Newsweek piece on the Global Warming "Denial Machine"

Not sure why you posted this, Boom. I often ride an electric bus here in Manhattan. We have natural gas buses, too. One bad electric apple doesn't spoil the whole barrel.

 

j- posted because I think it's a good example of good intentions gone bad. I think you see that a lot with environmental issues.

When it has to do with the environment too many broad decisions are made without looking at the whole picture.

Look at what is going on with Ethanol now. It's been pitched as the holy grail when in reality it's far from it.

 

I agree with that, at least generally. I think part of the problem is systemic, in that we have no coherent national strategy on energy. Nor do we have a comprehensive strategy for the environment. Developmentally, this means we're never quite sure which problem we're trying to solve. Are electric buses, for example, a weapon against pollution? Or are they part of our strategy for a post peak-oil world? Are they both? Neither?

I guess what I meant a couple of posts back when talking about some sort of national initiative on energy and pollution is a directed, comprehensive effort along the lines of the space program. Right now there are a million and one little mom and pop start-ups in the alternative energies field, which is great. But where's the strategic umbrella under which they can be monitored and helped and protected not only from the vagaries of the market, but from the predations of the dinosaur fossil-fuels companies?

We know we're running out of oil. We know pollution is bad. We know that oil is too much a part of global politics. At what point do we begin to address those three things as one huge, inter-related problem for humanity?

 

One thing for sure -- energy and the environment are closely linked. I think your idea of a national energy strategy is a good one if the mandate is to look at the broad picture and make long term lasting decisions.

Ideas like Ethanol can be looked at from all angles and cost / benefit analysis can be applied .

 

The problem is that no one wants to conserve.

As I've mentioned before, everyone wants a "technofix." Growth forever.

 

Exactly. I wish there were a leader who could inspire Americans to sacrifice. For me it's John Edwards, but I'm afraid that is not the prevailing sentiment.

 

Dailyhowler ripped the editor's note on the global warming article apart.
Wondered how many times a magazine editor wanted an article to be wrong.
My town, back in the days before I was born, once had a thriving trolley system.
Now it has a trolley downtown for the tourists.
I don't know if my town was caught up in the other trolley systems going away, but the old-timers I know said if it had stayed, it would have led to a light-rail system and the urban sprawl that afflicts my little corner of the world wouldn't exist.
I would love to live in a town with decent mass transit. I hate to drive.

 

I didn't expect anyone to bring up the substance, and I won't either, but was Samuelson's column this week gutsy, or is that kind of thing (taking on your publication) standard?

 

Part of the problem is that we, as a society and government, waste so much time because somehow the issue of global warming got tied up in a partisan political morass. As far as I'm concerned, it's common sense that industry would significantly impact the environment. When you look at the scientific structure of the atmosphere, it's fairly obvious that the things you release into the atmosphere are going to alter that structure over time. Once you accept that basic -- and again, obvious, premise -- it's pretty easy to see that measures need to be taken to protect the environment and that the only people who would be opposed to those measures would be the ones with something to lose.

 

I didn't see Samuelson's column, but I don't think it's that uncommon for a columnist (especially one who's been there forever) to be the dissenting voice -- especially when the publication is taking such a strong stance.