Tuesday, 08 May 2007

Traded In His Chevy for a Cad Attack

Speaking in Detroit, Obama tells Big Auto where to go

Presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) took his rhetoric to Detroit yesterday, challenging the U.S. auto industry to get with the times. "The need to drastically change our energy policy is no longer a debatable proposition," he said in a speech to the city's Economic Club. "It is not a question of whether, but how; not a question of if, but when. For the sake of our security, our economy, our jobs, and our planet, the age of oil must end in our time." His big talk, which got big ovations, was backed by some medium-ish proposals: an annual fuel-efficiency increase of 4 percent (similar to the Bush administration's plan); a $3 billion incentive to help retool factories toward that goal; and assistance covering health-care costs for current and retired autoworkers. While no auto execs were present, others in the audience admired the candidate's stance on the industry's "unsustainable" path. Said one, "I think it took a lot of courage to come to Detroit and lay it on the line."

The Brainstorm From Hell

Delegates gather in Germany to picture a post-Kyoto future

The ongoing effort to figure out what in blazes to do when the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012 is getting a boost this week and next, with officials from more than 160 countries gathering in Bonn, Germany, for a two-week brainstorm. The U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change bonanza, attended by more than 1,000 delegates, kicked off yesterday; it's a precursor to a December summit in Bali, Indonesia, where the world will finally figure out its post-Kyoto plan. For real. We can do this, people. Of course, the usual suspects are being maddeningly predictable in their obstructionism: a proposal to open the Bali meeting with a presentation of the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports, for instance, was opposed by a small group of countries including (wait for it) the U.S. and China. "What you traditionally find in the run-up to an important negotiating moment," says top U.N. climate official Yvo de Boer, "is that not everybody is willing to put their cards on the table."

Current Events

Wind power is controversial but should keep on keeping on, says report

U.S. wind-power capacity has quadrupled in the past six years and could eventually produce up to 7 percent of the nation's electricity. Easy-breezy? Not quite: Wind-industry growth lacks "any truly coordinated planning," says a report from the National Academy of Sciences. Developers and officials should receive more guidance, particularly around siting, NAS says; in the helpful words of contributor Paul G. Risser, "The human impacts of wind farms can be both positive and negative." Among the positives are global effects like cleaner air and less oil use, but those are balanced, according to NAS, by negative local effects like noise, disrupted views, and effects on bats and birds. The report cites inadequate research on feathered-friend fatalities, but grants that more birds are killed by foes like vehicles, buildings, power lines, and cats than turbines. To sum up: keep on with the wind power, as it helps mitigate The Most Important Problem of Our Time. Just don't make decisions on the fly.

This Land Was Paid By You and Me

Bush administration raises park fees, advocates cry foul

The Bush administration is consistent-izing rates at 135 national parks, a move that will see some fees double. It will also tie future rates to inflation, raising them every three years. A National Park Service spokesperson says the shift is an attempt to simplify the current rate structure, bringing the types of fees from 17 to four, but parks advocates spy something sinister. "This absolutely is excluding Americans from visiting their public lands," said Robert Funkhouser, president of the Western Slope No-Fee Coalition. "The more you force the public away, the more you lose support for the parks." Visits to the country's 390 national parks and monuments fell from 287 million in 1999 to 273 million in 2006; attendance at Yosemite has fallen 20 percent since a 1997 fee increase. With hotel and food costs inside parks also rising, it's getting tougher to get outside. "It just makes no sense," says a Yosemite-area visitors' bureau rep. "Poor families are going to be priced out of the market."

Control Your Emissions

British population think tank shames large families

Got your 10-foot pole handy? You'll need it for this story: U.K. think tank Optimum Population Trust published a report yesterday declaring that having a large family is akin to such eco-crimes as leaving lights on, driving an SUV, and tossing plastic bags in the trash. Forget carbon taxes: this organization is all about limiting kidlets. Indeed, take note, ye American families who have exceeded the census-average 2.1 children: that third nipper costs the planet the equivalent of 620 trans-Atlantic flights. And consider this Actual Calculation: one Briton costs the planet an equivalent of nearly $60,000, while a condom runs you, um, far less than that -- a "spectacular" potential return. "A population-based climate strategy involves fewer of the taxes, regulations, and other limits on personal freedom and mobility now being canvassed in response to climate change," the report says. And our search for even a hint of irony appears to be in vain.