Slog
News & ArtsThursday, January 28, 2010
Politics State of the Union Post #87
Posted by Bethany Jean Clement on Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 2:10 PM
It's upsetting that Obama didn't talk about what the hell we're going to do about climate change. Green jobs/clean energy were mentioned, as well as clean coal and clean/safe nuclear energy (really?), but nothing about drowning polar bears (which just makes a person want to cry) and other imminent major messed-upness. Maybe we want to set (and reach) some specific goals for reducing emissions? Show a little (very belated) leadership in this matter? Are we not number one?
It's going to take economic impacts to drive any real efforts by the U.S. on the matter, clearly—but luckily (and frighteningly—you know it's bad when it might begin to eat into corporate profits) it looks like that's starting to happen.
1
Between climate risks, having to pay for health care (as in no other country), and the US failure to invest in modern technologies, US business is looking at a grim decade. Funny how Republicans are now the anti-business party in many ways.
Meanwhile, China's lead in green tech is probably unsurmountable. Want a wind turbine or an advanced solar panel? Zero of the parts will come from the USA.
Meanwhile, China's lead in green tech is probably unsurmountable. Want a wind turbine or an advanced solar panel? Zero of the parts will come from the USA.
2
Out of curiousity, what is the count on iPad vs SOTU posts in the past week on Slog? Am I the only person who is getting really creeped out by the fact that Apple announcing a mediocre product has overshadowed the President's address?
Listen, I love large, multi-national corporations that don't actually care about me as much as the next Apple fanboy, but I'd really enjoy this blog more if people talked about the things I consider more important, such as ending DADT, economic recovery, etc. I could just be in the minority, though...
Listen, I love large, multi-national corporations that don't actually care about me as much as the next Apple fanboy, but I'd really enjoy this blog more if people talked about the things I consider more important, such as ending DADT, economic recovery, etc. I could just be in the minority, though...
3
What is the Stranger doing about those carbon-belching, pollution-producing pulp mills from whom it purchases newsprint.
What is the Stranger doing about the carbon-belching, pollution-producing vehicles that distribute the paper every week?
Save the polar bears; boycott the Stranger.
What is the Stranger doing about the carbon-belching, pollution-producing vehicles that distribute the paper every week?
Save the polar bears; boycott the Stranger.
5
Have you ever read a disclosure statement, Bethany? It's a litany of platitudes, an exercise in legal hoop-jumping that no one pays any particular attention to. For example: "A competitor might arise, consumer demand for our products might drop, our supply chain might break down, a financial partner might go bankrupt, key talent might leave the company, climate change might impact our operations, we might get sued, ..." Did you catch the climate change note? Do you think it's inclusion make a difference?
By the way, surveys show the polar bear population surging over the last decade.
By the way, surveys show the polar bear population surging over the last decade.
6
"And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."
"Climate bill with incentives" is a media-friendly way of saying "cap and trade." It's not a climate bill if the incentives don't relate to emissions.
"Climate bill with incentives" is a media-friendly way of saying "cap and trade." It's not a climate bill if the incentives don't relate to emissions.
7
Well, much as I hated the energy portion of the SOTU speech, it does have a few points, depending on how it's actually implemented.
1. Nuclear fission - while we do ignore the impacts of mining the fuel and disposal, our main problem is each reactor is a separate design. The Canadians, French, and other nations that use it well have very very few designs - and thus more effective training and lower costs. If the money is spent on useful things like a basic national design, that could help.
2. Clean coal - yes, it's a farce, but since - in case you missed it - we're not doing ethanol, we had to let one stupid idea through. Research on it isn't a bad idea, and the cold hard reality is that the US will be using coal for probably 50 percent of our energy supply until 2100. Regardless of anything we say, that's what will happen.
3. Oil production - we own large tracts - which if we charged a market rate (not the subsidized rate) - wouldn't be so bad. You forget that oil is used for lubricants and will take us decades to slowly wean off from - including planes. The air force has a lot of thirsty jets too.
4. the whole nine yards - the major thing you should have heard is that we won't be spending all our money on oil and coal. Right now that's more than 90 percent of the energy budget impact. Reduce that down to 50 percent and you've made RADICAL and POSITIVE changes. High speed trains are part of that change.
1. Nuclear fission - while we do ignore the impacts of mining the fuel and disposal, our main problem is each reactor is a separate design. The Canadians, French, and other nations that use it well have very very few designs - and thus more effective training and lower costs. If the money is spent on useful things like a basic national design, that could help.
2. Clean coal - yes, it's a farce, but since - in case you missed it - we're not doing ethanol, we had to let one stupid idea through. Research on it isn't a bad idea, and the cold hard reality is that the US will be using coal for probably 50 percent of our energy supply until 2100. Regardless of anything we say, that's what will happen.
3. Oil production - we own large tracts - which if we charged a market rate (not the subsidized rate) - wouldn't be so bad. You forget that oil is used for lubricants and will take us decades to slowly wean off from - including planes. The air force has a lot of thirsty jets too.
4. the whole nine yards - the major thing you should have heard is that we won't be spending all our money on oil and coal. Right now that's more than 90 percent of the energy budget impact. Reduce that down to 50 percent and you've made RADICAL and POSITIVE changes. High speed trains are part of that change.
8
(caveat - 10 percent of my retirement funds are invested in energy stocks and also I have participated in IPOs for coal and nuclear energy firms)
@6 ftw.
@6 ftw.
9
He basically said, it doesn't matter whether climate change is "real" or not, going down the energy efficiency and "green jobs" route is the right thing to do for our country from an economic and jobs perspective. I think I could get behind that narrative -- the "existence of global warming" debate has become polarizing and is harming our ability to get things done, so wipe it away and make it about the economy/jobs.
I also thought it was interesting that he when he said "it's the right thing to do for our future", the next words out of his mouth didn't include "our dependency on foreign oil." Which would have (1) maybe been a bit of scaremongering and (2) opened him up for the whole "then let's use the oil/gas we do have in this country counterattack (not that that stopped the Republicans anyways, since that was still featured in the response speech).
I also thought it was interesting that he when he said "it's the right thing to do for our future", the next words out of his mouth didn't include "our dependency on foreign oil." Which would have (1) maybe been a bit of scaremongering and (2) opened him up for the whole "then let's use the oil/gas we do have in this country counterattack (not that that stopped the Republicans anyways, since that was still featured in the response speech).
10
David Wright, do you have a source for your contention that polar bears are increasing in population?
A study by the official international monitoring group for polar bears (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-…) determined last year that "1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient."
There are some reports from native observers in Nunavut that observed populations near human settlements have increased recently, but that's anecdotal data that could easily be consistent with the official trends if bears are moving closer to humans to secure food because their traditional feeding grounds are in peril.
A study by the official international monitoring group for polar bears (http://pbsg.npolar.no/en/meetings/press-…) determined last year that "1 of 19 subpopulations is currently increasing, 3 are stable and 8 are declining. For the remaining 7 subpopulations available data were insufficient."
There are some reports from native observers in Nunavut that observed populations near human settlements have increased recently, but that's anecdotal data that could easily be consistent with the official trends if bears are moving closer to humans to secure food because their traditional feeding grounds are in peril.
12
@4, climate change and health care are about jobs.
Every American business can reduce its wage bill by something like 40% just by moving to a country where businesses don't pay for their employees' health insurance -- which is ALL COUNTRIES, except one. Us. Move to Canada and drop two HR employees and $10,000 per head -- hmm.
Green tech is a potentially giant jobs engine, as much as car tech was in the 20th century (remember that only one car-related job in ten was or is in manufacturing them).
Every American business can reduce its wage bill by something like 40% just by moving to a country where businesses don't pay for their employees' health insurance -- which is ALL COUNTRIES, except one. Us. Move to Canada and drop two HR employees and $10,000 per head -- hmm.
Green tech is a potentially giant jobs engine, as much as car tech was in the 20th century (remember that only one car-related job in ten was or is in manufacturing them).
13
Check out today's Fresh Air. Terry interviews Mark Schapiro from Carbon Watch and author Jeff Goodell who wrote As the World Burns for the Jan. Rolling Stone.
14
@1 - false.
Look, much as China is great at manufacturing solar and wind, they are not the only manufacturers and even with their lead in solar and wind patents and scientific papers, we here at the UW crank out more usable patents than they do.
(caveat - I have investments in all forms of energy and hope your Chinese-made turbine blade doesn't crack ...)
Look, much as China is great at manufacturing solar and wind, they are not the only manufacturers and even with their lead in solar and wind patents and scientific papers, we here at the UW crank out more usable patents than they do.
(caveat - I have investments in all forms of energy and hope your Chinese-made turbine blade doesn't crack ...)
15
@2: You may be in the minority, but I'm there with you. iPad, iPad, IPAD! I don't care. And I'm not going to see Avatar either.
17
@14, yes, we have patents. Which only China (and a few other countries) are interested in converting into products.
The blades at Wild Horse were, I think, made in the Netherlands. The turbines in Taiwan. But I'd trust Chinese blades over shoddy American ones any old day.
But do tell us again, Uncle Will: own any energy stock?
The blades at Wild Horse were, I think, made in the Netherlands. The turbines in Taiwan. But I'd trust Chinese blades over shoddy American ones any old day.
But do tell us again, Uncle Will: own any energy stock?
19
To expand on the comments by Julie in Eugene @9.
Climate change is precisely the kind of problem that our evolutionary legacy as humans has left us unequipped to appreciate and deal with. So I almost feel like saying to anyone who is concerned about climate change, "Don't make this about climate change." The more the United States and China, and Democrats and Republicans, haggle over meeting emissions targets, the less hope there is of reducing emissions.
It so happens that, even if there were no such phenomenon as climate change, it would be overwhelmingly in our selfish national self-interest to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It's about jobs. It's about economic competitiveness. When it comes to oil, it's about cutting into the primary funding source of the Admadinejads and bin Ladens of the world.
So obviously, I like the way Obama is changing the narrative, although as usual with Obama, he stops just short of really challenging the American people. But that's as much a reflection on the American people as it is on Obama.
Climate change is precisely the kind of problem that our evolutionary legacy as humans has left us unequipped to appreciate and deal with. So I almost feel like saying to anyone who is concerned about climate change, "Don't make this about climate change." The more the United States and China, and Democrats and Republicans, haggle over meeting emissions targets, the less hope there is of reducing emissions.
It so happens that, even if there were no such phenomenon as climate change, it would be overwhelmingly in our selfish national self-interest to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. It's about jobs. It's about economic competitiveness. When it comes to oil, it's about cutting into the primary funding source of the Admadinejads and bin Ladens of the world.
So obviously, I like the way Obama is changing the narrative, although as usual with Obama, he stops just short of really challenging the American people. But that's as much a reflection on the American people as it is on Obama.
20
I did appreciate how the president said something about people not believing in climate change despite the "overwhelming scientific evidence" that it exists. I searched a transcript for the exact phrasing, but I think it was ad-libbed. Either that, or I heard what I wanted to hear.
Anyway, Fnarf: you're right that China is leading in green technology, but there is one wee glimmer of hope of what could come here in the States: in Newton, Iowa, where Maytag's closure nearly shut the town down, there is a new turbine manufacturing plant. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index… My understanding is there are efforts to get other parts makers for turbines to settle around this area, thus linking the businesses together and creating a hub of 21st century manufacturing. At this point it's pissing in the wind, but there's always the hope that it's the tip of an iceberg of positive policy changes.
None of this changes my view, however, that we have entered the decadent phase of our civilization and are squarely on the decline. I'll cite Will as evidence of our intellectual poverty.
Anyway, Fnarf: you're right that China is leading in green technology, but there is one wee glimmer of hope of what could come here in the States: in Newton, Iowa, where Maytag's closure nearly shut the town down, there is a new turbine manufacturing plant. http://www.sustainablebusiness.com/index… My understanding is there are efforts to get other parts makers for turbines to settle around this area, thus linking the businesses together and creating a hub of 21st century manufacturing. At this point it's pissing in the wind, but there's always the hope that it's the tip of an iceberg of positive policy changes.
None of this changes my view, however, that we have entered the decadent phase of our civilization and are squarely on the decline. I'll cite Will as evidence of our intellectual poverty.
21
@17 - gee, that's strange, I didn't know the Dutch were Chinese.
Look, if you want to get down to it, most things you buy are made from parts made in multiple countries.
And you're ignoring Mexico, which NAFTA treats as America, according to our sovereign wealth corporate masters.
Look, if you want to get down to it, most things you buy are made from parts made in multiple countries.
And you're ignoring Mexico, which NAFTA treats as America, according to our sovereign wealth corporate masters.
22
and you're ignoring Michigan.
Again.
And Nevada.
And ... wait for it ... this place called King County and this place called Snohomish County and this place called Pierce County ... I don't think they're in China.
But I bow to your superior wiki knowledge (moron).
Again.
And Nevada.
And ... wait for it ... this place called King County and this place called Snohomish County and this place called Pierce County ... I don't think they're in China.
But I bow to your superior wiki knowledge (moron).
23
It's funny, when I heard that passage in the SOTU, I couldn't help but think that Obama and his speechwriters had been reading themselves some Tom Friedman. Here's what Friedman had to say in the wake of the Copenhagen talks:
Now, Friedman has been a reluctant supporter of cap-and-trade. His preference would be for a straight-ahead carbon tax or gas tax. My preference would be that this this tax be completely offset by a corresponding cut in the payroll tax for Social Security. So in one fell swoop, you have a long-term answer to both energy and jobs.
I simply cannot imagine any sort of energy bill that includes cap-and-trade happening in 2010. If we're going to have to regroup anyway, why not restart the conversation around the simple reality that you can't address the problems with fossil fuels until you factor them into the price of fossil fuels? In a democracy, you can't skirt around asking the people to do hard things.
If you start the conversation with “climate” you might get half of America to sign up for action. If you start the conversation with giving birth to a “whole new industry” — one that will make us more energy independent, prosperous, secure, innovative, respected and able to out-green China in the next great global industry — you get the country.
Now, Friedman has been a reluctant supporter of cap-and-trade. His preference would be for a straight-ahead carbon tax or gas tax. My preference would be that this this tax be completely offset by a corresponding cut in the payroll tax for Social Security. So in one fell swoop, you have a long-term answer to both energy and jobs.
I simply cannot imagine any sort of energy bill that includes cap-and-trade happening in 2010. If we're going to have to regroup anyway, why not restart the conversation around the simple reality that you can't address the problems with fossil fuels until you factor them into the price of fossil fuels? In a democracy, you can't skirt around asking the people to do hard things.
24
Will, if there's anyone around here who wears the Slog Daily Duncecap, it's you. You constantly parade your ignorance and basic idiocy as if it's something to be proud of; you rarely, if ever, have anything of interest to contribute to the conversation, and you are so universally disdained that I cannot fathom why you come back for more. You're like the 35-year-old hanging with the high school kids behind the gym, smoking weed because you think it makes you cool, and perpetually hoping for some underage pussy.
25
David Wright,
The National Post, the newspaper you cite, is notorious for its right-wing bias. The very article you read referred to climate change as a "religion". They based their argument not on a wide survey of the facts but on one article by a Nunavut government biologist about a specific region, and on the anecdotal evidence of Inuit hunters -- evidence that is contradicted by the Canadian Wildlife Service, "which projects a 22% decline in bear numbers" in the same area.
Please see this summary of recent findings by the U.S. Geological Survey, which concludes that "Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey."
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp…
Also, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife survey whose "background papers" the National Post uses to argue their point that there may be "too many bears" actually concluded by listing polar bears as a species threatened "across their range" as of 2008.
The National Post, the newspaper you cite, is notorious for its right-wing bias. The very article you read referred to climate change as a "religion". They based their argument not on a wide survey of the facts but on one article by a Nunavut government biologist about a specific region, and on the anecdotal evidence of Inuit hunters -- evidence that is contradicted by the Canadian Wildlife Service, "which projects a 22% decline in bear numbers" in the same area.
Please see this summary of recent findings by the U.S. Geological Survey, which concludes that "Future reduction of sea ice in the Arctic could result in a loss of 2/3 of the world's polar bear population within 50 years according to a series of studies released today by the U.S. Geological Survey."
http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp…
Also, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife survey whose "background papers" the National Post uses to argue their point that there may be "too many bears" actually concluded by listing polar bears as a species threatened "across their range" as of 2008.
26
More reliable information about polar bears:
http://wwf.ca/conservation/species/polar…
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/SWAG/DS…
From that last one in particular, a quote from Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the World Conservation Union Species Survival Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group [whew!], who responds "to the claim that polar bear populations are increasing world-wide."
http://wwf.ca/conservation/species/polar…
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/SWAG/DS…
From that last one in particular, a quote from Dr. Andrew Derocher, Chair of the World Conservation Union Species Survival Commission Polar Bear Specialist Group [whew!], who responds "to the claim that polar bear populations are increasing world-wide."
- Sea ice is declining but again, it is not declining the same everywhere. Some small areas of multi-year ice may improve habitat for polar bears. This latter point, however, does not mean that the habitat in all areas will improve and the predictions are very clear that the primary habitat of polar bears is at risk.
- You can distort the issue any way you so desire. At the end of the day, the sea ice is disappearing. Take away the habitat and the species follows shortly thereafter (or before).
27
Irena @ 25-26: I don't doubt that a right-wing newspaper is more likely to play up the study. But they didn't make up that the study took place, and they didn't make up that it measured a rising population, and they didn't make up that it was by the Canadian Government, which is neither some right-wing think tank nor the World Wildlife Federation. I note that even the presumably left-wing "Conservation Union Species Survival Commission" rep you quote does not actually deny the result, but merely explains it away by pointing out that it might be an anomaly and encourging to ignore the actual animal counts and concentrate on habitat measurements instead.
28
David, they didn't need to make up any facts or figures, and why would they? That would be easy to contradict. What they did was distort the facts by looking at one study and extrapolating from it that polar bear numbers are not only healthy, but verging on overpopulation. Neither the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, or the U.S. Geological Survey agrees with them.
And by the way, the whole piece was a criticism of the Canadian government's work, specifically its financial commitment to further research in the polar regions, a project based on concerns raised by the very government studies you're talking about. The whole thing boils down to a journalist arguing that he is a better interpreter of the research than the scientists and specialists working for the aforementioned organizations. If anyone is "explaining away" the results, it's him.
And by the way, the whole piece was a criticism of the Canadian government's work, specifically its financial commitment to further research in the polar regions, a project based on concerns raised by the very government studies you're talking about. The whole thing boils down to a journalist arguing that he is a better interpreter of the research than the scientists and specialists working for the aforementioned organizations. If anyone is "explaining away" the results, it's him.
29
@22, I don't know why I bother, but here's the facts: I was wrong about the Dutch; the blades at Wild Horse are made in Denmark. The turbines are made in Taiwan, with other parts in Vietnam. Wild Horse, in case you are unfamiliar with it, is in Kittitas County. You should go; you might learn something -- no, wait, you're Will in Seattle, you couldn't learn something if there were electric shocks.
If you are under the impression that Michigan or King County are important manufacturing centers for wind energy products, you're sadly mistaken. And the solar manufacturing that is done in this country is a decade behind other countries in technology. China is not the only one. The US and China are the leading MARKETS, but the US is simply neither capable nor interested in modern technological manufacturing of any kind.
If you are under the impression that Michigan or King County are important manufacturing centers for wind energy products, you're sadly mistaken. And the solar manufacturing that is done in this country is a decade behind other countries in technology. China is not the only one. The US and China are the leading MARKETS, but the US is simply neither capable nor interested in modern technological manufacturing of any kind.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (29) RSS