Trump’s Energy Department delays phase out of incandescent lightbulbs – The Washington Post

Posted on December 20, 2019 by David Wolf

The Trump administration gave old fashioned, incandescent lightbulbs a holiday gift Friday: a new lease on life.

Source: Trump’s Energy Department delays phase out of incandescent lightbulbs – The Washington Post

This is corporate welfare, pure and simple, and at the cost of a program designed to cut energy use in the home.

Follow the money.

Agriculture

Aside

It is a mistake to tar our entire modern agriculture and food distribution system with the worst behavior of its meanest participants.

The proper response to the excesses of industrial agriculture is not to destroy it in favor of small scale farms and locovore culture, but to punish the miscreants, remove perverse incentives, and generally to redress the problems in the system.

Fix big ag. With a hammer. And the threat of an alternative.

Conservation is Conservative

Posted on January 6, 2016 by David Wolf

Source: tumblr_nregjjU9m91qinrtgo1_500.jpg (480×720)

Conserving what is good.

Reforming what is bad.

Progress with intelligence.

Those are conservative values. And they jibe completely with the betterment of the world.

(And, by the way, they are also the values of the Torah and the New Testament.)

The list of conservatives who have either propagated or adopted conservationist values is long and distinguished. For a smattering, take a look at this list at ConservAmerica.org. Doubtless you will find some familiar names, and a few facts that might surprise you.

GMOs: Debunking the “10 studies” meme

Posted on December 11, 2015 by David Wolf

The blog “10 Scientific Studies Proving GMOs Can Be Harmful To Human Health” is now a fixture on cyberspace . A scientist takes a hard look at the claims and finds the “studies” tell a different story than anti-biotech activists promote.

Source: 10 studies proving GMOs are harmful? Not if science matters | Genetic Literacy Project

As a matter of public interest, any food product, any food product that is derived from a genetically-modified organism should be labeled as such. The label requirements should be consistent across all 50 US states, and ideally, should be consistent globally as well.

This is only fair: it allows consumers to make their own choices, just as they are with the danger warnings on tobacco and alcohol.

At the same time, any suggestion that these foods should be banned is premature at best. The above article provides a laundry list of why the recent online meme suggesting otherwise is seriously flawed – that is, if you really care about the science, and not the ideology of fear that surrounds GMOs.

Lindsey Graham on Climate Change

Posted on December 7, 2015 by David Wolf

“I have been to the Antarctic, I have been to Alaska. I am not a scientist, and I have the grades to prove it. But I’ve talked to the climatologists of the world and 90% of them are telling me that the greenhouse gas effect is real, that we’re heating up the planet. I just want a solution that would be good for the economy that doesn’t destroy it.”

Source: Here’s How Lindsey Graham Defended His Unorthodox Positions | TIME

And that should be what defines the difference between the Left and the Right on climate change. The left’s position is “climate change is happening, we have the ability to do something about it, so let’s do it.”

Our position on the right should be “climate change is happening, we have the ability to do something about it without destroying the economy or ending the world as we know it, so let’s do it before our dithering makes a reasonable solution impossible.”

Bush is Half Right on Climate Change

Posted on November 30, 2015 by David Wolf

Jeb Bush blasts ‘arrogance’ in climate change debate CNNPolitics.com.

CNN ran this interesting story on a Jeb Bush media get together. It is interesting for several reasons, some good, some bad.

GOOD: Jeb acknowledges that climate change is real, a stance that should be core to the GOP going forward;

GOOD: He also makes the scientifically-accurate point that we are unclear how much of this is natural and cyclical, and how much of it is man-made;

BAD: He does not acknowledge that until we know how much is man-made, common sense dictates that we take reasonable steps to mitigate human activity that seems likely to exacerbate the problem.

Link

Pope Francis’s positions have compelled a number of politicians once again to declare themselves Americans first, Catholics second. Rick Santorum, a GOP candidate who has long attributed his staunchly conservative views to his faith, dismissed the encyclical in advance, quipping that the pope should “leave science to the scientists”. (Perhaps it bears noting that the pope trained as a chemist before joining the clergy.)

Religion and politics: The Republicans have a pope problem | The Economist.

The Economist is not the first to report on this problem – The American Conservative has been discussing this at some length, including a damning piece by the devout Crunchy Con Rob Dreher excoriating Jeb Bush for being a “cafeteria Catholic.”

At some point, the Republican candidates for President are going to have to recognize that their messages on climate are looking increasingly like they are coming from the public relations departments of America’s largest fossil fuel producers.

Hollywood and Politics

Posted on August 10, 2015 by David Wolf

Anyone who will stand up in front of a group of friends, much less the United Nations General Assembly, and tell others how they should conduct their lives and affairs, all while behaving in a manner inconsistent with his advocacy, is a hypocrite and thus non-credible. That is as true for the family-values touting Republican congressman who bangs his married administrative assistant as it is for a film icon who preaches carbon consciousness while living an flagrantly carbon-spewing lifestyle.

The famous do not get a pass for fame: they get higher standards than the rest of us. That is the price of public influence.

The GMO Proxy

Posted on February 11, 2015 by David Wolf

The science of agricultural biotechnology is a proxy battleground for many people with political or cultural objections to GMOs, much in the way climate science is a proxy for those who associate it with implied political and economic changes they view as a threat to their way of life.

Keith Kloor
“Why communicating the science risks of GMOs is so challenging”
Genetic Literacy Project.
January 20, 2015

Yep. Sums it up nicely.

The GOP, Climate, and the Tar Brush

Posted on February 2, 2015 by David Wolf

72 Percent of Republican Senators Are Climate Deniers
Jeremy Schulman
Mother Jones
10 January 2015

I respect Mother Jones even when I don’t agree with it, but this article and its headline lurch away from intelligent debate and dangerously close to being little more than radical linkbait.

If the American Left is sincere about seeking to govern wisely – and we at the Bull Moose work from the assumption that it is – its pundits need to be very more careful about slathering the entire GOP senatorial caucus with the same tar brush. A careful, thoughtful read of the MoJo article and those to which it links makes clear that there are important gradients in the way in which different Republican senators approach the climate issue.

Those approaches range from hard-core deniers (“there is no climate change”) on one end, to the nearly 1/3 of Republican senators who do believe that it is happening and that it is caused by human activity. There are many fine gradations in the middle. For example, some of us believe that regardless of whether the science is clear or not, it makes sense for us to address the effects of climate change, and work on the assumption that it is caused at least in part by human activity by doing what we can to attenuate that change.

No doubt there are more than a few GOP senators who for whatever reason unable to accept the any suggestion that either climate change is happening, or that it is caused by humans. At the same time, painting the entire GOP senatorial caucus as hard-core deniers bought and paid for by Big Carbon obscures significant opportunities to build a majority (and perhaps a supermajority) in the Senate around climate policy. It is juvenile, it is inaccurate, and it shuts down debate, negotiation, and discussion before they are allowed to begin.

What we need is a more intelligent, less polarized discussion about these issues. Climate does not have to become as black-and-white as, say, the issue of abortion. But the longer we make the debate about ideology or partisanship rather than the policy issue, we polarize it and foreclose on even incremental progress.