Repeating is Believing

Call me naïve, but I find it frustrating when people lie.

I didn’t post on Friday, because the House of Representatives had gotten me all angsty. (Though not to be outdone by my almost blog post, Tom Friedman this week was just about as mad as I’ve ever seen a columnist.)

I understand that I have different beliefs and values than a lot of people. I think that most of the time, these are healthy disagreements to have. But, in my Bambi-esque innocence, I thought we were all operating, more or less, with the same facts.

Yeah, I know.

A number of Congressmen on Friday advocated for increased offshore, claiming, as Sen. McCain did, that “not even Hurricane Katrina and Rita could cause significant spillage from battered rigs off the coasts of New Orleans and Houston.”

Below is a picture taken by satellites of the oil spills in the Gulf Coast after Hurricane Katrina.

Tell me that you think the benefits outweigh the risks. Tell me that you believe that increasing oil production will help more people than a resulting oil spill will hurt. BUT DON’T SAY THINGS THAT ARE UNTRUE. The American people aren’t stupid. They want to have an honest discussion about our future. Finding common ground when people approach issues from different ideological places is hard enough. Let’s not compound it by eliminating the circumstances that would facilitate these important conversations.

The media is not doing enough to fulfill their responsibility to present the public with the facts. They report conflicting claims in the name of journalistic balance, rather than investigating which version of a story is accurate.

This is not a partisan issue. Those who would obscure the facts, whatever their ideology, are either intellectually lazy or opportunistic. I firmly believe that clean energy advocates must acknowledge the potential difficulties that might accompany the transition to smarter energy policy. This is the only way to prepare for the challenges and ultimately avoid them. However, if one side of an issue is willing to talk about the dangers of their policy preference, and the other side presents an artificially rosy option, then those who try to really engage with the tough questions will be the ones to get burned.

Okay, so even three days later I was still a little rant-y. But people who bemoan an increasingly polarized country need to understand that the existence of two conflicting versions of events is a primary cause.

 

Leggo My Eggo! Energy Legislation as Part of a Balanced Breakfast

I have a lot to say about global warming deniers. Most of it, however, I will save for later, because something even more horrifying has come to my attention.

Global warming’s effects on New England winters are putting the maple syrup industry in serious jeopardy.

Maybe you don’t believe in global warming, but this is MAPLE SYRUP we’re talking about here. Are you really comfortable taking chances? If polar bears aren’t your cup of tea, then I hope at least the fate of the McGriddle gets your attention. This must be stopped.

Okay, so there’s probably nothing even remotely resembling real maple syrup in a McGriddle. But I think you get my point. Wait, you don’t? Alright, well here it is. Most people can’t even begin to truly understand all of the far-reaching implications of global climate change. To the nay-sayers: you’re right. We don’t know enough. But what we do know is scaring the bejeebus out of me, and I’m not the only one.

Climate change is a little like eating Play-Doh. I don’t really know if it’s bad for you, but I doubt that it’s good. I’m not going to wait for the lab results before I decide not to eat it. Even if I’m really hungry and it’s right there in front of me (smelling a little bit weird, which should be my first hint that I don’t want to be digesting it).

Oh wait; you’ve never had the desire to eat Play-Doh? (What kind of a childhood did you have? What kind of a childhood did I have?) Well, I’ve never had the desire to build a coal plant. So there.

All of this brings us to the Senate’s debate over what to do about energy policy. I use the phrase ‘debate about energy policy’ loosely, because it’s actually a debate about whether or not to have a debate. The law cracks me up. This ‘debate’ reminds me of the old cliché about how laws are like sausages (you don’t want to see how they’re made). The issue du jour is a tax bill that will, among other things, extend tax incentives for renewable energy.

There will be another cloture vote tonight. It will likely involve more posturing and more grandstanding. At stake is billions of dollars and somewhere around 116,000 jobs. Even if you don’t take the specter of global warming seriously, shouldn’t the economic livelihood of over one hundred thousand Americans lead to a sense of urgency?

What will happen is anyone’s guess. The conventional wisdom is that you don’t want to watch the political process. But then again, maybe if more people knew how our laws were made, we wouldn’t have to worry that there was Play-Doh in our sausages.

Just some food for thought.

 

Michele Bachmann: Isn’t It Ironic?

Not all cap-and-trade proposals are created equal.

But don’t try telling that to Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann. In a commentary in today’s Minneapolis Star-Tribune, she weighs in with her views on Lieberman-Warner. Yet despite her best efforts, she does not even come close to making a case against cap-and-trade policies.

Central to her opposition is the allegation that cap-and-trade is really ‘tax-and-spend.’ Well, sort of. Though I would argue that carbon pricing is a tax in the same way that paying to use the U.S. Post Office is. It’s not a ‘tax’ for the sake of raising money; it’s a fee for a service.

Bachmann largely misses the mark in her criticisms of LW. She identifies problems with this bill without demonstrating at all convincingly that it is cap-and-trade policies that are flawed. Rather than approaching our energy needs with an open mind, she is all-too-eager to talk about what she believes cannot be done. I’m sure inspired. For example, she cites Europe’s problems with their own cap-and-trade system implemented a few years ago. This is roughly the rhetorical equivalent of having a doctor tell you that you’re having an allergic reaction and then leave the exam room. The question most people would ask next is: what’s causing it?

In Europe, permits were largely given away to companies, who were able to get permits for as much carbon as they said they needed. It reminds me, in more ways than one, of the Charmin commercial where the little bear takes too much toilet paper when left to his own devices. True, in both of these scenarios you really don’t want to undershoot, but it also meant that the system was entirely ineffective at limiting carbon emissions. However, in the words of the ever wise and only slightly bitter Alanis Morissette: “you live, you learn.” (Alanis probably didn’t say that first. But whoever did say it first probably didn’t play God in a Jay and Silent Bob movie. Who do you trust?)

Bachmann does identify a serious issue that will likely plague any U.S. energy legislation: China. China will, I’m sure, be the subject of future posts. Briefly, however, it is worth noting that ignoring our obligation to address energy here at home until China does something themselves is like cutting off our nose to spite our face. Or, even better, like waiting to get help for an addiction until Amy Winehouse does. If we can develop renewable technology that will cheaply meet our energy needs, then China’s clean energy future will stage a comeback. It can be done: just ask Britney Spears. I do want a piece of the new Britney! Supply and demand!

Sorry, I’m back. Really, Bachmann says it best herself:

There is no coherent reason to have to choose between economic growth and environmental protection. It’s a false notion that we must conserve our way out of our energy crisis, or pillage the environment. We can grow our economy, improve our energy security and pass on a clean natural heritage to our children.

Cap-and-trade doesn’t force a choice, it just makes the price of doing business reflect all the costs of doing business. This better valuation will grow our economy, improve our energy security and pass on a clean natural heritage to our children. Yes Alanis, it is a little bit ironic.

-Diana

 

Senatorial Shenanigans

So it seems like the big deal these days, asides from the end(ish…) of the brouhaha that was the 2008 Democratic primary, is the Lieberman-Warner legislation (LW, as I affectionately refer to it). This bill calls for a cap-and-trade system, and the details have economic conservatives and environmentalists alike worked into a lather (incidentally, no one really anticipates that this bill will pass, but let’s not miss an opportunity to get worked up).

It’s my instinct that when extremists on both sides hate something, it’s on the right track. LW isn’t perfect, but the idea of a cap-and-trade system does have some serious street cred. It combines the merits of markets (Bill O’Reilly says: “Yea! I LOVE markets!”) with personal responsibility (don’t worry liberals, there’s something coming for you too) with, wait for it, helping the environment and revitalizing the economy.

Maybe that sounds a little pie in the sky to you (mmm… pie…), but hear me out. The problem with the current system is that technically, both everyone and no one own the sky. Industry argues that a certain amount of pollution is unavoidable, which may well be true, but there is also no cost to them to pollute lots in order to make more money. After all, their competitors are doing it too. Industry isn’t a bogeyman, it’s just that the incentives are all wrong, which is also why the market isn’t going to fix global warming on its own. Cap-and-trade systems alter these incentives by placing a monetary value on pollution. Put another way: make polluters pay for pollution and then the market will spur development of cleaner, cheaper technology.

But Diana, if the polluters have to pay for pollution, won’t they just pass those costs along to their customers?

That’s a fair point, and a legitimate concern. But the beauty of cap-and-trade systems, especially the type illustrated by Peter Barnes is that the money raised by auctioning off permits can be returned to consumers. In this way, people will be able to keep up with rising energy costs, and will also have capital to invest in weatherization or other measures that will keep down their energy bills in the long term. It’s actually a quite nifty trick.

There are a number of nuances to cap-and-trade that I have yet to go into. This is partly because I don’t want to abuse the attention span of my (rapidly growing!?!) readership (not to mention the attention span of the author). Also, if I answered all of your questions now, you wouldn’t have a reason to come back and read my blog again, would you? Feel free to comment on specific areas that you think I missed or am wrong about, and I’ll address those first. Later dudes.

-Diana