Comments jb943 has made

  • YEAH World Citizen, Cash for BIKES!!!!On Cash for Clunkers brought us ... more clunkers! posted 2 weeks, 2 days ago 29 Responses
  • I think they are overblowing the consequences of cap and trade. Comparing cap and trade to Challenger? What? Puleeze. I didn't hear about any Challenger type explosion in Europe when they implemented C&P. Perverse incentives are always created by any policy, with the most perverse currently being the complete lack of a carbon policy. It should always be explained within the context of just how perverse compared to the benefits. I don't think their points about the forest or the HCFCs are very good, because values obviously change under a carbon market, so that's fine. The point about how carbon offsets could create an incentive to produce more HCFCs just to make a profit is something to consider. However, they don't explain at all how they expect their idea of rebates to consumers would keep an incentive for energy efficiency, now what are they talking about? Because as stated in the video, that's a contradiction. Maybe this is the problem of listening to lawyers and not economists.On EPA demands attorneys remove video critical of cap-and-trade posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 28 Responses
  • Mature was the operative word I was using. A mature industry, like nuclear, should be able to stand on it's own without subsidies. Renewables are a nascent industry and if we want them, they need subsidies -- just like any other industry in the history of industries. Renewables are dropping fast in price, just like you would expect a growing industry to do, and at little risk. I mean, are you really arguing against solar? Investing in solar should be a no-brainer by now -- solar is utilizing the largest power source available to us, a nuclear plant remotely located 93 million miles away. If nuclear in the US needs an "investment" to get started again, a second chance if you will, and it truly is all you claim it is, then it should be able to attract private investment capital, no problem -- but it hasn't done so because it doesn't hold up under scrutiny...as far as I know. I don't think it would be wise to have that investment risk fall on taxpayer shoulders.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 197 Responses
  • STK and MAX8806 -- Lovins's central point is that nuclear costs more than cheaper, more readily available competitors -- like renewables and micropower. It's not a nuclear vs. coal world no more. If you put a price on carbon, it will help nuclear be more competitive, but it will also make renewables and micropower more competitive, so nuclear still loses. He's not cherry picking facts -- those are big IF's listed in the MIT study. Yes, IF all of those IF's were in place, THEN nuclear would be competitive. Not current reality. What are we arguing for or against anyway? Subsidies? For nuclear? A mature industry? Just put a price on carbon and let the best technologies win.On Stewart Brand's nuclear enthusiasm falls short on facts and logic posted 1 month, 2 weeks ago 197 Responses

  • The message is garbled, but I like the attempt at perspective. I thought the impact of the tsunami would have been much less had the mangrove ecosystems been preserved as a buffer, most were destroyed due to shrimp farming, so I'm not sure it's totally scientifically flawed. Still garbled though...

    On Rogue 9/11 ad isn’t from WWF -- and its science is bogus posted 2 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • I agree with Quinn94. It seems the matter in question was the impact of climate change policy on black americans. The focus should be on the facts in question and the studies done to come up with them -- not to pit one organization against another based on race alone, which is what Boxer did. Boxer said she wanted to put on record that there is a "diversity of opinions." Well, it goes without saying that there is a diversity of opinions, but it's not really opinions that we are interested in. While I agree with Boxer on climate change, I think Boxer was definitely off-base here when it comes to race. Rather, she should have quoted another study, or logically questioned the study Alford was representing, but to quote a resolution -- not even a study -- of another organization based on race is wrong, and a logical fallacy. To use an analogy, I'd be pissed too if my position on the impact of climate change on say, women, was undermined by a politician quoting the opinion of someone like Ann Coulter simply because she's a woman. It's just irrelevant.

    On Racism allegations mar Senate hearing on clean energy economy posted 4 months, 1 week ago 33 Responses

  • Experts

    When it comes to the science of climate change, I would absolutely listen to what James Hansen says. He is the expert. But he is not an expert in other areas, namely energy technologies (and he says so himself) or economics. When it comes to deciding what technologies to support, I would go with Amory Lovins -- he's broken down all the numbers in terms of what is the best bang for the buck. No doubt, it starts with energy efficiency, but according to Lovins, nuclear is by far the most expensive technology. It would be easiest to just stop incentives to all technologies, place a carbon tax (or cap-and-trade), and let the market decide what technology wins. Why not? And that way, maybe it will be nuclear, but I would highly predict energy efficiency followed by wind, solar, and geothermal would end up on top.

    Environmental Associate Kingston, NY

    On An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist posted 10 months, 3 weeks ago 48 Responses

  • polls

    Sometimes, polls are used to shape public opinion rather than reflect it. I'm not sure what a Rasmussen poll is, does anyone know if it's legitimate?

    I know of this recent poll, too.

    1.) New Poll Shows that Americans Prefer Clean Energy:

    League of Conservation Voters, August 11, 2008

    http://www.lcv.org/newsroom/press-releases/new-poll-shows ...

    A new national energy poll reveals that Americans favor investment in clean, renewable energy over increased oil drilling when presented with the full spectrum of energy options.  The report was released today by the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, and the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. Some of the poll's top findings indicate that 83 percent of Americans support a plan to end America's addiction to oil through investment in wind, solar, and next generation biofuel technology, 20 percent more than supported increased offshore drilling. 80 percent believe that America should put a stop to billions of dollars in oil subsidies and use the money to invest in renewable sources. Click here to download the Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research poll: http://www.lcv.org/polls/gqr_energy.pdf On Nearly two-thirds of Americans support offshore drilling, says poll posted 1 year, 3 months ago 13 Responses

  • Feeding the world

    GMO companies are not helping to feed the world. The world was doing a better job of feeding itself before GMOs, before the introduction of chemical agriculture. Most of the world's farms exist on less than 5 acres, not suitable for any large-scale monocultures, GMOs or otherwise.

    Environmental Associate Kingston, NY

    On Worldwide resistance to GMOs dwindle as food bills rise posted 1 year, 7 months ago 7 Responses

  • Energy Policy

    Lovins says, "the interplay between business and civil society is even more important than between business and government" and implies that reforming energy policy is not very effective. How so?On A conversation with energy guru Amory Lovins posted 2 years, 4 months ago 11 Responses

  • Thomas Malthus

    Environmentalists are often accused of being Malthusian. The history of this is that Thomas Malthus was an economist from the early 1800s who is most famous for his studies on population growth. He noticed that population grows exponetially while land use can only grow linearly, and thus predicted major food shortages. His prediction was ultimately wrong: he did not foresee that technological advances would enable agriculture to produce more food on the same amount of land.

    It is true that such calamitous environmental predictions often turn out to be wrong. Thus, when anyone predicts doom-and-gloom, they are called Malthusian. Technology is supposed to save the day. But we know of examples where civilizations have not faired well in the face of environmental problems. Easter Island is perhaps the most famous example. It all comes down to whether or not humanity has the ability to advance and adapt to environmental change. Of course, it gets more complicated: in the case of climate change, for example, while industrialized nations may be able to adapt, and are already starting to put in place the means for adaptation, non-industrialized nations may not fair so well. As Andrew Revkin pointed out in a recent article in the New York Times, we have an ethical problem.

    But to get to the matter at hand. Explaining what's happening with eco jobs has little to do with Malthusian thinking. If anything, it's the opposite. The fact that the field of environmetal careers is booming and becoming so diversified, both in the private and public sectors, signals adaptation and it's exciting to see what's happening.  

       

    Environmental Associate Kingston, NY

    On An overview of environmental careers experiencing growth posted 2 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

  • Donations

    Don't donate your old incandescents to a local organization! Yikes, get rid of it, either throw it out or recycle it if you can (as previous commentor pointed out). If you're gonna donate something, donate a CFL! On Umbra on replacing light bulbs posted 3 years, 5 months ago 19 Responses

  • Jessica Alba

    Why exactly would a scantily clad Jessica Alba showing a slideshow on climate change be implausible?On Gore's new flick, An Inconvenient Truth, improbably succeeds posted 3 years, 6 months ago 20 Responses

  • Follow the money

    You can talk about cost, but who is getting paid? For Iraq, it's the military and defense industries, it's Halliburton, etc. If the US were to comply with Kyoto, the government's investment would benefit and strengthen the part of the economy that works on energy-efficient and renewable technologies, not to mention the auxillary benefits of cleaner air and water, and a step towards mitigating the effects of climate change.

    Environmental Associate Kingston, NY

    On Kyoto is a bargain posted 3 years, 6 months ago 9 Responses