Fang calling the kettle glitzy

In his op-ed, “In glitzy shadows, a health reform foe lurks” (12/6/09) Lee Fang makes unfounded insinuations about a connection between David Koch and the John Birch Society, and attempts to create a conspiracy theory about right-wing billionaires “lurking in the shadows” attempting to influence policy. Does Fang think no one would notice that his employer, the Center for American Progress, was founded with seed money and is funded in part by left-wing billionaire activist George Soros?

Denying Climategate

Ellen Goodman’s main contribution to the global warming debate was her statement in a 2007 column that “global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers.” Unfortunately this defamatory word “denier” has become the accepted term for skeptic. Consider how nasty this accusation is. Climate scientists who question the political arguments of the IPCC, and ordinary people who are skeptical of the accuracy of 100-year weather forecasts are on a par with Nazi sympathizers and deniers of 6 million murders? The comparison is nonsensical as well. Denying a projected future event is not comparable to denying history.

The damaging Climategate emails have not settled the debate, but it is now impossible to claim, as Goodman did in 2007, that the science is “unequivocal.” One might hope for an apology from Goodman. Rather, in today’s “Facts, and Figures, Myths and Mantras,” she offers up a self-righteous defense of her journalistic integrity which continues the Globe’s news black-out of any mention of the Hadley scandal. Although Goodman touts her diligent fact-checking career, she admits, “I hold the lack of these truths to be self-evident.” Precisely. A journalist concerned with facts doesn’t make a lazy assumption like this.

The Moral of Fort Hood: watch out for those Christians

The Globe’s willful blindness toward Major Hasan’s ties to Islamic terrorism was disturbing. Today’s editorial “Welcome all faiths in uniform” (11/23/09) pushes the envelope of sanity; the lesson we are to learn from the Fort Hood massacre apparently is not a heightened awareness of the potential for violence from radicalized American Muslims. Rather we need to be on the watch for 1) “acts of intolerance” against Muslims and 2) “the proselytizing of service members by evangelical Christians.” When the media and General Casey communicate to the military that a “Team Jesus” banner in the locker room is a greater danger than a terrorist mass murderer in their midst, the result will be more murders of innocent people.

Shut up, he explained

Globe letter writer A. Dutton believes that it is “well-known” that President Obama is “willing to listen to others…almost to a fault.” Is she referring to the man who told Obamacare critics, “The time for bickering is over”? Who said, “I don't want the folks who created the mess to do a lot of talking. I want them just to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess. I don't mind cleaning up after them, but don't do a lot of talking.” When has the President ever listened to others?

Playground socialism

Steve Almond describes in the Globe how as a father he must teach his daughter to share the limited resources of the playground, and he concludes that playground rules about sharing have an “adult name: socialism.” What he describes however is not socialism but a benign monarchy, where a disinterested adult dictates behavior to his at times unruly subjects. A socialist playground would be one where a committee of children has the power to allocate swing and sandbox use. Utopians might imagine that such a place would be administered justly, and that the children’s central committee would not abuse its power. Those with a more realistic view of human nature would expect a re-enactment of Lord of the Flies.
Mr. Almond has it exactly backwards when he asserts that capitalism concentrates power among elites; resources do not redistribute themselves without human agency, which by necessity concentrates power in the hands of an elite that rarely can repulse the corruption of power.
The rare successful societies like Sweden that call themselves socialist are far outnumbered by socialism’s nightmarish failures: the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, Cambodia, etc. Socialism is the road to serfdom.

Hallelujah, it’s finally open!

RIght View:

“This new library is the community's gift to itself. Come enjoy what you have built!” -- Library Director Susan Flannery

By coincidence, the new Cambridge Main Library opened to the public on November 9, 2009, on the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. I visited the library to get a copy of Animal Farm to commemorate both events.

Entering the new “Glass” building has a very high wow factor. You could set up a high wire act in the main floor space. In a word, spectacular.

The modern library emphasizes its role as social center as much as quiet reading room. Whenever I visit the Watertown Library teen center it’s full of chattering teens, and the Cambridge architects have provided many public gathering places. The spaces are gorgeous--provided they are used to their full potential. It’s now the challenge of the library staff to justify our state-of-the-art 100-seat theatre two stories below ground by filling it with frequent events.

I imagined I would claim a cozy nook where I could curl up, but if you want cozy, you’re better off in the H.H. Richardson-inspired “Stone” building or in one of the branch libraries. Perhaps our homes fulfill the need for cozy spaces; we’re no longer escaping crowded tenement living to the quiet of a library.

What about the library’s cost? The final bill came in above $90 million or $900 a square foot for the 100,000 square foot building. Somehow the foxes guarding the henhouse allowed a 50% cost overrun above the 2006 estimate of $60 million. Is $900/sq. ft. expensive? Yes, it’s four and half times the average cost (around $200/sq. ft.) for college buildings in Boston in 2009, according to R.S. Means Construction Data.

The Chronicle quotes Councilor Ken Reeves, “it’s better than Newton’s library, which was the goal.” The Newton Free Library was completed in 1991 for $15.3 million, or $168 a square foot for its 91,000 square feet. Prices certainly have gone up since 1991, but 535 percent? Cambridge taxpayers should expect a better library for the money we spent, but is it better? I’m not sure how one would judge such a thing. Cambridge loses on one criterion: Newton has 578,000 volumes, Cambridge a mere 177,000. You do in fact sense this on walking in—great space, but where do they keep the books?

Was there ever any discussion of whether green LEED certification was worth the added cost? Using paint and non-toxic glues that don’t outgas volatile organic compounds is certainly worth the marginally higher cost for the materials. But did we spend money on non-essential items simply to be able to claim that we have a green building?

And even if the price is high, can we afford it? The price tag works out to $900 per Cambridge resident. For a family of four, that’s $3,600, or $180 a year over 20 years. Cambridge businesses will pick up part of the tab, and the State of Massachusetts kicked in $10 million. $180 a year isn’t enough by itself to bankrupt anyone. But then there’s that $120 million renovation of Rindge and Latin on the horizon. And Other Post Employment Benefits. Etc. Maybe it would have been wiser to buy the Ford Taurus, but the City Council bought the shiny new Mercedes, so we might as well take it for a drive.

We also have to pay to operate the place. The Main Branch budget is $5.5 million for FY2010, or $55 for every Cambridge resident. Not a bad deal, even for a small government conservative. Still, it’s worth pointing out that since 2008, the library budget has increased by $1.3 million, a rise of 32%. The increase is entirely in the “library-as-social-center” areas; while expenditures for Reference and Circulation (i.e., books) have remained flat, “Public Services” is up 90%, “Supportive Services” up 105% and “Computer tech services,” up 100%.

Which brings me to Animal Farm. The CPL has an amazing service that allows you to download audiobooks over the Internet, but after an hour on the Library website I had not downloaded a byte of Animal Farm. I went to the Reference desk for help where they told me they didn’t support Macintosh computers (not accurate). I was then told I was using the wrong browser (also incorrect—the wireless internet was down). In the end I gave up on the public option and paid $7.49 to Audiobooks. Did I mention—what a remarkable book!

Good old-fashioned freedom of speech

Steve Almond’s lack of self-awareness is truly staggering. On the one hand he seethes with ignorant rage and hatred for Rush Limbaugh and talk radio. His op-ed, with the snarky title, “Who’s afraid of big bad Fairness Doctrine” begins, “Of all the lies told by the pooh-bahs of talk radio…” and goes downhill from there. Other samples: “Talk radio hosts foment ignorant rage”; they are “extremists who broadcast inflammatory lies,” “fraudulent moralists” and “bullies.”

On the other hand Almond presents himself as an advocate of “good, old-fashioned freedom of speech.” The Fairness Doctrine simply seeks, he claims, “to force [talk radio hosts] to share their microphones with those who beg to differ, in reasoned tones, who recognize that the crises of any age warrant mature debate, not childish forms of denial.” (Exactly, I might add—when you “force” speech, it’s no longer free.)

I don’t see much “mature debate” is Steve Almond’s writing. But then again we shouldn’t expect much from the guy who quit his teaching job at Boston College when his protests failed to shut down the speech of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Sorry, Steve, someone who tries to shut up the people he disagrees with is a totalitarian, not a free speech advocate.

MIT’s Lindzen: CO2 has little effect on climate

Cambridge Chronicle 11/5/09

These are trying times for global warming activists. Despite years of work, people don’t seem to be listening. The Pew Research Center reported last week that only 36% of Americans believe that man causes global warming—down from 47% a year ago.

Climate scientists haven’t been listening to the mantra about the science being “settled.” This just in: In the August 2009 issue of Geophysical Research Letters, MIT’s Richard Lindzen and Yang-Sang Choi cast doubt on the IPCC climate models by revealing that “climate sensitivity” to things like CO2 is far lower than previously thought, therefore that carbon dioxide likely has negligible effect on the climate. If true, the entire global warming edifice crumbles.

The vast majority of “peer reviewed” studies offered as evidence for anthropogenic global warming document a 150-year long warming trend that no one denies (the glaciers are melting!), without analyzing the causes of warming. Many studies simply analyze potential catastrophic effects. The National Wildlife Federation (cited by the Cambridge Climate Protection Action Committee) cautions: “As the United States warms another 4 to 11 degrees on average over the next century, we will have more extremely hot summer days.” You don’t say. This is a tautology, not evidence.

To top it off, despite decades of conferences, millions of frequent flyer miles logged by green politicians and thousands of pages of climate treaties, those pesky CO2 emissions keep going up.

Cambridge is in similar straits. Despite the passage of our Climate Protection Program in 2002 that strived to lower CO2 emissions by 20% below 1990 levels, city-wide CO2 emissions for the period 1990 to 2010 are projected to increase by 29%.
Talk about “protecting the climate” didn’t seem to get results, so the rhetoric has been ratcheted up a notch. According to the Cambridge City Council, the School Committee and alarmed citizens at a hearing in September, Cambridge now faces a “Climate Emergency.”

The Climate Emergency Policy Order 17 is an official document, passed in May 2009, “recogniz[ing] that there is a climate emergency” and requesting the City Manager “to direct the appropriate city departments to increase the City's responses to a scale proportionate to the emergency.”

So, one might ask, if fear of global warming mobilizes people to work toward more efficient energy use and a cleaner environment, what’s the harm?

For one, attacking carbon-based energy is an attack on prosperity. Until we have a realistic alternative (current U.S. energy breakdown: fossil fuels 86%; wind 0.3%; solar 0.08%) limiting fossil fuels will make the world poorer, which will affect the world’s poor disproportionately. Global warming activists unwittingly abet human suffering.

On a local level, the Climate Protection Plan “failed” because Cambridge attracted robust development, in particular a significant investment in the biotech sector. Cambridge prospered, city government is flush and business property taxes keep residential rates the lowest in greater Boston.

Councillor Marjorie Decker commented at the Climate Emergency hearing: “There is the opportunity for Cambridge to maybe look at stricter guidelines…I’m never worried that a developer is going to be afraid to come into Cambridge because there’s another developer right in line waiting to get in here.”

This might be true in boom years, but is this a good time for “stricter guidelines” based on an irrational fear of carbon dioxide?
Secondly, global warming legislation is an attack on freedom.

City Councillor Craig Kelley and School Committee Member Patty Nolan (Chronicle letter, 10/15/09) offered a list of actions to tackle the climate emergency: “discourage car use,” “avoid long distance travel,” “give up meat,” “promote composting toilets,” “mandate following energy audit recommendations” and “radically change our consumption patterns.”

It’s one thing to change behavior through education and persuasion. But I sense a mood of frustration at the Climate Emergency hearing, a feeling that we tried to make these suggestions voluntary and we failed, so it’s time to go further. John Pitkin of the Mid-Cambridge Neighborhood Association called for “bold” action by the City, warning that, “these actions are going to affect people…Very likely they would include regulations.” Keren Schlomy of Green Decade Cambridge urged the city to pursue “home rule petitions to get authority to take actions that it doesn’t have now.”

Is this where we are headed? Bans on long distance travel, like in the Soviet Union? Mandatory vegetarianism within city limits? It sounds farfetched, but British legislators have already proposed carbon ration cards, whereby Big Brother would monitor and limit carbon consumption. Under the Markey-Waxman Climate Bill, you have to pass an energy audit before the federal government allows you to sell your house.

I am alarmed, not by a climate catastrophe, but by the harm that might be done by well-intentioned people in the name of saving us from carbon dioxide.

Motivational speaker

Anita Dunn called Mao Zedong one of her "favorite political philosophers" and "one of the people I turn to most." Thomas Frank however believes Ms. Dunn is above reproach because she quoted "one of those Mao Zedong aphorisms that wouldn't look out of place on a motivational poster" ("Glenn Beck's Hotline to Nowhere, 11/4/09). By this logic we cannot criticize a neo-Nazi who loves Hitler because Hitler told children to eat their vegetables. What kind of moral cretin excuses a mass murderer because he once said something motivational?

Worse than Serial Murderers

I hope Mr. Gabler feels better after his temper tantrum where he calls investment bankers "sociopaths," worse than rapists or serial murderers ("The Gaggle of Economic Sociopaths," 10/31/09). Doesn't Mr Gabler realize that the "subprime mortgage pushers" were Barney Frank and Chris Dodd? And doesn't...oh, never mind. It's pointless to argue with a two year old.

Thomas Franks

It doesn't require a conspiracy theory to recognize that President Obama wants to change this country-it was written in capital letters on his campaign posters. It is not paranoid, as Thomas Frank charges, to oppose this change ("From John Birchers to Birthers," 10/21/09).

As to Mr Franks specific accusations:

If you don't think that American educators are indoctrinating our children, you obviously don't have school-age kids.

The "birther" theory is not "widespread" as Mr. Frank claims. It is a distraction from the radical destructive change that the President is attempting to ram through Congress before he loses his legislative majority in 2010.

Mr. Frank snickers about a secret plot to march the U.S. into Soviet-style Communism. There is nothing secret about President Obama's desire to expand government into every aspect of our lives, to raise taxes to European levels to fund his schemes, and to end American exceptionalism by submitting to the dictates of the "world community" on global warming, nuclear disarmament, etc. A Communist dictator putting jackboots on America's streets is a straw man. Isn't the "Internationale" a more fitting anthem for such a President?

Portraying the political opposition as an angry paranoid fringe is a tactic to shut down dialogue. It is unworthy of our democracy.

PC NFL

Your editorial "Limbaugh: Socialism on the 50 yard line" (10/16/09) scrupulously avoids any mention of the facts of the story: a blogger inventing racist quotes and placing them on Rush's Wikipedia page. Dozens of public figures, including--naturally--Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, repeating these slanderous lies. The mainstream media then playing along without bothering to undertake the most basic Journalism 101 fact-checking of sources, showing itself to be a willing accomplice to slanderers and race hustlers. Mainstream journalism had little defense against charges of liberal bias, but rather than attempting to salvage your credibility by standing up for professional ethics, you amuse your readers with a too cute by half comparison of the NFL to socialism and by ridiculing Rush as a conspiracy nut ("to Rush Limbaugh, everything looks like a vast left-wing conspiracy.") No wonder Rush said, "our country has lost a great deal.’’

Flip-flopping

Marilyn Mason accuses the “right wing” of “flip-flopping” in the reactions to the Olympics and the Nobel Peace Prize stories (Letter, 10/10/09). It is however entirely consistent if you are negative on Obama to take a negative view of his success with the Nobel and a positive view of his failure with the Olympic bid; a positive times a negative and a negative times a positive both equal a negative. Apparently they don't teach logic at the Indoctrination U.

City Council Ponders Resolution to Close Pandora’s Box

Following the recent “longwinded” City Council debate on abolishing nuclear weapons (“Nuke talk sparks heated Cambridge council debate,” Chronicle 9/23/09), the Chronicle posted an online poll, asking, “Would you support a ballot question calling for the end of nuclear weapons?”

At the time of writing, the landslide poll winner, with 62% of the vote, is the obvious (and irritated) question, “Why is the City Council talking about this again?” Apparently Cantabrigians have sufficient common sense to realize that nuclear proliferation is not an appropriate topic for a City Council, which just might want to focus on the challenges facing our fair City. The last time I checked, President Obama, and Senators Kerry and Kirk were still in office and fully authorized to deal with national issues.

Councilor Marjorie Decker’s counter-argument is that “municipalities around the country and around the world … have been able to hold the international community to a higher standard.” I have great respect for grassroots citizens’ groups who participate in national politics. The tea party protesters, for instance.

But wait a minute—the City of Cambridge is not a grassroots group. What exactly is Councilor Decker talking about? Despite her delusions of grandeur, she is still only a City Councilor (and perhaps not for much longer). The Constitution clearly delegates national defense to the federal government. City government has a charter from the state, permitting it to collect taxes for municipal needs, not to advise the President on foreign policy. A President who, by the way, as the Chronicle points out, “has already publicly stated his goal to negotiate a treaty to abolish nuclear weapons.” I somehow doubt that he breathes a sigh of relief each time he receives a missive from the City Councilors: “Ah, yes, Cambridge has spoken. I can finally act!”
In addition to being a pointless, feel-good gesture, the ballot question would cost Cambridge taxpayers around $35,000. This is really a subsidy to Massachusetts Peace Action, the Cambridge-based chapter of Peace Action that requested the ballot question. If they want to send a message to the President, why don’t they collect signatures and pay for their own survey? Councilor Decker refers to Peace Action as “citizens”—constituents who deserve representation. No, they are a non-profit advocacy group engaged in lobbying for legislative change. What about all the other essential causes that Cambridge residents might feel passionately about? Global warming? World hunger? $35,000 is a significant contribution to a small non-profit. Why should the City Councilors choose Peace Action above any other advocacy group? Why should the City Council choose any non-profit over adequately funding its pension and health-care obligations? Massachusetts Peace Action should address its advocacy to the federal government and leave our City Council to deal with the business at hand. Perhaps a “longwinded” discussion of our completely unfunded $602 million liability for Other Post Employment Benefits? If our City Council has nothing better to do with its time, are we allowed to ask why we budget $1.46 million for their salaries and expenses?

And just think of all the other things we could do with $35,000, such as hiring a tutor to work in one of Cambridge’s under-performing schools. Then again, priority would likely be given to funding one third of a new position of Administrative Assistant for Administration. Not counting retirement and health care benefits through 2069. Perhaps it would be worth $35,000 to see how many Cambridge residents believe in the tooth fairy.

This brings us to a second question, which seems to have not been raised in this debate: is it a good idea to abolish nuclear weapons?

Perhaps the most frightening line of the Chronicle article is Councilor David Maher’s statement that the ballot to abolish nuclear weapons “is going to pass in the city by a huge percentage.” Are the intelligent people of Cambridge really that naive?

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty has serious flaws, but its three pillars—non-proliferation, good-faith arms reduction talks and peaceful use of nuclear power—are worthwhile goals. President Obama and Massachusetts Peace Action however are advocating the far more dangerous and utopian goal of outright abolition of nuclear arms. I rather doubt the world will be a safer place if rogue nations have nuclear arms and we do not.

Nuclear arms technology has escaped Pandora’s box. No City Council resolution can get it back in.

Palin 1, Globe 0

Apparently your editorial board couldn't find anything in Sarah Palin's Hong Kong speech to criticize, but you felt obliged to uphold your editorial mission of disparaging her at every opportunity. The best you could come up with was a feeble insinuation that there was something unethical about the fact that...she got paid to give her speech? Don't people speaking to 1,100 bankers usually get paid?

You further mention twice this tricky "operator" "took home a bundle" from a "Communist" country, as if no one in Communist countries earns money. I wonder who's driving all those Mercedes and BMWs in China?

You also find fault with Palin because, unlike our craven Secretary of State, she criticized Beijing for its military buildup. If President Obama did so, you would praise him for speaking truth to power. Instead you hint that there's something unseemly about criticizing the government of the country where a private organization is paying you a speaking fee.

To top it off, you admit that you don't even know how much she was paid, so your entire argument based on speculation.

Palin 1, Globe 0.

Extreme Republicans

I agree with Neal Gabler ("The Extreme Republican Party, 9/12/09) that our political system benefits from having two parties with opposing ideological foundations. Mr Gabler, however, like too many of his fellow Democrats, approaches debate on current issues with an unfortunate extremism of his own. Rather than discuss global warming or the appropriate role of the federal government in end of life care, he labels any dissenters to the party line as deranged and beyond the pale. The President's health care address to Congress evidenced a similar self-righteous inflexibility toward dialogue: I'm right, you're wrong, so don't do a lot of talking and get out of the way of progress. And Mr. Gabler accuses Republicans of knowing only "how to polarize"?

Bickering

The Globe headline this morning reports that according to President Obama, "The Time for Bickering is Over." Bickering is what we used to call the legislative process, back when we had leaders who believed in democracy.

What’s the Rush?

Things are built in China at an incredible pace. Need a new airport expressway for the Olympics? Done. Decide to create a new economic zone in Shanghai across the river with skyscrapers that rival Manhattan? Done. Projects the size of the Big Dig are no big deal.

On the other hand, consider the Walden Street Bridge in Cambridge. In the 1990s, engineers noticed that the 86-foot long two-lane bridge needed repair. A public meeting was held in April 2000, construction began six years later in October 2006, and the bridge reopened last December after over two years of construction.

This lethargic pace was disruptive for the neighborhood and commuters who use Walden Street, and it’s frustrating for the rest of us. Can’t we get things done in Cambridge efficiently, like they do in China?

This problem of bureaucratic stagnation is an argument used by both the left and right to advocate for pushing control in different directions.

Advocates for small government argue for greater local control, as Mark Steyn does in his wonderful anecdote about two bridges in his New Hampshire town. On the first, the town waited six years for State funds to cover 80% of the cost and saw their 20% share increase to more than the original 100% estimate. When another bridge needed repair, the town hired a local contractor and paid for the entire project. It was completed in two months and cost 1/14th of the State estimate.

Advocates for greater federal control—in particular, our new President--attempt to focus the frustration with government sluggishness to generate excitement about “getting things done.” The metaphor of bridge repairs is wrongly applied to all manner of legislative fixes—it’s broken, the solution is obvious, let’s just get it done! After all, a country that put a man on the moon can fix our broken health care system.

“Legislative logjams” however are not the same as bridge repairs. The solution to complex problems is rarely so obvious that no discussion is required.

Tom Friedman refers to this as the “China for a day” solution. Wouldn’t it be nice, he muses, to have an authoritarian government for a day that could simply pass, for example, global warming legislation by fiat. To his credit, Friedman replies that no, it would not be a good idea.

It pains me to defend red tape, but there are legitimate reasons why it takes longer to get things done here than in China.
No doubt we could curtail the six-year public comment period on an 86-foot bridge. Perhaps a fact-finding trip to Minneapolis is in order, where, as others have pointed out, the I-35 Mississippi River Bridge was entirely rebuilt in 13 months. But unlike authoritarian states, a democratic state requires a period where citizens can voice concerns before their money is spent. Walden Street abutters had a say in detour routes and work hours. Facing further delay, the neighborhood agreed to expand construction hours.

Anguishing as it is at times, this process is an integral part of the representative government that the Founders envisioned—a system where checks and balances slow down rash decisions. The U.S. Senate is known as the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body. To deliberate: “engage in long and careful consideration.” Legislating was intended to be cumbersome. Once a law, a new agency, or a new tax is created, it’s not easy to get rid of it.

Our President however is a man in a rush. First, the Stimulus and its clones. Then Cap and Trade. Finally, Obamacare, a thousand pages of legislation that the President wanted passed in three weeks.

When it looked like the health care timetable was in trouble, the President issued this chilling statement: “I don’t want the folks who created the mess do a lot of talking. I want them to get out of the way so we can clean up the mess.”

If this sounds like a quote that MoveOn.Org might have invented to paint President Bush as a tyrant, go watch Obama on YouTube. The mess? Get out of the way? No talking allowed? These are the words of a man who has little faith in democracy.
I can imagine how the Obama Bridge and Tunnel Authority might have handled the Walden Street Bridge: “You folks in your SUVs messed things up and we’ve got to clean up after you so we’re building a billion dollar tunnel from Raymond Park to Mass Ave. Now get out of the way and don’t do a lot of talking.”

City to Purchase Renewable Energy Indulgences

The Chronicle reports that “Over the years, Cambridge has implemented elements of a climate protection plan, with goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the community’s carbon footprint”
(Chronicle 5/13/09).

As noted on the City website, “in 1999, the City Council passed a resolution to join the Cities for Climate Protection (CCP), a campaign of ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability.” Since then, “Climate Protection Initiatives” have flourished, including the Cambridge Energy Alliance, Team GreenSense, GoGreen Month and the GoGreen Awards, Green Decade/Cambridge, the Cambridge Climate Leader Program, the EcoTeam Pilot Project, etc. Cambridge also collaborates with regional and statewide efforts like the Mass Energy Consumers Alliance, Renewable Energy Trust, Massachusetts Interfaith Power & Light, Solar Boston, New England Wind Fund and Commonwealth Solar.

The City’s Climate Protection Plan (it’s an official plan, complete with a beautifully designed 120-page book available on the City website) is run by the Department of Community Development, which in FY10 has a budget of $5.06 million. A million dollars of this budget is allocated to the Environmental and Transportation section, of which an unspecified portion goes to Climate Protection. The Plan contains a number of sensible programs: promoting energy efficient buildings, encouraging city employees to turn off lights in empty rooms, planting trees, for example.

It seems that Cambridge is already doing quite a lot to protect us from the climate. (Or is it to protect the climate from us?)
City Councilor Henrietta Davis stated to the Chronicle, however, that present efforts are “not enough. We have to do more.” Why, given the success of the green agenda in Cambridge, would Councilor Davis appear frustrated by the lack of progress?
According to Councilor Davis’s website, Cambridge has “adopted the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80%.” In the real world, reducing 80% of CO2 emissions is not realistic, and if any coalition gains sufficient political power to impose it on the world it will cause massive economic disruption, bringing suffering disproportionately to the world’s poor nations. Furthermore, even this drastic curtailment of carbon-based energy will have little effect on global warming. Manmade CO2 accounts for a miniscule one tenth of one percent of greenhouse gasses; 95% is water vapor, which to date has escaped regulatory efforts.

The Cambridge Climate Protection Plan proposes a more realistic GHG Reduction Strategy of “purchas[ing] 20% of electricity from green power sources.”

There’s one difficulty with this goal. As the Plan notes: “Currently, the availability of renewable energy supplies in New England is very limited.” To give an idea of scale: one of the City’s goals under the Cambridge Energy Alliance is “to reduce energy demand by 50 megawatts to bring its peak electricity demand down to approximately 300 megawatts”—or 300 million watts. A solar energy project in Porter Square commended by the Plan has photovoltaic panels rated at 20 KW, or 20,000 watts. Even at 100% efficiency (in New England, 40% is more likely), Cambridge would need at least 15,000 Porter Square sized installations to supply its peak electrical power. By contrast, the natural gas power plant in Charlton has an output of 360 MW, enough to meet peak demand in Cambridge.

Regarding municipal usage: City Hall and thirteen other city buildings use 3.7 million kilowatt hours of electricity per year, while the Porter Square solar panels generate 22,000 kwh per year; thus it would require 170 solar installations to power municipal buildings, or 34 such arrays to provide 20% green electricity.

I don’t doubt that solar power has a role to play in our future energy mix. The day may come when all new construction uses solar panels as roofing material, but at present there is basically no green electricity for Cambridge to buy. The only solution, as the budget states, is the “purchase of renewable energy certificates.” Rather than buy non-existent electricity from solar and wind generation, Cambridge donates money to a non-profit called the Conservation Services Group, which according to their website, ”work[s] with renewable generators to capture value in the emerging, expanding regional REC markets. And we help energy consumers access the RECs they need.” It all seems a bit vague. What exactly do we accomplish with Cambridge tax money?

These RECs have been compared to medieval indulgences, which allow a sinner to purchase absolution. Even if the REC market is an effective means of encouraging struggling solar and wind power entrepreneurs, why is our City making donations on our behalf? Shouldn’t we as individuals decide which non-profits we’d like to support?

“Death of Environmentalism” Author at the Cambridge Forum

The Cambridge Forum--“bringing people together to talk” for 42 years—is an amazing local resource. Last week the speaker was self-described “provocateur” Michael Schellenberger, author (with Ted Nordhaus) of the controversial essay titled “The Death of Environmentalism.”

Schellenberger delivered what a friend who joined me called “a tour de force.” He was frequently challenged during the Q&A, and he held his ground with admirable diplomacy. The talk was videotaped and will be available soon on the WGBH Forum Network website.

Schellenberger and Nordhaus’s argument is summarized by the section titles of their 2007 book, Breakthrough: they reject “The Politics of Limits,” and advocate for “The Politics of Possibility.”

The authors question the effectiveness of “environmental tales of tragedy” told by Rachel Carson and others as quasi-religious narratives that begin with unspoiled Nature as paradise, which is then destroyed by fallen man’s over-consumption and materialism, and finally redeemed by sacrifice; limits to growth, sustainability, recycling, “another way,” “learning to live with less” become paths to salvation.

Schellenberger argues that only a wealthy society that has taken care of the material needs of its citizens can spend money on “post-material needs”—quality of life issues like clean air and clean water. Thus the earlier (and very real) successes of the environmental movement were due more to post-war prosperity than to the dissemination of an eco-tragedy narrative.
In the current global warming discussion, Schellenberger argues that anthropogenic global warming poses a significant threat to the planet, but he observes that the apocalyptic rhetoric of Al Gore, James Hansen, and mainstream environmental groups has only produced fatalism, apathy and little progress toward the goal of reducing CO2.

The authors note that focusing on limiting CO2 by limiting growth and energy use is advocated only by the world’s wealthiest people, environmentalists who have all their material needs met by the energy expenditures of the past. Rather than pursue the unrealistic goal of preventing the developing world from attaining the benefits in health, education, and material comfort that come with energy use, we should address global warming by developing carbon-free energy with the help of large government investment in research and development.

Thus we should abandon what he calls the “pollution paradigm” and adopt a politics of possibility, the belief that a breakthrough to new cheap zero-carbon energy sources is possible—and essential for our survival.

Schellenberger made cogent arguments for government support of energy R&D, claiming that the development of the computer chip and the Internet were assisted by government support—largely from the military. He proposes a mere $30 to $50 billion annual investment—pocket change in the Age of Obama. He noted that venture capitalists hope to get one success for every nineteen failed investments, so government money picking winners ought to be a workable model.

Although I was impressed with Michael Schellenberger’s intelligence and much of his analysis, I don’t agree with his foundational premise, that CO2 must be limited if we are to survive. This is not mere willful blindness as many AGW acolytes accuse; 31,000 scientists have signed the Petition Project statement that “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide…is causing…catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere.” If CO2 and carbon content dominate our energy decisions, we end up making bad choices. We label natural gas a dirty fuel, but wood “bio-fuel”--clear-cutting forests and burning millions of trees--is by some pretzel logic considered “green”? Rather than carbon footprints, we should consider development footprints and ask if covering millions of acres with switchgrass, solar panels, wind farms and long-distance transmission lines is more environmentally sound than the minimal disturbance caused by offshore drilling platforms and nuclear power plants.

In addition, I wonder if government-run R&D will lead to the next Internet, as Schellenberger hopes, or simply to more ethanol boondoggles. I believe in human ingenuity but any technology can be made into a winner with enough government subsidy.

The special interest groups, lobbyists and businesses slurping at the government trough make it nearly impossible to declare a loser a loser.

Developing new energy sources is a good idea for many reasons, and government-funded R&D can clearly play a role, but none of the current “alternative” energy sources except nuclear power show even a remote potential for replacing the world’s huge supplies of cheap carbon-based energy. Oil, gas and coal will continue to bring prosperity to the globe for at least the next century. We need everything out there: R&D, baby, R&D, and wind farms in North Dakota and new transmission lines through my back yard and cheap solar roofing panels. Increase efficiency everywhere, but also build nuclear plants and mine oil shale and don’t forget, drill, baby, drill.

Hysteria

Rick Bass reviews EARLY SPRING: An Ecologist and Her Children Wake to a Warming World By Amy Seidl

"Early Spring" is the kind of book we'll be seeing more of, as the natural world tilts, sags, slumps, and burns, growing ever-more heated, and with biology's whispered promises of impermanence dialed up to a such a volume now that even those who might not wish to consider such things can hear them roaring in the near distance.

What evidence is there of this tilting, sagging, slumping and burning, you may ask?

In Vermont, a freak storm rips the limbs from the maple trees, daffodils emerge early, winter grass remains green deep through autumn and into winter, and bobolinks decline.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Has neither of these people ever seen a storm knock down a tree branch, or daffodils covered with snow?

Joan Vennochi admits that the image of the "adorable" Obama family is "managed expertly by the White House with help from the media." She also admits that Sarah Palin's family life "brings baggage that is especially difficult for a female candidate to overcome." But this female member of the press is happy to help out with the media manipulation of the Obama image, and happy to make life more difficult for a female politician. She has compiled a snarky repetition of old baggage about Sarah Palin. An absurd internet rumor from last summer about Palin's Down's Syndrome daughter. Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's father's legal difficulties. Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend's sister calling the Palin family "white trash" (so Vennochi doesn't have to say what she's obviously thinking.) At the same time, we hear about the "adorable First Puppy" and "adorable First Daughters" but none of Obama's baggage that is far more damaging than anything brought up about Palin--Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.--things actually connected to the President and not to people two degrees removed from him.

Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.

Palin Bashing is a fun elitist sport

Joan Vennochi (Globe, 5/7/09) admits that the image of the "adorable" Obama family is "managed expertly by the White House with help from the media." She also admits that Sarah Palin's family life "brings baggage that is especially difficult for a female candidate to overcome." But this female member of the press is happy to help out with the media manipulation of the Obama image, and happy to make life more difficult for a female politician. She has compiled a snarky repetition of old baggage about Sarah Palin. An absurd internet rumor from last summer about Palin's Down's Syndrome daughter. Sarah Palin's daughter's ex-boyfriend's father's legal difficulties. Bristol Palin's ex-boyfriend's sister calling the Palin family "white trash" (so Vennochi doesn't have to say what she's obviously thinking.) At the same time, we hear about the "adorable First Puppy" and "adorable First Daughters" but none of Obama's baggage that is far more damaging than anything brought up about Palin--Tony Rezko, Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, etc.--things actually connected to the President and not to people two degrees removed from him.

Although Sarah Palin's conservative politics offends more liberals than conservatives, the primary response to her is class-based; both liberal and conservative elites see her as white trash, while ordinary working people connect with her as a reflection of themselves. When elitists look down their noses at Palin, it only consolidates her support among many voters.

Manure eating conservatives

There’s a saying I’ve heard from Dennis Prager on talk radio: conservatives think liberals are wrong, but liberals think conservatives are evil. I’ve always found this to be a bit simplistic and exaggerated. Surely my Cambridge neighbors don’t think I’m evil because I disagree with them on the role of the government. But then I happened upon Mitchell E. Nelin’s letter in the Chronicle, who accuses conservatives of sympathizing with slavery, being ignorant, fearful of education and “thriving on a diet of manure.” Good grief, Mitchell, we’re not that bad. I don’t know a single conservative in Cambridge who approves of slavery, and I for one do not eat manure. Is this your idea of tolerance, dialogue and bipartisanship? Speaking of education, I seem to recall that both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were Republicans, and it was the southern Democrats—not Republicans—who voted en masse against the Civil Rights Act. Educate thyself.

letter to the Chronicle

There’s a saying I’ve heard from Dennis Prager on talk radio: conservatives think liberals are wrong, but liberals think conservatives are evil. I’ve always found this to be a bit simplistic and exaggerated. Surely my Cambridge neighbors don’t think I’m evil because I disagree with them on the role of the government. But then I happened upon Mitchell E. Nelin’s letter in the Chronicle, who accuses conservatives of sympathizing with slavery, being ignorant, fearful of education and “thriving on a diet of manure.” Good grief, Mitchell, we’re not that bad. I don’t know a single conservative in Cambridge who approves of slavery, and I for one do not eat manure. Is this your idea of tolerance, dialogue and bipartisanship? Speaking of education, I seem to recall that both Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. were Republicans, and it was the southern Democrats—not Republicans—who voted en masse against the Civil Rights Act. Educate thyself.

The Right to Be Heard

Professor Nadle argues in “Will Obama be a n0-go to racism conference” (4/13/09) that the U.S. should attend the upcoming U.N. racism conference, even though it promises to be another hate-fest with human rights paragons like Libya, Cuba and Algeria issuing statements criticizing the human rights records of Israel and America—alone among nations. Although she admits that some of the statements from the 2001 conference in Durban were “ugly” and “anti-Semitic,” she claims it is wrong to limit “people's right to speak their feelings and be heard.”

I believe in free speech as well—for instance, the right of Geert Wilders to show his film criticizing Islam, and in freedom of the press—the right for Danish newspapers to publish cartoons.

No one is trying to limit anyone’s right to speak at the conference; the anti-Semitic carnival will go on whether or not the United States attends.

But if we offer anti-Semites the microphone, no corresponding right exists to “be heard.” Colin Powell did the right thing to walk out of the 2001 conference and President Obama is doing the right thing to stay home.

Spewing CO2

Scott Paul’s letter “Think of Carbon Law’s World Impact" (4/1/09) confuses two related but distinct issues: air pollution and climate change. He states that, “Air pollution causes 750,000 premature deaths in China, while 25% of the particulate matter over Los Angeles originates in China, which has become the world's largest carbon emitter.” Some particulate matter (soot and ash from burning coal, for example) contains carbon, but a carbon footprint is a measure of greenhouse gas emissions, specifically carbon dioxide, not of solid particles. CO2 is essential for plant life and non-toxic to humans, and has not caused a single premature death. If breathing carbon dioxide causes cancer, we’re all doomed.



The only danger presented by CO2, which led to the Supreme Court decision—mistaken in my opinion—to classify it as an air pollutant, are future dangers, the potential to harm future generations by its unproven contribution to rising global temperature. Spending money to reduce particulate air pollution makes sense, but obsessing over a harmless ubiquitous form of carbon in CO2 is, in the memorable phrase of the Journal editors, a form of climate neurosis.

Divided We Stand

Most of Sam Haselby’s “Divided We Stand” (Globe Ideas, 3/22/09) presents an excellent history of, as his subtitle calls it, “the problem with bipartisanship.” In his concluding paragraphs however his own partisanship for Barack Obama undermines his credibility. He starts to go off the rails by including the 2002 Iraq War resolution with slavery and Japanese internment camps as “shameful episodes” with bipartisan support. This is not a historian speaking but an anti-war advocate.

More egregious is Haselby’s blindness to the hypocrisy in President Obama’s use of the bipartisan card; Obama talks about ending the old divisive ways, but the President seems to believe that since he won the election, he doesn’t have to compromise. It’s my way or the highway. Let the losers reach across the aisle.

Haselby calls partisanship “strong and critical advocacy that opens public debate,” but when he analyzes the current debate over the stimulus bill, he sees Republican partisanship as “squabbling,” while Obama’s partisanship presents “the best—or the only—solutions for the crisis facing the nation.” Open public debate does not flourish when one side is convinced they have all the answers.

my way or the highway

Most of Sam Haselby’s “Divided We Stand” (Ideas, 3/22/09) presents an excellent history of, as his subtitle calls it, “the problem with bipartisanship.” In his concluding paragraphs however his own partisanship for Barack Obama undermines his credibility. He starts to go off the rails by including the 2002 Iraq War resolution with slavery and Japanese internment camps as “shameful episodes” with bipartisan support. This is not a historian speaking but an anti-war advocate.

More egregious is Haselby’s blindness to the hypocrisy in President Obama’s use of the bipartisan card; Obama talks about ending the old divisive ways, but the President seems to believe that since he won the election, he doesn’t have to compromise. It’s my way or the highway. Let the losers reach across the aisle.

Haselby calls partisanship “strong and critical advocacy that opens public debate,” but when he analyzes the current debate over the stimulus bill, he sees Republican partisanship as “squabbling,” while Obama’s partisanship presents “the best—or the only—solutions for the crisis facing the nation.” Open public debate does not flourish when one side is convinced they have all the answers.

letter to the Chronicle

I’d like to express solidarity with the organizers of the protest against the Westboro Baptist Church demonstration (Cambridge Chronicle, 3/19/09). Any decent person—irrespective of the debate on gay marriage—recoils at Westboro’s harassment of high school students and their protests at military funerals with signs rejoicing in the death of American soldiers as divine retribution for America’s tolerance of gays.

I’d also like to point out that Westboro is a non-partisan offender; they have been universally denounced by all parts of the political spectrum, including, among many others, conservative radio/television hosts Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly. The issue Westboro raises is not conservative vs. liberal politics, but common decency vs. hate-filled demagoguery.

Exploding toasters

Obama made an interesting comment in his Leno interview:

When you buy a toaster, if it explodes in your face there's a law that says your toasters need to be safe. But when you get a credit card, or you get a mortgage, there's no law on the books that says if that explodes in your face financially, somehow you're going to be protected.

While it's true that some people get in over their heads with debt and deserve a second chance, i.e., declaring bankruptcy, Obama doesn't seem to be aware of the difference between a faulty toaster and a maxed out credit card. The consumer has no way of controlling the manufacture of a toaster, but he should be responsible for his decisions to purchase too much on credit, whether it be a house or a flat screen television. In Obama's vision, we are children who must be protected by the government.

And by the way, do toasters explode?

RAT

According to the Globe, "Obama has continued to stress the importance of community service by promoting federal programs such as Renew America Together." An entity that would chose a name whose acronym is RAT doesn't inspire much confidence.

The Helping Industry

The Boston Globe highlighted the careers of three community organizers in this story:
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/articles/2009/03/10/organized__energized/?page=2
One is an ex-con who is Boston City Councilor Chuck Turner’s Director of Constituent Services. His job sounds reasonable enough, despite the nutcase politics of his boss—but he seems more like a city employee than a community organizer.

Another example is the Phillips Exeter & Wesleyan graduate who “leads a program that uses hip-hop to teach about sustainability.” No comment.

The lead story is more disturbing:

Penn Loh was a star MIT electrical engineering student from the Pennsylvania suburbs on "a model minority track," he says, when he heard the call of community service.

A talented Chinese-American student pursuing a lucrative career in a scientific profession, Loh had just begun an internship at Draper Laboratory, which works on defense projects. The position was the outcome of winning a spot in a competitive electrical engineering program that would allow him to get a bachelor's and master's degree in five years. That same semester he took a class on intellectuals and social responsibility. The more Loh heard in that class, the more his job at Draper Labs made him uncomfortable.

"I was questioning the value of the work I was doing," says Loh, 40.

Loh quit the internship and finished his years as an electrical engineering student participating in anti-apartheid rallies and other social justice issues. He began working at Alternatives for Community & Environment in 1996. Until he left at the end of February, he had been the organization's executive director for the past nine years. Through ACE, Loh has advocated for better, more affordable subway service. ACE also looks for opportunities to redevelop abandoned buildings in a green and sustainable manner that will produce jobs and ownership opportunities.

Perhaps Mr. Loh finds satisfaction in his current employment. It would be presumptuous to tell him he should have stuck with the internship at Draper.

But in general, it seems like a bad idea to convince “star MIT electrical engineers” that they are of more value to society by becoming “advocates” for things like “affordable subway service.” This is the paradigm advanced by Michelle Obama, when she told college students “to move out of the money-making industry into the helping industry”:

Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that.

Teachers and nurses, to be sure. But how many hip-hop sustainability educators do we as a society need?

One Man’s Pork is Another’s Economic Stimulus

Cambridge Chronicle:
The authors of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a.k.a., the Stimulus Bill, neglected to affix one of those nutritional breakdown stickers, leaving its pork percentage in dispute. The manufacturer, Pelosi-Reid & Co., insists that their product contains no more than 1% pork – a mere $8.38 billion of unnecessary spending, or the equivalent of the GDP of Burkina Faso. Conservatives have suggested that the breakdown of the “porkulus” bill is closer to 95% pork, 5% stimulus spending.
It seems that the bipartisan era President Obama was going to usher in never quite got off the ground. Conservatives maintain that big government by definition is full of inefficiency, corruption, metastasizing bureaucracy, special interest earmarks, sweetheart pension deals and funding for bridges to nowhere. President Obama on the other hand introduced a new definition of pork, declaring to an audience of Virginia Democrats that stimulus and government spending are one and the same. In other words, all pork is good pork. Which would mean there’s no such thing as pork. “That’s the whole point,” the President remarked peevishly to those who might differ.
Republicans who attempt to contain the spending forest fire are criticized as if they are anarchists. Paul Krugman, for one, claims that we need to expand government from its current 36% of GDP because if we didn’t have air traffic controllers, our airplanes would crash into each other. This is a straw man argument; not even the most libertarian-minded conservative wants to eliminate air traffic control, police or firefighting.
In theory, good government should provide only services that “promote the general welfare,” in the phrase of the Preamble to our Constitution. It turns that the general welfare is not always easily defined, since no public spending benefits every member of the public. People without children might ask how public schools benefit them. Essential national defense projects become labeled as pork when they benefit the Congressional district of defense contractors who make big campaign contributions.
Some examples clearly violate the general welfare standard. The Chronicle recently reported that our taxes paid for Mayor Denise Simmons to travel to a black lesbian conference in Las Vegas. How exactly did this benefit the general welfare of Cambridge taxpayers as opposed to the special interests of the black lesbian population?
My Republican colleague Salim Kawabat recently published a Right View column proposing that Cambridge do more to improve biking in our fair city. I found the idea sensible. I ride a bicycle and I have often wondered why it’s so difficult to get from the Minuteman Bikeway to the bike paths on the Charles River. Why doesn’t someone fix this? But is this just another example of big government earmark spending? One might argue that this would benefit only the special interest group of bicyclists. But one could make just as sound a case for the benefits to the general welfare. If commuters switch from cars to bicycles, traffic congestion is eased. Fewer cars means less noise and air pollution, which improves the general welfare of pedestrians. Furthermore, quality of life improvements to a city serve to attract people (i.e., taxpayers) to shop, dine or move here.
Similarly Vince Dixon’s recent Right View column was enthusiastic about the revitalization that would come from rebuilding local infrastructure like the Charles River bridges. Roads and bridges clearly benefit the general welfare, and you don’t save money by not maintaining them. I’m not as convinced as Vince that maintenance work on existing assets will stimulate economic growth, but that question divides the world’s best economists.
In his inaugural address, the President’s first criterion of government that “works” was “whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage.” A month later at a town hall meeting in Fort Myers, a young man took him at his word and asked the President what he was going to do about his crummy job at McDonald’s. Another woman asked the President for a new kitchen—and was promptly given a new house.
This is special interest lobbying for an interest group of one. Government not as promoter of the general welfare but guarantor of individual welfare. Pork is too kind a word.

With Science on Their Side

The Globe delights in reminding us that George Bush ignored Science to promote his partisan and destructive agenda, while Obama will restore Science to its rightful place. Most recently, your Sunday editorial slipped in a crack on a piece about Obama not wearing a suit in the Oval Office: "The Bush White House may have been decked out in sartorial splendor, but that didn't translate into respect for science, the environment, or the Constitution."

I find this appeal to the authority of science disingenuous. The debate over issues like global warming, stem cell research or safe levels of arsenic in our drinking water are a little bit about science and a lot about politics—enacting legislation and spending public funds. The same facts can lead to opposite conclusions regarding the appropriate political responses. If Democrats claim they have scientific truth on their side rather than defending the merits of, for example, proposed global warming legislation, they are not respecting science; they are exploiting the image of science to cover partisan advocacy.

Heating the outdoors

Eric J. Chiassen believes that wasted heat from things like our light bulbs will lead to a global warming Armageddon (“The other global warming” 1/25/09). When I was a kid, if I left the door open in the winter my mother would yell, “What are you trying to do, heat the outdoors?” It was funny because anyone with any common sense would recognize that the miniscule amount of heat escaping our house would have zero effect on the outside temperature.

The Globe article did not discuss the data behind Chiassen’s theory, but it did introduce an inordinate number of caveats and questions from skeptics. If a theory that demands replacing oil, coal, gas and nuclear energy with wind and solar were at all creditable, the Globe would have presented it as “settled science.” How about publishing something with some scientific credibility from the thousands of scientists who are skeptical of global warming fairy tales?

Too Bone-chilling to tap?

The continuing spate of articles about global warming in the midst of record cold around the globe would be humorous if the negative economic effects of global warming legislation didn’t have such potentially tragic effect on the world’s poor. James R. Lee’s column in the Washington Post reaches new heights of absurdity. He tells us we should be worried, very worried about…”the problems of an increase in abundance.” Mr. Lee continues:

Suppose that global warming makes a precious resource easier to get at -- say, rising temperatures in northern Canada, Alaska and Siberia make it easier to get at oil and gas resources in regions that had previously been too bone-chilling to tap. (A few degrees of change in temperature can transform a previously inhospitable climate.) But what happens if some tempting new field pops up in international waters contested by two great powers? Or if smaller countries with murky borders start arguing over newly arable land?

It’s a bit like the theory that cold weather is caused by global warming, and so is hot weather. Scarcity is caused by global warming, and so is abundance, and we should be alarmed by both. Abundance is a security problem because of the assumption that it will cause resource wars. But so will scarcity.

Aside from the fatuousness of the argument, the details are equally idiotic. “Too bone-chilling to tap”? Does Mr. Lee think that Exxon has snow days when it gets too cold? They’re already in Prudhoe Bay. Are there some really cold places where Exxon just won’t go to protect its geologists’ toes from frost-bite? And what about the assertion that “A few degrees of change in temperature can transform a previously inhospitable climate”? Really? So minus 30F is off limits, but minus 27F is hospitable? Furthermore, many areas in the Arctic are more accessible in the winter when trucking routes open on frozen lakes. Frozen tundra is easier to navigate than melted mush. Is he talking about the alarmist promise of an ice-free Arctic which has failed to materialize?

Mr. Lee proposes the real possibility of a war between the U.S. and Canada over rights to this Northwest Passage. If it comes to a state of international anarchy where we are invading Canada, there is little hope for the global climate treaties that Mr. Lee no doubt champions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010202280.html

What is Social Justice

The Right View: What is social justice?

Mon Dec 29, 2008, 05:05 AM EST

CAMBRIDGE - When we were looking at schools for my daughter, one prospective teacher related how she had organized her kindergarten class into a protest march against the city workers who had been instructed to clear brush at a nearby park. The tiny environmentalists marched around in a circle with “Save the Brush” signs. The teacher confided that it was perhaps necessary to trim the park’s brush periodically, but, she declared, that’s not what’s important. She had to fulfill the social justice mission at her school by training children to fight injustice.

At the time I was unfamiliar with the concept of social justice, and I left the school in a state of confusion. Rather than being unimportant, isn’t it essential that we teach our children to evaluate what they might be protesting before indiscriminately joining the tail end of any march that comes along?

We did not choose that kindergarten, but avoiding social justice advocacy in Cambridge turned out to be more difficult. Among many Cambridge institutions that advertise their commitment to social justice are the Cambridge Peace Commission, King Open School, Cambridge Friends School, Shady Hill School, the Social Justice Works! program at CRLS, and the First Parish Cambridge UU church. There’s even “mathematics for social justice” in Cambridge schools.

It’s none of my business if people want to join a political church, so long as I’m not forced to attend anti-Bush sermons on Sunday morning. (On this issue I’m for separation of church and state). But school attendance isn’t optional. Children shouldn’t be subjected to social justice sermons either.

An apologist might argue, “We are simply teaching children to fight injustice to establish a just society.” There are several things wrong with this depiction.

For one, social justice is a left-wing political goal, not a universal value. Its umbrella shelters a grab bag of causes, which include “economic justice,” equal rights for a variety of victim groups and, recently, environmentalism. These causes all require an expansion of government power that is anathema to small government conservatives.

Consider the idea of “economic justice,” i.e., “spreading the wealth around.” A conservative sees not justice but the injustice of taking money out of Joe the Plumber’s wallet to pay for more ineffective government.

Or consider the issue of equality. Conservatives believe in equality of opportunity, as expressed by Jefferson’s “All men are created equal.” But if the sole cause of inequality is injustice, government must step in to guarantee that all persons, regardless of race, gender, ability, class or sexual orientation end up equal in life.

Conservatives fear that such social engineering places inordinate power in the hands of the State. In Friedrich Hayek’s words, the “pursuit of social justice will contribute to the erosion of personal freedom and encourage the advent of totalitarianism”—probably not in the form of the Nazi jackboot but with the smothering embrace of the nanny state.

Secondly, schools play a role in preparing our children for their future careers. The world was certainly made a better place by social justice activist Martin Luther King Jr. But I cringe at the idea of a generation of college graduates who think that fighting injustice is the highest career goal, who take Michelle Obama’s advice—“Don’t go into corporate America,” who find science and math irrelevant, who can’t place World War II in the correct century, who can’t compose a coherent English paragraph. We need Martin Luther Kings, but we also need selfish entrepreneurs who make money developing new energy sources. We need plumbers and electricians who take pride in their work. We need kids who study for their biology APs rather than volunteer at the soup kitchen, who might one day discover an AIDS vaccine. The unintentional actions of well-educated citizens can do more good than an army of well-meaning do-gooders.

Finally, teaching social justice has the unfortunate side effect of teaching our children that America is an unjust place, so they have something to fight against. Thus American history becomes a catalogue of injustice: slavery, Indian genocide, Japanese internment. For example, rather than admit that we are moving rapidly away from our racist past, social justice advocates focus on new injustices. Slavery may be gone, but racial spotlighting remains. Save the Brush!

Grand narratives

Letter to the New Criterion:

Thanks for your fascinating January issue on relativism. I have always savored the lack of self-awareness of a relativist arguing that people who call other people evil are evil.

Christie Davies (“Truth vs. equality”) discusses the relativist view of scientific truth. Last year the issue received national publicity when a dim-bulb Dartmouth professor sued students for challenging her argument that "scientific facts do not correspond to a natural reality but conform to a social construct" (WSJ 5/5/08).

Ms. Davies’ analysis is cogent, but I question her historical narrative in the following:

Then Marxism failed…this led to an abandonment of the old single certainties and grand narratives which had claimed a unique pseudo-scientific validity. Egalitarian relativism triumphed and the downgrading of science became a reality.

Ms. Davies is more on target in her opening line, “Relativism is a key weapon of those who seek to undermine Western civilization.” Although Soviet communism failed, the grand narrative of anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism is stronger than ever; I’m not convinced that the western Left ever abandoned Marxism.

Ms. Davies supports her claim that science has been downgraded with the example of a feminist who defends “the UFO community.” People like this certainly exist, but I would argue that science—although its purpose is to seek “objective truth”--has been increasingly politicized, and now, like relativism, is often used as a weapon of convenience in the Left’s arsenal.

I would wager, for instance, that most relativists, social constructivists, multiculturalists and post-modernists are fervent believers in the grand narrative of manmade global warming, which claims “pseudo-scientific validity” in order to advance an anti-capitalist agenda—perhaps not Marxist in name but certainly in intent. If science can be used to attack capitalism, the Left holds it up as revealing “inconvenient truths.” (Never mind that predicting the future requires faith; as Michael Crichton pointed out, “There can be no observational data about the year 2100.”) Similarly, if evolutionary science can be used to attack western religion, relativistic doubts about scientific knowledge dissolve.

The UFO feminist and the Dartmouth professor would likely join the chorus attacking President Bush for ignoring “Science” on issues like stem cell research, wrapping themselves in the mantle of truth and objectivity for as long as it takes to win a political fight.