20.11.04

Pseudo-mandate

Environment Officials See A Chance To Shape Regulations Emboldened by President Bush's victory, the nation's top environmental officials are claiming a broad mandate to refashion the regulation of air and water pollution and wildlife protection in ways that will promote energy production and economic development. "The election was a validation of the philosophy and the agenda," said Mike Leavitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental protections, he said, must be done "in a way that maintains the economic competitiveness of the country."

I can see the Bush administration claiming a general (though slim) sort of validation, since it won 51% of the vote and its allies picked up seats in Congress. But it's absurd to claim that, in a campaign where the President said barely two sentences about his environmental policy, his victory is a validation of that policy. Indeed, most voters had an inaccurately rosy view of what the administration wants to do for the environment.

But perhaps the administration's plans to push forward with its corporate-friendly environmental agenda can be turned to good use. There have been grumblings from ranchers, hunters, and anglers -- a core component of Bush's base in the west -- over environmental issues. They're realizing that Republicans are bent on doing favors for big business, which can hurt smaller natural resource entrepreneurs and undermine the public lands that hunters and anglers depend on. That wasn't enough to turn the mountain states blue this time around, but Brian Schweitzer was able to capitalize on the theme of Republican indifference to local people and their environments to win the governorship of Montana. It fits into a larger populist image that I think could be effective for Democrats if they can cultivate it over the long term (rather than making a ham-handed grab at it the way Al Gore did in 2000).
Stentor Danielson, 19:47, ,

18.11.04

Comic Time

I decided to get all local (well, regional) this time.



My column for this week was an attempt to be optimistic: "Same-Sex Situation Not As Bleak As It Seems," as was its corresponding comic.
Stentor Danielson, 14:41, ,

17.11.04

Hybrids For The Future

Orrin Kerr points to an article claiming that hybrid cars

... Buyers pay a large premium for a hybrid Escape or a Prius, presuming that the increased fuel mileage makes them a better environmental citizen. While there’s no question that the Toyota, Honda and Ford hybrids are more fuel efficient than their conventionally powered equivalents, the difference is nowhere near as great as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) numbers suggest. ... In fact, in normal use, the margin between truly comparable hybrid and non-hybrid cars could be less than 10% -- hardly enough to justify the extra purchase price. And, lest we forget, the hybrid’s gas-saving advantage is not without its own particular environmental costs… Gas - electric hybrid engines use several large batteries. Creating these power cells requires a couple of hundred pounds of heavy metals-- not to mention the copper used in the large electric drive motors and the heavy wires they require. Mining and smelting lead, copper and other heavy metals is an energy intensive process that generates both air pollution and deforestation. Disposing of the batteries when they outlive their usefulness also raises environmental challenges. ... Americans are fond of turning to simple silver bullets to solve complicated problems. The hybrid solution seems ideal. Want to be environmentally responsible? Buy a hybrid. A hybrid car offers instant gratification, PC-style. It relieves consumers of both guilt and personal responsibility for the broader impact of their daily energy consumption habits. Heaven forbid that a hybrid owner should switch off their central air, or buy less disposable products, or use their car less, to help protect the environment.

I don't have any expertise in automotive technology, so I'll accept for the sake of argument that the author is right about how little improvement a hybrid gives. Even with that granted, though, his argument still misses an important element of the decision to buy a hybrid. The Prius and Escape, on which the 10% figure is based, are the first commercially available hybrids -- the Model Ts of energy-efficient cars, as it were. It would be shocking indeed if they represented the limits of what hybrid technology could achieve. So buying a hybrid is not merely about reducing your own environmental impact over the years you'll drive it. It's also about investing in a line of R&D. Hybrid technology will only improve if the first models, however primitive they may be, are commercially successful.

I certainly agree with the last paragraph I quoted -- I've written before about the dangers of expecting a simple technological fix to solve our environmental problems. But the article presents it as if there's some sort of trade-off between using a hybrid and making other environmentally-conscious decisions. There's no reason we can't do both, and it doesn't strike me as likely that the green fuzzies that come from owning a hybrid would contribute to making people complacent about their air conditioner use.
Stentor Danielson, 23:09, ,

16.11.04

Specter

Sam Rosenfeld says that "What the [Arlen] Specter flap really signifies is the final death throes of seniority as a potent institutional weapon and yardstick for power in the Senate." If so -- and I hope he's right, as I'm no fan of seniority -- that pretty much invalidates Specter's campaign, whose theme was "I'll have seniority."
Stentor Danielson, 09:25, ,

14.11.04

In Defense Of Left-Wing Blue

It's become de rigeur to complain about the fact that in the US, "red states" are conservative and "blue states" are liberal, despite the fact that through most of modern history and over most of the world, red was the color of the left. But I'd like to speak up in favor of the colors as they're used in the US.

First, there's a geographical issue: it seems that "Red also tends to make a space appear smaller while blue tends to enlarge a space." This is helpful in combatting the skewed sense of Republican dominance that arises from the red states being disproportionately larger territory-wise.

The colors also evoke emotions that, as I see it, align with the conventional wisdom about each party's ideology:

Red is the first primary color of the spectrum. It emotionally triggers the sense of power [which they have lots of now], impulsively, sexuality [sort of -- they do talk more about sex than the Democrats, but in a negative way] and increases one's appetite. Be careful how you use red. It can also shout anger, forcefulness, impatience, intimidation, conquest, violence and revenge [Iraq] toward your site visitors.

Blue is a primary color. It is the easiest color for the eyes to focus. It generates feelings of tranquility, love, acceptance, patience, understanding and cooperation [we're a bunch of bleeding-hearts]. Its negative qualities if used inappropriately are fear, coldness, passivity and depression [a pessimistic summary of the Kerry campaign]. Blue is a favorite color choice among all age groups [hey, anything that will improve our image ...].

Stentor Danielson, 09:53, ,