scientific evidence and legitimate argumentation.

Grist, platitudes for fixing this post once you saw that it was in error.  (You really shouldn't have posted it in the first place.)On Gingrich's 'grassroots' drilling campaign is funded by Big Oil, report says posted 1 year, 4 months ago 8 Responses

Maybe he's smarter than he let's on........

When George W is against the politically expedient action AND when he bucks the entire Republican Party (including the Evangalicals, the Neo-Cons, the Libertarians, etc.), one has to believe that he just might know something that the rest of us don't.  It really goes against every action that he has demonstrated over the past 7 years. Something to think about.....On Dems and GOP agree to stop filling Strategic Petroleum Reserve posted 1 year, 6 months ago 10 Responses

Not much hope for Kenya

Recently I attended a lecture in Seattle by 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner and Kenyan Wangari Maathai who initiated the tree planting organization The Greenbelt Movement.  She is a wonderful speaker and has an optimistic view of the world.  However, when I researched the true situation in Kenya, I uncovered found the situation does not deserve such optimism.  The population in Kenya is growing at a rate of 2.8% per year with a population that is 42% below the age of 14 years old.  Women have 4.8 children on average.

The efforts by the Slow Food movement and the Greenbelt Movement cannot begin to counter this burgeoning population.  It is not surprising that people turn to violence when resource are stretched and allocated unfairly.  It is also surprising (and extremely disappointing) that environmental leaders such as Wangari Maathai do not have the courage to state that the root cause of environmental degradation is due to pressures of overpopulation.  I waited for her to mention this in her lecture, but she did not.On It's not always just Monsanto screwing with the food system posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

A little story about why carbon tax is needed...

We've done the StepItUp march.  We've switched our lightbulbs out.  We've got a Prius.  We subscribe to a CSA.  Despite all these changes I find the rest of my family just doesn't get it.  Let me tell you why...

Well, first the wife does the shopping, often with two teen agers in tow.  So when she get's home, I peer into the grocery bag and start reading the really fine print about where the food comes from.  Washington state is best.  Oregon slightly less so.  California less than that.

I've got all them trained to at least think a little about what they are buying.  We've still got a little bit of trouble with boxed snack crackers and snack bars...a lot of packaging for the sake of convenience in my opinion.  (My wife's taken to hiding these in her car...kind of like what an alcoholic does with his bottle.)

Getting to the point though, I get home one day this week and found that we have eight of those small yogurt containers in the refrigerator.  I read the fine print.  Oops...California.  Time to quiz the wife and kids.

"Why did you buy yogurt from California? We should be able to get yogurt from Oregon at least..."

"I don't like the type of fruit that they have on the bottom."

Hmmm....  To me, fruit is, well, fruit.  Does it really matter to are overall quality of life if a California yogurt has just a little bit better fruit than an Oregon yogurt?

And this is why we need the carbon tax...even those of us who know better can't make the right decisions when it may mean even the slightest of compromises.  We need a signal that tells us we're making the wrong choice.  So that is why we need the carbon tax, it is the best way to engage Adam Smith's "invisible hand" to create the market mechanisms for making the right choices.On And other revelations from the latest big-media expose of local food posted 1 year, 11 months ago 9 Responses

Another word on carbon offsets

As much as I'd like to agree with Dave, I'd argue that carbon offsets which directly promote alternative (e.g. solar or wind) energy fall into a different category than tree-planting or energy efficiency activities.

If one offsets with alternative energy, you provide market incentives to develop green businesses.  It permits companies and entrepeneurs to develop products and the associated marketing and product support. And as any economist will tell you there are economies of scale which will result as technologies are developed which will further reduce the cost for subsequent units.  One can think of this as an unquantifiable multiplier effect which makes an offset using alternative energy even more attractive than the direct reduction in CO2.

Unfortunately alternative energy offsets are probably more expensive than planting trees in Burundi, but you probably have more assurance that your contribution will result in money being spent on what you intend it to.On In which I clear everything up posted 2 years, 4 months ago 26 Responses