obligatory

• home
• mfop2

archives

• December 2004
• November 2004
• October 2004
• September 2004
• August 2004
• July 2004
• June 2004
• May 2004
• April 2004
• March 2004
• February 2004
• January 2004
• December 2003
• November 2003
• October 2003
• September 2003
• August 2003
• July 2003
• June 2003
• May 2003
• April 2003
• March 2003
• February 2003
• January 2003
• December 2002
• November 2002
• October 2002
• September 2002
• August 2002
• July 2002
• June 2002
• May 2002
• April 2002
• October 2000
• February 2000

recent

• With Nature's Permission
• Sister's Wedding
• Weddings
• Is This a "Learning" Blog?
• Classmates
• Chaordic Learning Communities
• Learning online
• Reindeer
• Backed-up
• First Snow

With President Bush reinstated for another four years and a wider Republican majority in both houses of Congress, what’s in store for the environment?

The other day I posted some transcripts of the latest Living on Earth, one of the most interesting programs I have heard in a long time. Not because it is giving us any groundbreaking new ideas, but rather because it gives me a glimpse of how some other people view the environment and environmental policy, where I can actually hear it straight from "bad guy's" mouth.

There were quite a few interesting topics covered. I am looking at them one at a time in a series of posts. ( The first time I transcribed it myself, because I didn't realize the web site already had the full transcripts. This time I just copy-pasted. )

Kim Strasel: Senior editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal
Bill McKibben: a visiting scholar in environmental studies at Middlebury College and author of “The End of Nature.”
Curwood: Announcer of Life on Earth

On The Bush Energy Bill In the Senate

CURWOOD: So, the White House now has a bigger margin in the Senate to work with, a somewhat bigger margin in the House to work with. Wasn’t able to get a comprehensive energy bill passed through Congress in the first four years of the president’s administration. So what’s likely to happen now on the broader picture of getting an energy bill through? Kim?

STRASSEL: I don’t think they’re going to have a difficulty getting an energy bill through anymore. And, in fact, I think the worry should be – and this is probably something maybe Bill and I would agree on--I think the worry will be that it will be so easy to get it through that they will just stuff through a whole bunch of incentives for their various companies. And subsidies, that it may be very subsidy-laden bill rather than a smart energy bill that is about sort of smart production. That would be my worry.

I don’t think that they’ll have a difficulty getting it through. One of the reasons they didn’t before was because of ANWR I think it’s just going to be easier to break that hump this time. And ANWR aside, a vast number of Senators want an energy bill because an energy bill is one of those things that actually brings home benefits for just about everyone's state.

CURWOOD: Yeah, I want to turn to Bill but, for a moment, Kim, explain to me – what do you mean by subsidies here?

STRASSEL: You know, the worry I think from some people, myself included, is that you throw a lot of perks in there for a whole bunch of different companies that really aren't about letting the market decide what's best for -- what is actually our smartest or best energy sources? Where best to get them? And, you know, what is most economical?

We need a more market-based energy policy. Rather than kind of going back to the 1970s, when it was all about saying, well, this type of oil drilling is good so we’re going to give a lot of companies a whole bunch of government money to do that kind of drilling. And sort of centrally directing where we get our resources from.

My own preference if we had an energy bill would be more about sort of going back through, looking at certain regulations that don’t make a lot of sense. And sort of making sure that we have as much of an open market as we could for letting the market decide which sort of resources were best for us to be using.

CURWOOD: And certainly subsidies cost money at a time when we’re facing a sizable federal deficit.

STRASSEL: Oh, absolutely. The bill they had last time around was billions and billions of dollars, and the editorial page here certainly was not a fan of it.

CURWOOD: Bill, she says that you are going to go along with her on this one.

STRASSEL: I don’t know! (LAUGHS)

MCKIBBEN: Well, the last energy bill that the president put forward was, she’s right, absolutely laden with special favors for every possible fossil fuel interest that there was. It will reappear probably in more egregious form this time and it’ll be passed. All of this comes from the fact that the U.S., under Vice President Cheney’s energy plan committee, has no real vision for the future of energy in this country other than, basically, more drilling, more production, more refining. They're not grappling in a serious way with the necessary transition away from fossil fuel and towards renewable energy in the relatively near future. That leaves us alone among industrialized nations in that condition. And I don’t think that that’s likely to change much over the next four years. I think it’ll basically be a time-out for anything really innovative in energy policy.

My reactions.

"I think the worry will be that it will be so easy to get it through that they will just stuff through a whole bunch of incentives for their various companies. And subsidies, that it may be very subsidy-laden bill rather than a smart energy bill that is about sort of smart production. That would be my worry. "

If Kim is worried about that, it really is worrisome. The thing I don't get is how she could support such a corrupt administration. She knows their main concern is not about the environment, but rather stuffing their pockets, and yet... but then what do I know, maybe she (Senior editorial writer for The Wall Street Journal) voted for Kerry. But that's not really fair of me. To tell the truth, I didn't really see much hope for a real leader in Kerry either, just a little smarter than Bush, and wouldn't make as big of a mess out of the environment.

a vast number of Senators want an energy bill because an energy bill is one of those things that actually brings home benefits for just about everyone’s state.

I have to plead ignorance here. I don't know exactly what she is talking about by "benefits", but I assume they are short-sighted benefits. If the senators were really anxious to bring home real long-term benefits... well, I guess they would be hot and heavy into renewable resources.

really aren't about letting the market decide what's best for -- what is actually our smartest or best energy sources? Where best to get them? And, you know, what is most economical? ... My own preference [is] sort of making sure that we have as much of an open market as we could for letting the market decide which sort of resources were best for us to be using.

Is that something that the market can really decide? I mean, the market decided that DDT wad grrrrreeat!. The market decided that pumping the atmosphere full of CO2 is great. The market decides lots of things that science knows to be wrong. I realize there is a dilemma here. Do we trust science, or do we trust the market? Eventually the science will be understood and embraced by the market, but at what cost? How much damage must we do in the mean time? What are leaders for if not to actually lead ?

Of course, she is arguing against Bush's support to the oil companies, and I applaud that, but I don't agree with her reasoning that the market knows best in real time . There is always a time-lag between when "the market" decides something is good, and the time that it realizes that what it has decided is good is actually screwing up the world. Is there any mechanism in there that ensures that that time lag is not too long, and that no permanent damage will be done?

Bill Says:

They're not grappling in a serious way with the necessary transition away from fossil fuel and towards renewable energy in the relatively near future.

YES! And this is what I don't understand. How, in the most developed, self proclaimed "greatest nation on earth", can we not have a serious plan to transition between fossil fuel, which we all know is not sustainable, to renewable energy? I do understand how some people would rather sacrifice the future and their children's' future for a few bucks today, but what kind of leadership bows to that? It makes me sick. Again, my disclaimer, that I do not thing Kerry would have been that much better in leading us toward a realistic goal for the future. This is not an attack on Bush, so much as it is an attack on stupidity.

I LOVE these entries! I am sorely missing my NPR time, which is where I get most of my "thinking" news.

Unfortunetly most alternatives to fossil do not have the support of envionmental protectors. There seems to be something wrong with all of these alternatives. The relative quantity of our power requirements are part of the problem. Nuclear power can supply the quanities needed and not distroy the envionment. Many nations are using nuclear(and the US and other nations who are now dead set against will again use it). Market driven energy decisions are now the major reason we are where we are. There are many incentives given to alternatives but so far none of the alternatives have proven to be worth much in our market based economy.

galleries