Comments Adi has made

  • in response to Glenn

    Your comment shows a shocking lack of knowledge and respect for the environmental justice movement.  There are real reasons to be concerned about cap and trade from a social justice standpoint -- that does not make anyone a front for Big Oil or Coal, and if you spent 5 minutes on the websites of any of these groups you'd know that.  When it comes to challenging corporate power, the environmental justice movement is on the frontlines.  They're the ones being poisoned most directly by polluters -- for you to suggest that they are funded by industry boggles the mind.On National environmental justice coalition blasts cap-and-trade, backs carbon tax posted 1 year, 5 months ago 9 Responses

  • setting the record straight...

    Gillian Caldwell is no longer working at Witness; she is now the Campaign Director for 1Sky, a new initiative mobilizing diverse grassroots support for policy solutions at the scale of the climate challenge before us: 80% emissions cuts by 2050, the creation of 5 million new jobs in green industries, and a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants.  (Full disclosure: I am the Field and Outreach Associate for 1Sky.)  I invite all Grist readers to check out our work and get involved at http://www.1sky.org as we build a unified climate movement together.On Smart people talk about serious questions posted 1 year, 10 months ago 3 Responses

  • no denying that India's government is corrupt...

    ...but that is not the issue here.  If you're going to critique Khosla's individual practices, why do you feel the need to connect that to the corrupt practices of the Indian government?  The implication is that Khosla is corrupt because he is Indian, and that is where the xenophobic bias comes in, whether you intended it or not.On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses

  • From an Indian-American reader

    "That may be how business is done in India but that may also explain a lot of India's past problems.   We need to fix the problem here before we end up like India (the country you bailed from)."  Nice xenophobia there, buddy.  Heaven knows we didn't have money corrupting our political system before Vinod Khosla exploded upon the scene!  If we don't watch out, the U.S. will become a festering third world hellhole, like India!  Please.  Save this kind of trash for nativist web sites.On Keeping power broker's hands out of the cookie jar posted 1 year, 11 months ago 57 Responses

  • lets talk about climate JUSTICE

    Dave,

    I love what you're trying to do with this series and I agree with your objectives 100%, but one quibble... why call it climate "equity"?  Lets go a step farther and call it climate justice!  Climate change is the largest environmental justice challenge our planet has ever faced and the grassroots groups working on these issues see themselves as part of a climate JUSTICE movement, not a "climate equity" movement.  The idea of climate justice is aspirational and I believe that is the term we should embrace - equity sounds weak in comparision.  With that said...

    There is a third dimension to climate (in)justice beyond disproportionate impacts and responsibilities, and that is the idea of who is involved in formulating solutions.  The communities that are worst impacted by climate change (people of color, low-income, indigenous, developing nations - we have to name it) must have a seat at the policy-making table.  Climate policy formulated poorly can actually create additional social, economic and environmental hardships for already marginalized communities and we must avoid this pitfall.

    Finally, good people to talk to... the Indigenous Environmental Network (Tom Goldtooth) and the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative (Nia Robinson) are both doing fantastic grassroots climate justice work.  Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC has been outspoken about the connections between climate change, development and poverty.  Tomorrow the Global Development and Economic Institute at Tufts University is presenting an award to economists Jojo Kwame Sundaram and Steven DeCanio for their work on climate equity.  The list could go on and on... I look forward to reading this series!On Introducing an ongoing series on the most undercovered aspect of climate change posted 2 years, 1 month ago 16 Responses

  • Ridiculous

    That EPA report quote is effectively an argument AGAINST auctioning permits on economic grounds, which is kind of absurd.  Isn't the idea that in a cap-and-auction system the revenue raised could be invested in energy efficiency and other programs that would BENEFIT the consumer?  Of course corporations want freely allocated permits - it's a windfall for them!On How to tell whoppers and get away with it posted 2 years, 2 months ago 3 Responses

  • maybe I'm missing something...

    The Reuters article says that S.280 will reduce emissions 65% below 1990 levels by 2050.  How does that square with the following statement from the EPA official's letter to McCain and Lieberman?

    "Relative to the reference scenario, S.280 would reduce US GHG emissions by about a quarter in 2030 and by about 44% in 2050.  Compared to historical emissions, emissions under S.280 would be approximately 1-3% lower than 2000 levels in 2030, and 1-5% lower than 1990 levels in 2050."

    Which one is it?On Will you take it? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

  • Nader is not to blame.

    This is ridiculous.  How about the 250,000 Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush in 2000?  Where's the outrage there?  How about the fact that Gore couldn't even carry his home state of Tennessee?  (If he had, Florida would've been a non-issue.)  Independent of Nader there were tons of factors that led to Al Gore's "loss" in 2000: http://www.sevenoaksmag.com/features/02_nader.htmlOn Just when the anger was fading posted 2 years, 5 months ago 8 Responses

  • to wackatalpidae...

    As a Hindu, I'm going to be the first to say that one quote from the Bhagavad Gita does not sum up all of Hinduism by any stretch of the imagination.  Just had to put that out there...On Quit talking about it already posted 2 years, 7 months ago 92 Responses

  • 80%

    Again I feel this is disingenous, considering that a lot of climate skeptics are still hung up on supposed scientific uncertainty -- they couldn't care less about 80% reductions vs. further-reaching cuts.  A few years ago the paltry McCain-Lieberman bill was at the outer range of what is possible, and now there are climate bills proposed in Congress (including McCain-Leiberman version 2.0) that have much weaker emissions targets than Sanders/Waxman -- why then aren't corporations latching on to those targets?  Furthermore, Hansen and others were talking about 80% reductions before corporations started talking about it publicly.  Are we suddenly to believe that Hansen is a corporate tool?  I welcome the critical voice you bring to this blog regarding issues of carbon trading/climate justice, but this seems like a stretch.  Agreed, if it hadn't been for corporate manipulation we likely might be debating reductions greater than 80% by 2050 -- but I don't think that corporations have shaped a false consensus around that figure, given that many interests have endorsed such a target seemingly independently of corporate influence.On The biggest factor is still the bottom line posted 2 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses

  • on 80% reductions by 2050

    I share your skepticism that corporations/financial interests will take action on the scale that is needed.  However, it is disingenuous for you to say that calling for 60-90% reductions in carbon emissions by 2050 is merely an example of the rich and powerful trying to get away with the minimum.  Bill McKibben's grassroots Step It Up day of action this Saturday is calling for 80% reductions by 2050, in line with policy proposals from Jim Hansen, the Stern Report, the UNFCCC, and several European countries, among others (http://stepitup2007.org/article.php?id=29).  Also, the toughest climate bills in the Senate/House (sponsored by Sanders and Waxman, respectively) call for such reductions.  So if more drastic reductions are needed (and they well might be), the broader challenge is to reframe the overall climate debate in that direction, rather than selectively castigating corporations for endorsing a target that has buy-in from a broad spectrum of interests.On The biggest factor is still the bottom line posted 2 years, 7 months ago 12 Responses

  • Jason Scorse didn't come up with anything new...

    ...considering that the U.S. environmental justice (EJ) movement has connecting the dots between environmental and social justice issues since at least 1982.  Give credit where credit is due.  http://www.ejrc.cau.edu is a great EJ resource and I encourage all Gristers to check it out.  The environmental movement ignores these issues at its own peril.

    --AdiOn Read the interview! posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses