Not sure what's going on over there in conservative brains. First, it's Ross Douthat pleading for "complexity" in film and literature instead of a simplistic good v evil dichotomy, and now it's Red State's Vladimir nihilistic sophistry on climate change:
One thing a scientist must know is how ignorant we are about a lot of things; otherwise, we don't need scientists to discover new stuff. But the remark points to a naive hubris that is pretty pervasive among a "consensus" in the scientific world.
Just fifty years ago, the few believers in "continental drift" were derided by the geologic establishment as kooks on the fringe of science (if not worse). But evidence accumulated, and the theory, repackaged in the '60s and '70s as plate tectonics, is now recognized as the grand unifying theory of earth science.
So-called "Progressives" have a tendency to evaluate everything in life as if it were a deterministic, zero sum game. What goes up, must come down. In with the good, out with the bad. What goes around, comes around. Input X necessarily results in Output Y.
But real life systems don't often obey these rules; they tend toward chaos and often lead to counterintuitive conclusions. In business, they often create examples of The Law of Unintended Consequences.
The Laffer Curve is a perfect example. To a "Progressive", if you want the government to have more tax revenue, you raise tax rates. Cutting tax rates only benefits "the rich".
But the real world is governed by the chaotic rules of economics and personal choices. Arthur Laffer made the simple observation that if tax rates are zero, tax revenue is zero. If tax rates are 100%, tax revenue is also zero. Somewhere in between is a maximum, and tax rates above that optimum rate actually result in less tax revenue.
Businessmen don't need to have this concept explained, so they tend to be conservatives. Academics, trade unionists and Hollywood types will never get it, so they become "Progressives".
Pretty funny stuff, eh? Of course, the plate tectonics idea is a good example - only it's the Vladimirs of the world who are the left-behind skeptics decrying climate change as kook-ish. As for calling progressives "deterministic" and implying they're simplistic? Bad maneuver using to the Laffer curve as evidence, that over-simplistic and crudely deterministic bow hastily scrawled onto a napkin in a 1974 political meeting and ever since used to support the most simplistic conservative tax-cut rhetoric, that raising taxes invariably leads to lower government revenue, and cutting taxes leads to greater revenue. (Both are canards divorced from the reality of the actual, complex marketplace.)
All this complex thinkin' leads Vladimir to this post: "The Unbearable Complexity of Climate," whose basic premise is that the climate is very complex and we don't understand it completely; therefore, it's possible climate change may not be happening, and, therefore, doesn't need to be addressed. Follow this line of reasoning to its ultimate, late-night-smoking-pot-at-college conclusion, and nothing is worth doing or believing because, ultimately, no system or object is capable of being understood completely. Not climate change, not the existence of your friends, and certainly not the Laffer Curve's efficacy (or lack thereof) for predicting tax revenues.
Why get out of bed in the morning when your alarm goes off, when there's a chance all life on the planet will be obliterated during your morning commute by a wayward asteroid?
If the climate is as all-unknowable as Eschenbach claims, then there's a chance that climate change is happening...right? And do you, in good faith, knowing that there's a chance - what with the unknowable-ness of climate - that climate change will make the Earth uninhabitable for humans, do you in good faith sit by, or worse, actively obstruct any measures that might mitigate the possibility of ecological disaster?
That, of course, is countering the argument with their own brand of sophism. In reality, climate scientists do have more than a passing familiarity of climate science, and there is actual evidence of climate change accompanying varying carbon dioxide rates. And we should probably form policy around the evidence at hand.
But just as Ross Douthat isn't really pleading for more complex movies about war, neither are these folks concerned about shades of gray in scientific discourse. They're all engaging in sophistry to obscure facts that are politically unpalatable to them. A climate change "skeptic" represents a political position, not a scientific one. Such a "skeptic" doesn't question climate change, he rejects it out of hand, and opposes any political solution to reduce carbon emissions. Not because there's a good reason to, but because it happens to stake out a position defined by political allies.
And to what end, is the question? To defend the interests of Big Oil?
The Senate Environment and Public Works committee today passed the Senate's version of the cap-and-trade climate-change legislation bill - Sens. Kerry and Boxer's "Clean Energy Jobs Act." The bill passed by a 10-1 margin...with Republicans boycotting the vote.
Ah, so who's the sole Democrat that voted against the legislation?
Max Baucus.
Not that it's much of a surprise. Baucus raised "concerns" with the bill last month, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 was too lofty a goal. Baucus' statement -- "we cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from a conceivable consensus on climate change" - hints that he'll stall the bill in the Tax and Finance committee, likely convening a "green" "Gang of Six" to gut the bill, or kill it altogether.
Frankly, Baucus should listen to Lindsey Graham, Republican:
The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.
Or retired admiral Dennis McGinn, who reminded Montana's delegation that climate change is a national security issue.
Sadly, Dennis McDonald demonstrates how you can join Baucus in opposing climate change legislation while simultaneously keeping your enviro "cred," from his Facebook page:
Cap and trade has proven to be complex, inefficient, and an obstacle to investment in alternative energy. I think a straightforward carbon emissions tax would be a lot simpler and a more effective way of getting people to invest in alternative energy.
And the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill, with all of its faults, sets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's huge.
(Those crazy environmentalist extremists! Turning to lawsuits instead of working with stakeholders to forge consensus -- what's that? It isn't enviros who are suing? - promoted by Jay Stevens)
After a public comment period where the vast majority of respondents favored banning motorized access, and with the active participation and endorsement by the Blackfeet Tribe, the USFS recently enacted a new travel plan that forbids motorized vehicle access in the Badger/TwoMedicine region - located immediately west of the Blackfeet reservation, south of Glacier National Park and east of the Continental Divide. The travel plan, which went into effect on October 1st, is now the subject of a suit claiming that the USFS violates tribal treaties (remember, the plan has the SUPPORT of the Tribal Business Council, that the new travel plan gives unfair consideration to the Blackfeet religion and that it restricts access unfairly (Horse access is still permitted).
This parcel of land is fragile and beautiful and unique. It is a needed buffer zone for Glacier NP and it holds particular cultural significance for the Blackfeet. This travel plan is legal, but more importantly it is morally and ethically the right course of action for this region.
The fact that the travel plan, despite the support of both the tribe and the majority of comments from citizens, is being contested shows how little tolerance there is for any advance of wilderness protection on the Rocky Mountain Front by the must-have-motorized-access-everywhere crowd. Ironic that there would be no need to advance protection were it not for the rapid pollution, degradation, and destruction wrought by ever more powerful off-road vehicles. This desire by the few to disrupt the enjoyment of the many seems the worse kind of greed...
Helena's city commission met last week to earnestly discuss something that three years ago would have been a sacrilege: logging Mount Helena city park.
The mountain park, as iconic to the capital as the Rims are to Billings or the "M" to Missoula, is now streaked with ribbons of dead, red pine trees, the victims of a fast-moving epidemic of pine bark beetles that is visible from every house in town.
Helena and Butte are in the epicenter of the infestation, but the tiny killers have also been found in the Beartooth Mountains and other Montana and Wyoming forests. The dead trees they leave behind have changed more than the landscape, say loggers, mill operators and politicians. They've changed the way people think about cutting down trees.
Question: given the epidemic is a result of climate change, why isn't the bark beetle epidemic reshaping the debate on global warming legislation?
Turns out the Mayan civilization practiced a form of forest conservation - until they abandoned the years-old practice in a building frenzy...which may have led to their downfall:
So what led to the downfall of the Maya? Whether it was the gods' displeasure or not, the answer came from the heavens.
"When you clear all the forests, it changes the hydrologic cycle," says Lentz. "The world is like a flat surface with all the trees acting as sponges on it. The trees absorb the water. Without the trees, there is no buffer to stop the water from runoff. That causes soil erosion, which then chokes the rivers and streams. With no trees, you lose water retention in the soil or aquifers so the ground dries up and then there is less transpiration, so therefore less rainfall as well."
In addition to using the trees as timber, the Maya also burned the trees, adding carbon to the air in the form of carbon dioxide. Trees remove carbon dioxide from the air and return oxygen in its place, thus cleaning and purifying the air.
"Forests provide many benefits to society," says Lentz. "The Maya forests provided timber, fuel, food, fiber and medicine in addition to the ecosystem services of cleansing the air and water. Just as forests provided essential resources for the ancient Maya, the same is true for our civilization today."
I've caught a lot of flack from some for not immediately rushing to judgment on Tester's new wilderness bill, the Forest Jobs and Recreation Act. But I have to admit, there's a lot of criticism that's hard to deny from a lot of good and smart people against certain provisions in the bill, especially from LiTW friend, Matt Koehler, who spent quite a bit of time dropping information on the bill in our comments.
(Check out his response to Rick Bass' claim that the bill process wasn't secretive; how money generated from "stewardship logging" won't help restoration, as put forth by the bill (more); blaming the decline in the wood products market for the poorly performing timber industry, not a lack of wood to cut; and an excellent comment how to battle the bark beetle infestation - which has left plenty of wood laying around for timber companies to harvest, by the way.)
The only defense of the bill I've seen - other than from Tester's office - was from Rick Bass, which essentially calls out "that we represent ourselves honestly and discuss the facts of the proposed legislation, rather than manufacturing untruths to suit political purposes." Fair enough, and I'm willing to listen to the rebuttal of bill proponents over specific points in the bill - but I haven't seen any yet, not even in Bass' op-ed, which neglects to mention the giveaway of wilderness study areas to logging, and certainly not in Tester's press releases, which are as vague as you'd expect from a Senator's office.
I'd love to hear from, say, Trout Unlimited, as to how the bill was formed, and why they essentially put their name on a bill with so many apparent flaws.
Anyway...more links on the bill. First, a report from Testa on the process of writing the bill:
The bill is centered on three areas in Western Montana: the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, the Three Rivers District of the Kootenai National Forest and the Seeley Lake District of the Lolo National Forest. The bill draws heavily on the community partnerships and tentative land use proposals already formed by communities in and around these forests, negotiations and debates that have been going on for years - that's part of the reason Tester is able to argue that the writing of his bill was a highly collaborative process, despite the secrecy by him and his staff in the weeks preceding its introduction.
"We pretty much took their recommendations and we tweaked them a bit and we moved forward," Tester said.
Fair enough. And the bill does feel like it encapsulates every player. Maybe throwing everything into the pot is a good way to make a stew, but it may not be the best way to preserve wilderness.
And then, of course, there's Jesse Froehling's front-page story about the bill in the Missoula Independent, which I egregiously overlooked when compiling the bill's links in an earlier post and which is includes some excellent comments on the bill from a variety of sources.
And then there's Daniel Person's report that appeared in the Bozeman Chronicle, which highlights the bill's support of the state's ailing timber industry.
And here's Paul Richards' op-ed in New West, in which he savages the bill and claims it negates the promise Tester made Richards on the eve of the primary election, causing Richards to drop out of the election and endorse the Big Sandy farmer.
Opposition to Tester's bill from "Citizens for Balanced Use": "The movement by environmental organizations to remove people from the land, both federally managed and private, has found a new friend in Senator Tester. The Montana Senator that went to San Francisco and the East Coast to finance his campaign is paying back all those green tea drinkers for all the money they gave him." From what I'm hearing, a lot of those "green tea drinkers" don't like this bill either.
Such as Ralph Maughan: "In recent years, however, areas have been proposed for Wilderness designation where livestock effects are seen and felt on almost every acre. Yes, these areas are roadless, with little previous logging activity, and no permanent structures, but to call them places where the effects of humans are not lasting or very evident is a bad joke.
"This bill continues in this bad tradition and grandfathers this use."
Read Bill Schneider's latest on the bill: "Tester's Wilderness Bill, the Sweet and the Sour." Here's the lede: "Based on past commentaries and concerns with Beaverhead-Deerlodge Partnership draft legislation, I suspect many readers expect me to oppose Senator Tester's Forest Jobs and Restoration Act of 2009. And I might, but not now. Instead, I've decided to keep my powder dry and reserve judgment until I see how the bill fares in the legislative process and what amendments win approval.
"Right now, I definitely see it as a sweet-and-sour pill for Montana, the main reason for my indecisiveness. To summarize, here are a few things I like--and don't like--about what could become Montana's first wilderness bill in 26 years."
Among the "sour" aspects of the bill Schneider opines that 668,000 acres of Wilderness area is "not enough," suggesting enlarging of some of the suggested areas and inclusion of others. Also, Schneider's "game changer" is release of the most of the "fabulous" West Pioneers Wilderness Study Area, that "should definitely not be tolerated, and I really have a hard time believing Congress would undo the great work of legendary Montana senators Lee Metcalf and Mike Mansfield who fought hard for S.393, nor can I believe our leading green groups or Senator Tester can even suggest this without choking on their own words."
Ochenski: "The challenge for Tester and the bill's supporters is to build a groundswell of support, but the veil of secrecy surrounding the measure, which was only lifted last Friday, has not worked in their favor. Already a number of wilderness advocates have panned the measure, and they're joined by motorized recreationists and county commissioners from the affected areas who are unhappy about any number of the bill's provisions.
"Wilderness advocates, for instance, see the de-designation of 12 Wilderness Study Areas as un-doing the work of Montana's late Sen. Lee Metcalf, who has a wilderness area named after him to honor his dedication and accomplishments. Metcalf's legislation from the late '70s requires those areas to be managed to preserve their wilderness characteristics. But Tester's bill, while designating new wilderness, will remove that protection and open the areas to logging, motorized use and development.
"But wilderness was seldom mentioned at the press conference. Instead, Tester and most of the speakers focused on its utility to the logging industry, which Tester says is 'in crisis.' Under the provisions of the bill, the U.S. Forest Service is mandated to log nearly 100,000 acres of forest over the next 10 years. The key word here is 'mandated.' The Beaverhead-Deerlodge portion of the bill, for instance, says 7,000 acres a year must be harvested from the forest as part of 'landscape scale' forest treatments. Theoretically, the revenue generated from the sale of those logs will be reinvested in the forest to improve and maintain fisheries, fix trails, remove culverts and stabilize or remove roads.
"But therein lies the rub.
"As Tester admitted at the press conference, 'If nobody wants to bid on these, we are in trouble.' The trouble, however, is already here. Much of Montana is now covered with dead and dying forests due to drought, warmer winters and longer, hotter summers that have spawned an exponential explosion of bark beetles. Wood supply isn't the problem-it's the lack of demand for wood products. With the most severe economic recession in 60 years and the concurrent collapse of the housing market, there is simply no demand for the lumber, no matter how many acres are mandated to be cut. And without a market, there will be no revenues for the restoration work the 'stewardship' logging is supposed to generate. When questioned by a reporter about what would happen if the market didn't turn up, Tester simply replied: 'It's gotta happen.'"
Rick Bass: "One accusation is the bill has been assembled in secret. This is laughable, given how participants have promoted their community projects, posted websites with proposed drafts of the bill, mailed out brochures, invited comment for years, held open community meetings, asked for input and drove to meet in person the very people who are now claiming falsely to have been excluded. I personally have rolled out the maps and explained the proposal to many of the new critics feigning ignorance.
"But as Mark Twain said, a lie goes around the world before the truth gets its shoes on.
"On one side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by the timber industry, brought in by environmentalists co-opted by the mills. On the other side, critics say the bill is a Trojan horse by environmentalists to destroy the last of our desperate timber mills. I can assure you that there is nothing so cynical or manipulative going on here. It's really much simpler: Montanans who know the contours of their forests quite well are putting the past behind them, and seeking solutions.
"As an environmentalist, I am deeply troubled by these and other false claims that the bill is comprised of anything but integrity. It's a small bill, true, but a new start-and again, the fact that Tester is willing to devote time and resources to developing a solution for conflicts in Montana, when so much else of the world is in such worse shape, humbles those of us who have been involved in the process since day one."
New West publisher Jonathan Weber explains in The Atlantic that Tester's wilderness bill represents "carefully structured processes" of small Mountain West communities "by which people on all sides of the debate can meet and negotiate for what's really critical to them, rather than shout at each other in the service of an absolutist agenda. When you do that, you can start to bring politicians of both parties along. And sometimes, you can then actually get something done."
On Western environmentalists: "On the other side are traditional environmentalists. They argue, with some justification, that what's at issue are the last scraps of Western wilderness, and that it's nothing less than a betrayal of future generations to sacrifice them for short-term economic gain. Once the old-growth trees and the extensive wildlife habitat they provide are gone, they're gone forever. And why should a handful of loggers and ranchers be allowed to dictate policy on millions of acres of land which they don't own but rather are allowed to use courtesy of all Americans?
"Yet the old-school greens too often refuse to recognize even legitimate objections to their agenda. Since they have little political support, they rely on court actions - and especially suing the federal agencies - as their primary strategy. This does not exactly help them in the court of public opinion."
More: "Many environmental groups, such as the Alliance for the Wild Rockies, consider these efforts a sell-out, dismissing the new wilderness areas as mere 'rock-and-ice' that's no good for other uses anyway. They are furious at organizations like the National Wildlife Federation, Trout Unlimited, and the Montana Wilderness Association for supporting the compromises. They're now furious at Tester, too, noting, probably correctly, that it was environmentalists and not loggers who helped get him elected. The bill's fate in Congress is by no means assured, partly because of opposition from the left.
"Personally, I find Tester's legislation a little light on wilderness protection and little heavy on job-preserving mechanisms that preserve very few jobs. Frankly, I'd probably vote for NREPA if I ever had the chance.
"But I do respect the process that produced these compromises - highly time-consuming, good-faith efforts by many people over a long period of time. I'm hoping the final bill may yet tilt a little more toward my personal priorities, but that's not really the point."
...we're facing a clear and present danger to our way of life, perhaps even to civilization itself. How can anyone justify failing to act?
Well, sometimes even the most authoritative analyses get things wrong. And if dissenting opinion-makers and politicians based their dissent on hard work and hard thinking - if they had carefully studied the issue, consulted with experts and concluded that the overwhelming scientific consensus was misguided - they could at least claim to be acting responsibly.
But if you watched the debate on Friday, you didn't see people who've thought hard about a crucial issue, and are trying to do the right thing. What you saw, instead, were people who show no sign of being interested in the truth. They don't like the political and policy implications of climate change, so they've decided not to believe in it - and they'll grab any argument, no matter how disreputable, that feeds their denial.
Indeed, if there was a defining moment in Friday's debate, it was the declaration by Representative Paul Broun of Georgia that climate change is nothing but a "hoax" that has been "perpetrated out of the scientific community." I'd call this a crazy conspiracy theory, but doing so would actually be unfair to crazy conspiracy theorists. After all, to believe that global warming is a hoax you have to believe in a vast cabal consisting of thousands of scientists - a cabal so powerful that it has managed to create false records on everything from global temperatures to Arctic sea ice.
Yet Mr. Broun's declaration was met with applause....
Still, is it fair to call climate denial a form of treason? Isn't it politics as usual?
Yes, it is - and that's why it's unforgivable.
Do you remember the days when Bush administration officials claimed that terrorism posed an "existential threat" to America, a threat in whose face normal rules no longer applied? That was hyperbole - but the existential threat from climate change is all too real.
Of course, not quite understanding that Krugman was turning the right-wingers' use of the word "treason" against them - pointing out the hypocrisy of an earlier, hyperbolic use of the term for a threat that wasn't quite all that it was made out to be, by contrasting it with the same folks' laconic attitude towards an all-too real and present catastrophic threat - naturally the usual people went completely bath*t.
Mac: "...how can you look at a plan to save the planet and decide that it's too expensive?"
And Dan Savage has a d*mn good point as he mulls Kristof's column on the increasing number of male genital deformities and the ever-decreasing sperm cell count for which scientists think a certain class of chemicals found in "agriculture, industry, and consumer products" may be responsible. Savage:
Sperm counts are falling and birth defects in boys are increasing... and to address these problems we're going to need to change the way we grow food and eliminate certain chemicals used in tens of thousands of industrial and consumer products. These kinds of big systemic changes seem unlikely when you consider that making the simplest and most obvious changes to benefit the environment-things like banning plastic shopping bags-are nearly impossible, to say nothing of taking action on climate change. We're fucked. The planet is going to roast and our sons' penises are going to fall off.
And it's because of the selfish intransigence of consumers who threaten rebellion over sparkly dishes and the politicians that feed their ignorance and misdirect their anger. I mean, shouldn't these people be p*ssed at the corporations that put the poison into our environment, the businesses and ad agencies that conned consumers into believing that easy livin' was theirs for the low, low price...? Well, it turns out easy livin' does have a price. And the long-term payment plan is a b*tch.
Man watching the global-warming deniers contort reason to sow doubt among the public is painful to watch. Yesterday the meme was that cap-and-trade legislation is expensive, it'll mean jobs and taxes. (Not so much.) Today, it's that global warming is a big, fat hoax.
Here we go again.
All you need to know is that there's near unanimity that the climate is warming, and that human activity is contributing to the warming. Among those scientific institutes that say global warming is real and supported by science include NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, EPA, The Royal Society of the UK, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Academy of Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Australian Academy of Sciences, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Academy of Sciences...
BP and Shell acknowledged that global warming is real. Even Exxon - the big baddie that orchestrated and funded the climate-change-denial movement - admits global warming is real and something should be done about it.
So if you're like Senator James Inhofe and believe climate change is the "greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people," you've got to set aside reason to do so. After all, what manner of hoax could so infiltrate nearly all of the major scientific organizations throughout he world? And even include the energy companies to stand to benefit the most financially from climate change skepticism? Inhofe attacks those that insist climate change is real as members of a "religion" - yet it's only faith that supports the paranoia of the denial movement in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, faith that nearly all of the scientific community and government leaders from around the world would work in concert to achieve...what, exactly? Sadly, the duplicitous goal these people have is never explicitly stated.
(And does anyone else find it ironic that, in his speech shortly after he calls for the debate on climate change to be based on the "fundamental principles of science," he recommends Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" as an appropriate reference text? Which is, you know, fiction?)
To me, it reeks of politics. Like health-care reform, it appears that Republicans are set to block any and all Democratic legislation. And to do so in this case - the cap-and-trade bill up for vote in the House today - they're essentially sowing doubt as to the very existence of climate change.
Which seems incredibly short-sighted, if you ask me.
Whoa! It looks like the Republican party fax was busy this morning sending out marching orders to the rank-and-file. Today's topic? Cap and trade!
First, I saw this bit of Eric-Cantor-inspired agitprop on Dennis Rehberg's Facebook page, claiming a cap-and-trade system would cause job losses and be, in effect, a tax on middle-class households. George Will lays it on, too, citing a study from a Spanish libertarian (and paid commenter for a US energy industry front group) claiming Spain's unemployment rate stems from its commitment to green energy projects. (Odd, no mention of investment banks.) Michelle Malkin, naturally, can't stand being left behind, and piles on with a gratuitous sliming of Al Gore, comparing him to a pig.
In response, I present you with a pair of Ezra Klein posts.
First, the CBO scored the current cap-and-trade bill in the House, and found it would cost households about $165 for the average household per year.
Which is cheap if you consider the CBO's analysis of climate change literature, and the projected change in temperature to the end of the 21st century...and you realize how much economic damage climate change would do, if unchecked.
I haven't really looked into the present cap-and-trade bill. (I will.) I admit there may be problems with it. (Is it being rushed?) But in a sense, this issue is even more crucial than health-care reform. After all, if climate change science is correct, we're headed towards eco-disaster.
So, yeah. The GOPers and their minions are trotting out the "taxes" line - but, again, it's a very selfish, very self-centered philosophy, isn't it? And it's grossly irresponsible. When you hear some conservative spout off about morals being the root cause of American decline, just nod and say, yeah, there's too much short-sighted selfishness and greed.
The U.S. House is moving pretty quickly on the American Clean Energy and Security Act (better known as Waxman-Markey). This bill is the primary vehicle for a carbon cap in Congress, which is to say it is the primary vehicle to stop global warming.
New modeling shows a 9 degree rise in global temperatures is a highly probably outcome of global warming at this point. This is what trained scientists refer to as a "Holy Fuck!" scenario, because it is really, really bad news.
So the next question, obviously, would be, "What can we do to get this shit under control?" And the answer, so far, is that the Clean Energy and Security Act is our starting point, but unlikely to be the final answer.
Here's some details:
The original draft [...] was a mixed bag: its "complementary policies" (the 75% of the bill devoted to energy stuff unrelated to cap-and-trade) were excellent, and its targets for climate pollution reduction were bolder than anticipated, but it allowed for far too many carbon offsets and left unsettled the key issue of how the pollution permits under cap-and-trade would be allocated.
Since then, the decision has apparently been made to give away permits rather than auctioning them (a net loser for most of us AND for the environment since auctions would raise revenue to rebate to offset costs to the low-income and also to build out things like mass transit and since auctions would put additional downward pressure on carbon).
And the bill probably just doesn't go far enough in attempts to limit carbon output. Now, I'm seen as a jerk in some corners because I think global warming is a big enough environmental problem that I'm open to nuclear or clean coal technology to avoid our planet frying alive. It ain't my goal, of course, but I've found the Gods have yet to issue me fiat power over our government, so I'm open to carbon sequestration and other things.
But all that said, what is fascinating to me is watching how the carbon debate mirrors the health care debate:
It comes down to how you see the big picture and the larger forces of history-that Rorschach blot. Those who have turned against the bill think there will be one chance to do this; they cite the Clean Air Act to show how crappy compromises get cemented in place in legislation and become very, very difficult to reopen. They're worried that if a weak bill is put in place, by the time the country seriously revisits it it could well be too late. It blows the one chance.
The bill's supporters think history is on their side. They see the most important goals as establishing a long-term declining cap on CO2 (the 2030 and 2050 targets remain strong in W-M), getting a carbon trading system up and running, and above all shifting off the status quo trajectory. They also point out that the U.S. desperately needs something to take to the international climate talks in Copenhagen in December. Only a show of good faith will get the rusty gears of multilateral negotiation turning again, and that process, too, cannot wait. As time passes, they say, climate change will hit harder, increasing political pressure to strengthen the system. States will accelerate their own programs; clean businesses will gain size and lobbying muscle; everyone will get much more serious about the problem and cognizant of the opportunities. This is the beginning of a journey that will only gain, not lose, momentum.
That's the single-payer folks and the HCAN team spelled out right there. It's the one-fell-swoop crowd v the incrementalists.
I had a fairly long conversation last evening with one of my favorite local conservation leaders. This discussion was at the very heart of it. When you're a principled incrementalist, the question is always what you're willing to settle for, because the reality is: if we pass major health care or global warming legislation in 2009, it will not be on the agenda again for at least several years in the same way.
Conversely, what we know from history is that when the issue dies in Congress, politicians back off their support for it, the media finds different stories, and the issue does not return again until a champion finds it once more.
Health care reform is very likely to occur this year before we move on to considering the carbon pollution caps (I don't coordinate the ball, I'm just reading the program they gave me), but this issue is going to be even tougher to navigate. It is nearly impossible to convince Americans that our healthcare system isn't broken. In the realm of climate science, disinformation still has sway.
This George Will screed against...er, Portland?...is a prime example of the lazy, selfish, and slow-thinking elements that are dragging this country down.
The money paragraph:
Once upon a time, government was supposed to defend the shores, deliver the mail and let people get on with their lives. Today's far-seeing and fastidious government, not content with designing the cars Americans drive to their homes and the lightbulbs they use in their homes (do you know that, come 2014, the incandescent lightbulb will be illegal?), wants to say where their homes can be. And to think that Republican Ray LaHood, Secretary of Behavior Modification, is an enthusiast for this, well, cozy relationship between Washington and Peoria, and everywhere else, too.
What a friggin' ridiculous argument. What, George, do you think our highway and street system is made out of sparkly unicorn pellets?
Believe it or not, George, the midcentury urban flight of middle-class white families was paid for by the American taxpayer. And, yes, George, we still pay for this outmoded, mid-20th-century transportation system with our hard-earned US dollars, even if, say, we bike or walk everywhere or use public transportation.
That's the thing. Many folks simply do not have the option to choose alternative transportation. Bike lanes are often nonexistent, communities surrounded by a grid of highways, housing far-flung from the basic amenities they depend on, isolated from necessities by antiquated zoning laws that were designed - ironically - to protect them. And worse still, those that want to escape from their grandparents' infrastructure still pay for the street grids that imprison them. George, your view of "normalcy" is suppressing the freedom of millions of Americans to choose how and where they live and commute.
I'm not surprised Will doesn't get this. We're talking about a man who pines for an era before anyone wore jeans. It's obvious he doesn't muck around in places like Peoria - the town Will marks as a good ol' American city that doesn't want to be Portland, thank-you-very-much - or else he'd have discovered Peoria already has a pretty damn good network of bike lanes and some of the best mountain biking in Illinois. But then ol' George was never good at research and fact-checking.
And ol' George's views represents a slice of Americans who feel so oppressed by common-sense regulations or government spending that DESTROYS their LIVES! Like, say, a law that makes your dishes not so sparkly! Never mind that the phosphates used to make sparkly dishes have massive negative impacts to the environment and human health. And never mind that dish soap companies can make sparkly dish soap without phosphates but never got around to it before.
No, my friends. The United States is not in a state of decline because we like to shag for fun, or because we wear too much denim, or because of the Intertubes or television or hip-hop. The end won't come about because people dare criticize their government for torturing or starting unnecessary wars, or they don't worship at your church, or because of the designated hitter. If there's anything that symbolizes the sorry state of the country, it's this: Americans are destroying rare and irreplaceable ecosystems so they can have soft toilet paper.
So while ol' George et al bluster and rant for their "freedoms" and prerogatives - never mind ours, mind you - the world disappears up our *sses.
It appears that Ed Butcher's horse slaughterhouse "get out of jail free" bill has become law by default, thanks to the Good Guv failing to either veto it or sign it.
In its opinion page today, the Gazette editorial board reiterates its objections to the bill for the usual reasons: it basically gives one particularly lax industry a free pass on health and environmental regulations. But there's also these two items:
• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says such slaughterhouses could compromise the state's efforts to adhere to clean-water and air quality regulations....
• U.S. Department of Agriculture approval is needed to ship horse meat overseas and Congress has blocked that approval process.
As a result -- as the editorial notes -- there are still a lot of questions about this law. Is it constitutional? Will Butcher et al. find an investor to build -- especially without the USDA participating in inspections? After all, one assumes investors will only build a slaughterhouse if they can sell the meat overseas...
I still can't believe the legislature rubber-stamped this dog. What were they thinking? Until proven otherwise, I'm assuming Ed Butcher has a stash of Polaroids tucked away somewhere of legislators in compromising positions...
I don't write that much about environmental policy because frankly I don't know much about it. I do know enough to know that this was a stupid decision by the Montana Senate.
Bill Rossbach is a well-respected environmental attorney, someone who knows how to dig in and get answers. He's someone ideally suited for a role on the Board of Environmental Review since he can, you know, review environmental impacts and analyze them with regards to relevant law.
So the Republican Senate fought his confirmation.
Bill Rossbach apparently was audacious enough to have "questioned the adequacy of pollution controls for the Highwood Generating Station." That's terrible. I hate it when people charged with oversight spend their time overseeing.
So by now you've probably heard that the Good Guv sent the horse slaughter bill -- HB 418 -- back to the legislaturewith amendments quashing the bill's extraordinary language that essentially gives any slaughterhouse developer a free pass on health and environmental regulations. HB 418's sponsor, Ed Butcher, plans to fight the amendments.
What with all my b*tching about how this bill gives the horse slaughter industry privileged protection from litigation, it's irked me that most reports talk about the issue as if the legislature is voting on slaughterhouses themselves. So it's a relief to see Schweitzer, with his veto, focus the discussion on the bill's important elements. Schwetizer:
Before addressing my specific amendments, I want you to know that, like you, I believe horse owners must be responsible for the health and care of their animals. Like you, I believe it is unacceptable that any horse would be left starving or to die due to neglect. I also believe owners should have access to a legal method to put their horses down as necessary and appropriate - due to age, infirmity, or other legitimate circumstances.
While I understand the value in licensing horse slaughter facilities, it is equally important that any facility approved to operate in Montana comply with this state's health and environmental laws. Therefore, a person applying to license a horse slaughter facility who wishes to do so in accordance with Montana law has nothing to fear from the amendments I propose.
This isn't a bill about horse slaughterhouses, it's an attempt to gut state regulations for a specific industry -- and, if successful, no doubt a harbinger of a host of similar bills in future legislatures for the worst offenders of environment, health, and safety regulations. If your vision for the future of Montana is a landscape peppered with unregulated horse slaughterhouses, tire-burning plants, and nuclear waste dumps, by all means, support Ed Butcher's opposition to the Good Guv's amendments.
But if you believe that all industry compete on a level playing field, that all businesses should abide by the rules we've set for them, that we shouldn't craft special legislation for the worst industries, you'll support Schweitzer's amendments.
Oh, and as a little added touch of comic relief for a post heavy with serious rhetoric, check out the Missoulian's recent editorial on the bill:
Nobody wants to see these noble animals suffer. We can probably all agree that something needs to be done. We need a way, and a place, to dispose of elderly or infirm horses.
That is why we must once again applaud those who have stepped forward to take on the heavy burden of this responsibility, namely the folks behind Willing Servants, a new organization based in the Bitterroot Valley that helps find homes - or humane ends - for unwanted horses.
We are not so sure about a bill the Montana Legislature approved recently that would make our state the only one in the nation to welcome a slaughterhouse for horses that now awaits only Gov. Brian Schweitzer's signature, or veto. Himself a regular horse-rider (in campaign ads, at least), we imagine the governor, too, is asking himself: What is it about horses?
Those whacky horses!
Way to take a stand, Missoulian. Sadly, this mamby-pamby avoidance of issues seems to be becoming a trend among the state's newspapers...
So, you know, a ban would help preserve marine habitat, protect human health, and reduce the economic, medical, and taxpayer costs associated with harmful algal blooms.
But...but...phosphates make my dishes sparkly! And, you know, that's totally worth "beat(ing my) local legislator to a bloody pulp" over! That's right, folks. Clean your guns, because it's revolution time!
The auto industry is undergoing a major transition. How can we set a course for its healthy development?
Automakers, by their nature, must make plans many years in advance. Right now, we have people designing products for 2015. That means that, if environmental standards are to be effective, it is crucial that we have very good collaboration between government and the auto industry. It requires smart regulatory practices, achievable goals, and a national roadmap we can depend upon.
We are in this thing together. It is time to collaborate.
Take emissions standards, for example. We understand the direction of the carbon economy. We embraced 40% higher federal fuel standards in the 2007 energy bill, and we fully expect a decade of rising standards, year by year, starting with the standards for 2011 to be announced in the near future.
We intend to accomplish those standards. In order to do that, we've urged the federal government to set emissions standards for multiple years into the future, to give us a predictable set of regulations to plan and design for. In recent years, California and other states have played an important role in setting emissions standards when there was no federal action on the issue. But today, the federal government is acting. Additional uncertainty can only undermine that progress. A single, national standard administered by the federal government is a reliable roadmap and we can move forward rapidly.
We also need to know that the infrastructure will be in place to support the advanced technologies we're developing. You can't have a fleet of plug-in hybrids and electric cars without a place to plug them in, or without sufficient energy to power them all.
Patchwork fixes and band-aids are not a good solution to our common problems. Our environmental and economic problems involve our whole country. So do the solutions. An integrated national plan provides a stable foundation for progress.
We're committed to reinventing the automobile. We will provide you with an even wider range of efficient automobiles. And if we can depend on a smart and stable set of regulations, the auto industry will be the driver behind a new low-carbon economy.
Can we ever know, on any contentious or politicized topic, how to recognize the real conclusions of science and how to distinguish them from scientific-sounding spin or misinformation?
Congress will soon consider global-warming legislation, and the debate comes as contradictory claims about climate science abound. Partisans of this issue often wield vastly different facts and sometimes seem to even live in different realities.
In this context, finding common ground will be very difficult.
Mooney's solution?
Perhaps the only hope involves taking a stand for a breed of journalism and commentary that is not permitted to simply say anything; that is constrained by standards of evidence, rigor and reproducibility that are similar to the canons of modern science itself.
Yeah, and the newspaper publishing the new, more rigorous commentaries will be delivered by a fleet of flying pigs.
Seriously, if we want to take action on climate change, we can't wait around for utopian journalistic ethics to kick in. Right now, the very existence of climate change has warped into a political issue and calls for a political solution. But what? A massive grassrootscampaign to educate voters and pressure lawmakers to respond to the science?
Local action? Of course, local action doesn't help when the neighboring town installs a coal-burning electricity plant while you're spending municipal dollars weatherizing city buildings, does it? At some point, we need federally-enforced standards for carbon dioxide pollution.
What have you got? Do you know of any other grassroots orgs tackling this problem? Possible solutions to the current political morass?
Yesterday, jhwygirl came out against Ed Butcher's butcher bill -- HB 418 -- which would essentially clear the way for a horse slaughterhouse to be built in Montana, which, if built, would be the only one in the U.S.
Now I admit I'm not too caught up with the idea of slaughtering animals -- they're...you know...animals. As long as the conditions are somewhat humane and the work poses no threat to human health, the environment, or its workers, I'm fine. Others feel differently, obviously. Horses are held in high regard in the U.S., and I'm sure a lot of pressure and attention is going to come down on the legislature over this issue, just over the issue slaughtering horses.
No doubt pressure will ratchet up when folks realize that wild (feral?) horses culled from herds by BLM agents will no doubt be sold to our Montana slaughterhouse, if built, and shipped abroad for consumption. (Incidentally made legal by an amendment ol' Connie slipped into a 2004 appropriations bill when Congress was itching to go home to their Thanksgiving turkeys.) Wild horses + slaughter = massive letter-writting campaigns from elementary schools around the nation.
Horses aside, this bill stinks. And for the reasons jhwygirl kicks off with:
First off - and away from what many might describe as the emotional side of this issue - this bills contains some very offensive attacks on environmental laws and review, along with attempts at taking away citizen rights for judicial review.
That's right! The bill contains provisions that will basically block any legal challenge to the construction of a horse slaughterhouse! Build the facility out of pure asbestos? Shoot sulfuric acid cannonballs into the nearest town? Dump arsenic into the YMCA swimming pool? No problem -- for the owners -- because you'll need to put up a bond worth 20% of the facility's value just to file papers at court. We know better than to count on the DEQto doanyenforcement, don't we? They'll be busy filling out the developer's permit for the sulfuric acid cannon.
Is anybody noticing a pattern in this legislature? If these *sshats get their way -- and there are plenty of Democrats among their ranks, people -- this body will essentially gut all of our state's environmental regulations.
