Comments jackburden has made

  • Get Over Yourself

    Joe,

    You could have avoided all your phony posturing and intellectually dishonest attacks if you had actually read the book you purport to review.  You admitted over at TPM Cafe that this is more about getting revenge for their criticisms in 2004 than about talking about their book.

    You know that S&N didn't come out for a plan that couples regulation and investment after Obama made his announcement or because you challenged them to do so. They did it explicitly in their book. Which was released over a week ago. (Although your hubris -- your willingness to take credit for an argument they made before you posted your "challenge" is kinda funny).

    You should pick up a copy of the book and read it. You might enjoy it.

    From the book:

    "There is no doubt that the effort to reduce and stabilize global greenhouse gas emissions will require a major regulatory effort to make sure that everyone is playing by the same rules, provide regulatory certainty so that nations and businesses alike can play their investments, and increase the cost of fossil fuels relative to cleaner energy sources. But regulation cannot be the sole policy egg in the global warming basket, for without investments to encourage technological breakthroughs, we won't come close to achieving the emissions reductions we need to stabilize the climate." -- Page 119

    That's precisely what you've "challenged" them to embrace. And you still attack them for being "dangerous." You've attempted, repeatedly, to attack them as pushing a strategy that only embraces investment (calling it an "investment-only strategy" on TPM Cafe). You've pushed the same thing they propose in the academic literature (remember Physics Today?). You challenge them to embrace the idea they articulate in their book. And when they do, you attack them again.

    These series of posts are some of the most irrational arguments I've seen made in the blogosphere (which isn't exactly known for its rational discourse).

    You seem to be driven by a kind of personal animus and hatred that is well beyond strange.

    S&N make the point that we spend too much time debating past battles than we do dealing with the task at hand.  And you're proving that point.
    On Time to end the phony and historically inaccurate debate posted 2 years, 1 month ago 17 Responses

  • How is Obama Different than S&N?

    I've read S&N's book, and it looks like Obama (or at least Obama's energy people) have as well.  My reading of S&N is that investment must be on an equal substantive footing as reducing carbon, but from a message and framing standpoint, investment is a much better lead than simply limiting carbon. I've never seen them say that we should not limit carbon emissions.  In fact, I've seen them say both in their book and in their online postings, that we must limit emissions, but that the frame is wrong.  And that it's wrong to dismiss investment out of hand.  And Obama, by adding a substantive investment piece, seems to agree.

    From a message point of view, if Obama becomes the Democratic nominee, I'm confident he'll talk more about investing in clean energy and creating new jobs than he will about limiting carbon emissions.  Why?  Because it's a much better message than limiting emissions.  And it will build the kind of political capital necessary to pass substantive cap and trade.

    But David clearly has something personal against S&N.  First comparing them to Bjorn the denier, and then, when a major Presidential candidate proposes damn near precisely what they've been proposing (linking emissions reductions and investment), you use it as an opportunity to set them up as straw men once again.  

    What gives?  On Thoughts and reactions on Obama's bold new energy proposal posted 2 years, 1 month ago 21 Responses