Inslee, Republicans draw lines in the sand over climate

More study vs. strong action now.

Forget about being on the same page. Republicans and Democrats are not even in the same book on how Washington should tackle climate change issues.

A legislative panel is supposed to decide by Dec. 31 on recommendations to the Washington Legislature on how to deal with climate change and carbon emissions. The Republicans and Democrats on the panel have put their own proposals on the panel's Web site. A public hearing on those proposals will be held today at 2 p.m. in Olympia. The panel is supposed to recommend a plan of action on Dec. 18.

A bipartisan set of recommendations appears unlikely.

A fundamental clash is the Republicans want to change the emission-reduction targets that the state in 2008 while the Democrats want to put a cap on Washington's carbon emissions and install a cap-and-trade program for the state's industries. Neither side likes the other's proposals.

The panel consists of Gov. Jay Inslee; Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island; Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, D-Burien; Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-Ferndale; and Rep. Shelly Short, R-Addy.Three of the four legislators must agree on any formal recommendations going forward. So far, the panel has split along party lines with the Democrats urging immediate action because of legal obligations, and the Republicans saying the economic impacts must be studied before any actions are taken.

All this was set into motion in 2008, when Washington's Legislature set a goal of reducing the state's greenhouse emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, with further trimming of emissions to 25 percent below Washington's 1990 level by 2035 and to 50 percent below by 2050. So far, nothing has happened. Early this year, the Legislature passed a bill to set up this task force with the Dec. 31 deadline. As a condition for that bill's passage, the Senate Majority Coalition Caucus got an amendment that converted Inslee into a non-voting member, setting up the current 2-to-2 deadlock among the four legislators.

Republicans Ericksen and Short recommended that the Legislature revisit and possibly change the goals set by the 2008 law. They want more incentives provided for using hydroelectric power. More use of nuclear power should be explored. More cost analyses should be conducted on reducing greenhouse gases. More research on "clean" technologies should be conducted.

Ericksen and Short wrote that the state government is moving too fast without studying the ramifications of potential measures to combat carbon emissions. They argued that tackling carbon emissions in Washington will have a minuscule impact on the overall global warming situation. And they contended that too much of the costs of implementing the Democrats' proposals would fall on consumers.

Meanwhile, Inslee, Ranker and Fitzgibbon propose putting a legal cap on all of Washington's carbon emissions, with a cap-and-trade program included to allow corporations to juggle emissions among themselves. They suggested that coal imported to Washington power plants from out-of-state be counted as a source of carbon emissions to be kept within Inslee's proposed cap. Energy efficiency measures would be tackled. And legislating use of low-carbon fuels would be explored.  

Under a cap-and-trade program, Washington would have an overall annual limit to its carbon dioxide emissions. Limits would be set for specific geographic areas. Firms would obtain rights for specific amounts of emissions in those areas and could trade their rights. The legislative panel's technical consultant, the Virginia-based firm Leidos, has reported the most potent proposed policy would be to install a cap-and-trade program.

Meanwhile in the past eight days, environmentalists and Republicans have begun taking radically different stances on the costs of going to low-carbon fuels. Experts talking to a Seattle-based Climate Solutions briefing said their studies show that low-carbon fuels have little or no effects on retail gasoline prices. But the Washington Senate Majority Coalition's leaders, citing the Washington Trucking Association's calculations, contend that going to low-carbon fuels will increase gasoline prices by 60 cents a gallon.  

Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 10:27 a.m. Inappropriate

Cue up climate denial drivel---

Here's a start:


Posted Sat, Dec 14, 12:53 a.m. Inappropriate

Cue up some more utter nonsense from one of the weirdo "progressives" of Seattle!


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 12:08 p.m. Inappropriate

Pop Quiz:

1. Which faction's report states the following?

"Rather than rely on studies conducted for other states, we will need to conduct our own economic analysis, of a program designed to work for Washington, going forward. That information will be far more useful than highlighting studies -- or excerpts from studies -- that were conducted for other programs in other jurisdictions....This will ensure a cost effective and fair program."

2. Is it a promise, an assurance, or a demand?

3. Write a short essay about why you answered #2 as you did.


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate

The law passed in 2008 is absurd and should just be ignored.

Climate change is something that can only be dealt with meaningfully on an international basis. Trying to do anything meaningful on a state level is just tilting at windmills, Jay Inslee-style.

Encouraging Boeing to leave the state would probably lower WA's greenhouse gas emissions.


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 1:59 p.m. Inappropriate

If you can't get them by air, do it by water.


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 1:33 p.m. Inappropriate

Washington State's "progressives" aren't serious about climate change. They never have been. In the end, it's like everything else they do: A scheme to raise taxes to be spent on other things.

When you look at what the "progressives" actually do that might have an impact on climate change, they actually implement things that make it worse:

- Amtrak subsidies
- Seattle light rail
- Ban on plastic grocery bags
- Promotion of in-city congestion
- Promotion of farmers markets
- Penalizing electric cars

"Progressives" here are complete hypocrites on climate change, which is no surprise given that they are complete hypocrites on everything else. Whenever they bleat about "climate change" around here, watch your wallet.


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 4:18 p.m. Inappropriate

Here we go again with the usual lists of unrelated topics, insults, and articles of faith which is presented ad nauseum no matter what the topic of discussion. Yawn.

Let's remind ourselves of some of the CC village idiot's recent performance art installations: global warming is a progressive plot, produce flown in from Chile has a smaller carbon footprint that that of the Skagit Valley, plastics are not a toxic issue in the marine environment and not worth addressing; among a few others that I just can't keep track of.

While accelerating the performance ratio towards infinity, and with accolades from Laurie Anderson and Cristoph Schlingensief, he may soon leave us for a wider audience.


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 4:20 p.m. Inappropriate

I never wrote any of those things. You know I didn't.

Interesting that a "progressive" goes out of her way to attribute to me statements I never made. What is it about the Seattle "progressive" and its urge to lie through its teeth every chance it gets?


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 7:29 p.m. Inappropriate

It's amazing how fast the backpedal happens once someone, anyone, put even the most modest facts on the table.

Performance art score: off the charts

Credibility: 0


Posted Sat, Dec 14, 1:03 a.m. Inappropriate

I never wrote what you "progressives" said I did. You keep lying, in the style of Palin or Obama. A lie repeated doesn't make it true, except for the Seattle "progressives" and those like them.


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 8:30 p.m. Inappropriate


I detect a pattern. Make a pile of ignorant statements. Get called out with facts. Retreat.

Please explain, with some backup on how global warming is a progressive plot, plastics in the environment is not an issue, and how produce flown in from Chile minimizes food carbon footprints.

This will be a stunning performance I'm sure,


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 8:36 p.m. Inappropriate

Easy to explain. I never made any of those statements. You know this, but you keep saying it anyway. You've learned well from your cousin Sarah Palin: Don't lie just once, but keep on doing it. I'd say Obama learned the same lesson. PolitiFact seems to agree. He's turned out be quite the Seattle "progressive" too!


Posted Fri, Dec 13, 11:08 p.m. Inappropriate

You have supported each position stated by Treker. Sometimes the implications of what you say are not apparent to the speaker. yap yap What does Obama and Obamacare have to do with anything in this thread? Are you not well?


Posted Sat, Dec 14, 12:51 a.m. Inappropriate

Yet another Seattle "progressive" telling lies. You went to Michael McGinn School, I can see. There is no "principle" than any of you will ever hold onto. It's really quite vivid to see just how united the lefties and the wingnuts are, personally, locally and nationally, when it comes to lying.


Posted Sat, Dec 14, 5:04 p.m. Inappropriate

yap yap


Posted Sat, Dec 14, 11:49 p.m. Inappropriate

Global warming is another bugaboo to whip up hysteria and to get people to react emotionallyrather than rationally.We've always had climate change - dinosaurs dying off, big and little ice ages, Vikings farming in Greenland, etc. Science postualte a lot of things - some turn out to be true, many don't. There is no such thing as "settled" science outside of empirical observation, and there certainly isn't enough history of observation. Not too long ago, it was consensus that all illnesses were caused by an imbalance of "humors" in the body that could be corrected by bloodletting, etc, etc. So to call something like this a settled science is naive.


Posted Sun, Dec 15, 3:55 p.m. Inappropriate

There's too much consensus, independently derived, to call this mere hypothesis. I'd love for the theory to be wrong, but I don't think it is. Climate change ought to be addressed, but the "progressives" are liars and hypocrites about it. They want to "address" climate change as long as none of the approaches might happen to put a nick on any of THEIR sacred cows.

So it's all about fighting their war on cars, even if (for example) refusing to synchronize Seattle's traffic lights causes more emissions from vehicles backed up at red lights. It's all about "local food," even if that means incredibly inefficient transport of the "local food" relative to the evil corporate farms.

It's all about banning plastic grocery bags, even if there's very solid research showing that plastic bags are far and away better on the climate front, and on other measures of pollution. It's about building and/or subsidizing rail, even when lifecycle analysis shows that rail is a net contributor to GHGs.

It's impossible to take the Seattle "progressives" seriously when they start in on their climate change initiatives. Once you look at the details, you realize that for them, it is ENTIRELY about the APPEARANCE of caring, which is just one more way of feeding their inexhaustible need for self-regard.

It sad, darkly amusing, and really quite pathetic. They are just as science-denying as the American Coal Institute, and Exxon, and their Republican toadies. No one is serious about it, but at least the fossil fuel lobby doesn't pretend to care like the "progressives" do.


Posted Mon, Dec 16, 10:38 a.m. Inappropriate


I still do not equate consensus with truth, so I will respectfully disagree on that point. I do agree with the problems re the war on cars - instead of trying to get everyone out of them (and I am a transit supporter and user) the focus should be on encouragement of alternate energy vehicles to reduce our dependence on oil imports. Individual vehicle are just too important and necessary, and any mass transit infrastructure too expensive and untenable.

The plastic bag ban is a real sore point for me - I have always reused plastics, and prefer them as more sanitary and cost-effective.


Posted Mon, Dec 16, 11:41 a.m. Inappropriate

NF -- you ask legitimate questions. I agree that much of what passes for "sustainability" is a fraud. However, I disagree with your claims concerning costs and benefits of specific measures since you never back them up with reference to facts. And you refuse to parse peoples' positions (we're all hateful "progressives" if we don't agree with you) so it is very difficult for me (anyone?) to have a rational exchange with you.

Seasoned: How expensive does fossil fuel have to get before we build a real alternative transit system (i.e., one that allows most people in the city to not own a car)? The bigger question: What non-carbon based energy source is available that will be able to replace the quantity of energy we spend on liquid fossil fuel driven transport and transportation?


Posted Mon, Dec 16, 10:49 p.m. Inappropriate

Seasoned, it's good to see a ray of intellect here. I agree that the consensus isn't always correct. (Come on, just look at our City Clowncil.) But we dismiss it at our peril. In general, logic would tell us that conventional wisdom is correct 75% of the time. (Stop and think about this before replying. If you still don't see it, then think again. Hint: Consider the implications of 0%, 50%, and 100%. Then you'll see.)

In the case of global climate change, I think the elements of the consensus are powerful, as opposed to, say, the self-referential, hypocritical, faith-based group think that pretty much defines the zeitgeist of the inflated Seattle "progressive." The climate change consensus is world wide and composed of independent authorities who have marshalled details. Could it be a massive case of confirmation bias? Yes, and I hope it is. But let's just say that I take it a lot more seriously than the awards given to the Seattle Sculpture Park by the others who wield the civic ugly stick elsewhere.

I agree about alternative fuels for vehicles. I happen to own an electric car -- long story -- and have accunmulated a lot of knowledge about its various aspects and about EVs in general. If the local poo-bahs actually cared about climate change, they'd take every penny they're spending on light rail, solar panels, cap and trade, and the umpteenth "sustainability" Power Point package and subsidize the hell out of EVs, given that Seattle's juice is 98% renewable. At the very least, they wouldn't reach out and penalize EV owners who drive, say, 3,000 miles a year in the city. I'll stop there, to prevent being accused of personal ax grinding.

Alas, that would be too simple, too easy, and too sensible for the local sluggards, who never met a fact they couldn't deny -- the simpler and easier, all the more so. They'd also work on the farm-to-market side of the farmers markets, but let's face it: They don't give a shit. And they'd have never banned plastic grocery bags, the net effect of which is an increase in GHG emissions and other pollution. But hey, what can you ever tell a stupid "progressive" who's addicted to his stupidity? It's impolite to tell them how f'ing stupid they are, so that leaves us with the choice of being polite or telling the truth. I pick Door #2 myself.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 7:11 a.m. Inappropriate

NotFan - climate changes, I just don't swallow that human activity caused it.

louploup - the alternatives are not just between individual vehicles and mass transit. Technology develops - we have electric vehicles, we could have nuclear and/or solar powered vehicles in the future. Any mass transit trip outside a hub and spoke system is inefficient in terms of both time and cost. Mass transit is unpleasant at best, and pretty much worthless for families, emergencies, major shopping trips, people who have to as a regular part of their jobs travel from one place to another, people who work hours outside standard business hours, people with children in daycare etc.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 12:53 p.m. Inappropriate

I don't think nuclear powered vehicles make any sense at all. The fuel is too dangerous. Not only that, but uranium is scarcer than many nuke proponents want to recognize. As for the "anthropogenic" nature of climate change, I think the data provides powerful support for the idea.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 1:43 p.m. Inappropriate

Regarding nuclear powered cars, we a a long way from that. But in Europe, which has long relied on nuclear energy as a source of electricity, there is lots of R&D; on making it more feasible, safer and cleaner. So down the road, perhaps. I was trying to explain that nothing, with the exception of transporter beams ala Star Trek, is effective substitute for private vehicles. So effort should be concentrated on that, as well as reasonable hub and spoke transit systems.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 2:33 p.m. Inappropriate

The U.S. has long relied on nukes for electricity too. Not quite as much as Europe (about 20% here, about 28% there), but our use of nuclear is significant. In both places, the big story right now is the growth of natural gas and the decline of coal as a result.

Europe has done more with renewables than we have (19% vs. about 15%), but there isn't a big gap. In any case, back to cars, the issue in Seattle is that the "progressives" have multiple fetishes.

One is for choo-choo trains. Another is for New York and the East in general, hence the urge to concentrate downtown and force people into expensive apartments. Another is a hatred for cars, and especially privately owned cars. Another is a hatred for single family houses, and another is a hatred for the elderly and the disabled, and anyone else who can't or won't use a bicycle.

And then there's the big fetish, which is to raise taxes, especially on the working middle class. The Seattle "progressive" truly despises that segment of the population, and sticks it to working people every single chance they get.

It's not about climate change. Never has been, never will be.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 9:12 a.m. Inappropriate

I think NF has some good arguments. At the State level it's just theatre. Pursuing Boeing while bemoaning climate change is only the most blatantly self-contradictory of many perverse goals (I don't think Inslee has thoughts more complex than can be expressed as slogans). Air pollution is probably tolerable and even fixable but ocean pollution might be much more difficult to deal with. And, a freeman, who did write that? just a tease?


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 12:59 p.m. Inappropriate

There are so many issues wrapped up in climate change, but in the end it comes down to greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions. Put everything offered by the "progressives" together, and they do NOTHING about GHG emissions. Nothing at all.

But they do provide two ancillary benefits to "progressives." First, like the tobacco settlements, they provide cover to raise general revenues. Secondly, they give the APPEARANCE of caring. We all know that, in the end, the "progressives" have a driving obsession with the appearance that they are caring, and good, and superior.

It's a high price to pay, though. Can't we just cut to the chase and give them free Prozac?

p.s.: I agree with your implied putdown of Inslee's intellect. It's why I cast an uncommon (for me) Republican vote in the gubernatorial election. For some reason, I decided to watch some of the debates, and the I.Q. gap between Inslee and McKenna was embarrassing. Inslee has the brainpower of an inquisitive ninth-grader, and McKenna was in grad school. If more people had watched, I really think we'd have elected a different governor and had been better off for it.

Brainpower isn't the only qualification for public office, Cheney being a good example of the marriage of intelligence and pure evil. But when both candidates are playing within the 40 yard lines, I'm pretty biased toward the one who's much smarter. The opposite was the case in the '08 presidential contest. I know more than a few Republicans who held their noses and voted for Obama rather than put Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 1:08 p.m. Inappropriate

Seasoned--I did not say that "individual vehicles and mass transit" are the only options. My words: "a real alternative transit system (i.e., one that allows most people in the city to not own a car)" -- I should have said "not own a fossil fuel powered car." Sure, EVs are likely part of the solution. My basic point is that we need to become as efficient as possible because the cost of energy is almost certain to go up. I am not aware of any technology available in the near term (decade or three) that can replace the quantity of energy we consume at anywhere close to the recent or even current cost of crude (in terms of cost per unit of usable energy). That includes nuclear (uranium, thorium, "cold"), fusion, and all the non-carbon sources. In the mid-term (through end of century), solar and wind and possibly tidal and geothermal could replace much of our current energy use, but to move people and goods we need to significantly increase the efficiency and lower the carbon footprint of conversion (to liquid fuels for airplanes), storage and/or batteries (for electricity).

"Mass transit is unpleasant at best"--I disagree. I've been on transit systems all over the world. They aren't all like the Metro bus 358. Many are as pleasant (or more) than driving and then having to deal with the car at your destination in the urban core (have you ever needed to park a car in Midtown Manhattan or San Francisco?).

As for climate change, you can stop swallowing all you want, but the reality of AGW is increasingly obvious not only to almost all scientists, but also to almost all nations' military entities, the insurance industry globally, natural resource managers, and anyone else who studies the matter in depth without ideological blinders.

kieth--I agree with you on the hypocrisy of Boeing and climate change. It is hard to imagine anyone getting elected who could actually be consistent. One side or another of the political spectrum would reject him/her. Got any great ideas for moving us towards a consensus that is not rife with cognitive dissonance?

As for NF, yes, he does occasionally make good points, but until he stops with the "what can you ever tell a stupid "progressive" who's addicted to his stupidity? It's impolite to tell them how f'ing stupid they are" crap, it's impossible for me to have a conversation with him.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 2:21 p.m. Inappropriate

Sorry, louploup, but your comments really are a shining example of Seattle "progressive" stupidity, arrogance, etc etc. You don't ever know what you're talking about, but that never stops you from pretending that you do.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 5:41 p.m. Inappropriate

yap yap


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 7:26 p.m. Inappropriate

Sure didn't take ya long to drop that kumbaya mask did it? Ha ha! The "progressives" just slay me!


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 8:29 p.m. Inappropriate

One trick pony, louploup?

Posted Tue, Dec 17, 10:17 p.m. Inappropriate

She's trying to devise a comeblack to "progressive," but our Superior Being fails to realize that "progressive" works not simply through repetition, but because there's a lot of truth in it, quotation marks 'n all. Given that your typical "progressive" skated through college on a Bullshit-Throwing degree, you'd think they'd understand what works and what does not work in the average tossing contest. But nooooooo! Ha ha!


Posted Wed, Dec 18, 9:18 a.m. Inappropriate

You prove my point. Keep flinging: yap yap


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 2:23 p.m. Inappropriate

Agreed. I would note one item - regarding state actions on climate change as "political theater". We are going to need every inch of contribution on climate change to make a difference so wise and efficient state solutions (and agreed, not just posing) will prove useful

This does not mean that the only recourse is a state carbon tax, for instance, though that could help get the ball rolling on a national level. The state can assist in numerous ways to help communities plan for long-term changes that are underway. Keeping infrastructure (roads, utilities, whatever) out of sea level rise zones, intergrading with the changing National Flood Insurance Plan better to keep folks from building in floodplains now affected by rain/snow patterns, investing in clean fuel (hybrids) vehicles for state cars and assistance for purchasing more efficient buses.

I also would agree that no dent will be made with out national and international movement on this, and to-date the action has been less than encouraging.

FYI - check out the University of WA Climate Action Group for a good synopsis of the range of effects from climate change expected in the Pacific NW.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 2:35 p.m. Inappropriate

Lily32, neither you nor any other phony baloney "progressive" I've ever heard of in this city cares one single bit about climate change. Your efforts are a joke, and anyone who gives it any thought realizes it. You're not against posing. Now that it's temporarily an issue in this conversation thread, you will strike a pose against posing. All for appearances sake. It's all you "progressives" have ever known how to do.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 5:43 p.m. Inappropriate

yap yap snarl


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 4:08 p.m. Inappropriate

Good points Lily. Another difficulty I see is the hodge-pog of regulations coming up concerning a carbon tax even among the states that are interested in taking this up. This issue seems to be a better national level one - though given the dysfunction in D.C. There is still a nest of climate change-deniers there, just like here.

It is going to cost a pile of money in infrastructure changes. A poster boy is Norfolk, VA where they are spending piles of money raising electric, utility, and telecommunications lines several feet from existing conditions because of sea level rise and increased inundation.


Posted Tue, Dec 17, 4:21 p.m. Inappropriate

Not that Virginia needed to move electric lines (in particular) anyway. Anyone who's actually lived there can tell you all kinds of stories about their terrible electric network and the outages that have always regularly gone with it. But it's always much sexier to blame it on an exogenous variable, especially when you're a typical blockheaded utility that would rather not have the ratepayers asking hard questions about your company's incompetence.

You know, kinda like Seattle City Light, which is every bit as stupid and inefficient as the sluggards who operate utilities in the "efficient private sector." The average utility executive, including the ones here, could be replaced by people drawn at random from homeless shelters and given a bath, a suit, and a script. I've dealt with those people, and let's just say that the gods of electricity weren't dealing from the top of the deck.


Posted Wed, Dec 18, 11:21 a.m. Inappropriate

"The state can assist in numerous ways to help communities plan for long-term changes that are underway"

So some engineers and planners would get some work and, unless the plans were pablum, they would be quietly shelved (maybe even the pablum). If we are serious about reducing emissions then we should raise gasoline taxes, we should charge higher rates for electricity too because not all of our power comes from hydroelectric. Even hydroelectric is not considered renewable. We should tax natural gas, fuel oil, discourage commercial vessels from coming into Washington waters. Well, of course those things will hurt and it's best not to think about them out loud. Much better to hire some planners. We'll all feel better and, in the meantime, we can vacation in a warmer hemisphere.

Before anything is done there has to be a huge change in voter attitudes. Higher energy prices would be a start.


Posted Wed, Dec 18, 12:31 p.m. Inappropriate

As I stated before, consensus is not proof. The reason so many agree is that is where the money is. I am not wedded to to any other ideology than one which rejects mass hysteria. Secondly, we have vast amounts of available energy - we artificially make it much more expensive than it should be. As new technology is perfected and mass-marketed, costs drop significantly.

Your second point is a value judgement. While I find mass transit is better in some areas than in others, I can say that Metro is not a good system. The busses stink and are rather dirty - and not just the 358 - try those fancy Rapid Ride busses, repleat with Odor de Wino and Odor de B.O. There are better transit systems, around the area, but they are no where near as plesant as my own vehicle.


Posted Wed, Dec 18, 1:44 p.m. Inappropriate

"As I stated before, consensus is not proof." That is correct. On the other hand, the fact that there is consensus among almost all who have anything to do with the subject should tell you something. It's not ideology, it's science. The ideology is in the response(s), including lack of any (business as usual).

To me, the overwhelming scientific (and insurance and military) consensus places a high burden on those who disagree to bring forward evidence contrary to the consensus. It's like gravity, evolution, or smoking causes cancer: Once a high likelihood of causation (as opposed to mere correlation or even less) is established, contrarians must produce contrary evidence, not just arm waiving. Jumped off a roof lately?

As for energy, I agree we have potential access to vast amounts of energy. The key is converting it to a form that can produce work (in the physics sense--dig things up, move things around, heat things up, create and store data, etc.). I believe the forces of business as usual (fossil fuel and many capital interests) are working hard to prevent new technologies from being implemented. Check out Jeremy Leggett's new book, The Energy of Nations (there's quite a few good reviews and interviews that summarize the basic points).

I think conventional energy sources (i.e., fossil fuels) have been made less expensive than necessary, greatly weakening incentives to move toward the replacement sources. I also think we are going to have to get used to having less energy available to do work regardless, at least for a while. Maybe when the cost of oil finally rises to where it should be (and it's EROI drops into the low single digits) desperation will push us to get replacements in place. [Another term for EROI is net energy--if it takes more energy to produce it, why bother?]

Yes, my opinion on the quality of transit systems is a value judgment. I have to take your word for the quality of Rapid Ride etc. because I mostly bike, and occasionally car or bus. I have had some choice times on buses in Seattle, that's for sure, so I won't argue with you. I'd rather take a late night R train to Brooklyn than the 358 any time.


Posted Wed, Dec 18, 2:07 p.m. Inappropriate

Now it comes out: "louploup" is another "progressive" bicyclist, eager to puke forth its lack of knowledge on us. It doesn't know anything about what it comments on, but that never stops a Seattle "progressive," does it? Ooooh, and the "progressive" has a New York subway fetish too! Good God, could "louploup" possibly be any more of a stereotype?


Posted Wed, Dec 18, 3:35 p.m. Inappropriate

"Now it comes out"? I've been very open for years about being mostly a biker for daily transportation. Aside from being insulting, your knowledge of me is patently superficial.

Speaking of stereotypes: yap yap


Posted Thu, Dec 19, 6:45 a.m. Inappropriate

Louploup - er- gravity you can demonstrate. Smoking and cancer, also because of the relatively short period of time, and the fact that medical science can demonstrate damage to lungs diretly correlated to smoking. Evolution has direct geological evidence. Predictions of the future are different from what you have cited. But not to belabor the point, we can agree to disagree.

Regarding energy, yes, there are vested interests in the status quo, but there is also significant vested interest in new developments. It is that tension within human civilization we see and have seen throughout history. Look at the technological developments through the last century - what is impossible or unfeasible is a very dynamic concept.

I've never taken the 358 - however I have waited at the same bus stop and it appears as a rolling psych ward. In general, Seattle is a much dirtier and less well maintained place than it was years ago, and our public transportation is no different.

I have nothing against bike communters as long as they follow the rules of the road. I say that about drivers, also. In the past few years I've had a few close encounters with distracted drivers - middle of the crosswalk, broad daylight, perfect visibility - yet I barely escaped becoming road kill.


Posted Thu, Dec 19, 10:09 a.m. Inappropriate

Thanks for response. I'm not talking about predictions; attacking climate science on the basis of variable scenarios in model projections is a favorite denier tactic. The linkage between the greenhouse effect and human emission of GHGs is as well proven and with as long a history as evolution.

The laws of thermodynamics (Second is most important for energy issues) are not "dynamic"; they just are.

Cheers and happy holidays...


Posted Fri, Dec 20, 2 a.m. Inappropriate

Oh for God's sakes, the 2d law of thermodynamics? louploup, have you finally slip'd the surly bonds of earth and touched the face of God?


Posted Fri, Dec 20, 11:06 a.m. Inappropriate

Why not engage in a dialogue instead of yapping? Here's a range of views on the point:


Posted Mon, Dec 23, 12:28 a.m. Inappropriate

How about we skip those crazy links and get right to the mushrooms?


Posted Mon, Dec 23, 4:51 p.m. Inappropriate

NF's usual contentless drivel. yap yap


Posted Thu, Dec 19, 1:56 p.m. Inappropriate

Climate changed caused by increased level of human-caused CO2 is not a theory - it is a fact. If a person has any understanding of science they can grasp this. What is not clear is the rate of FUTURE change. To-date, however, the predictive models have been UNDERESTIMATING the rate of change - the rate of global air temperature, the rate of global ocean temperature and pH, the rate of continental glacier loss, an the rate of polar ice melting. Throw in a few others such as the rate of methane release from terrestrial permafrost and from continental shelf permafrost. To name a few.

So - there is no debate of any substance that human-induced climate change is occurring. None - zero - zilch. You can argue the world is flat - it's not an opinion - it's a lie.

What you can debate is the rate of change into the future - but there is plenty of evidence that we have been underestimating this future rate of change - and given that - a reasonable assessment based on facts would assume we have limited capacity to understand the complex interactions of effects and should plan for the worst. We are at or have surpassed a tipping point in total carbon in the atmosphere so this would be like trying to steer an aircraft carrier away from a collision while a moving at 35 knots 1/4 mile from land. Good luck.


Posted Fri, Dec 20, 9:32 a.m. Inappropriate

Yap Yap


Posted Fri, Dec 20, 10:40 a.m. Inappropriate

I thought you were capable of reasoned discourse. Maybe I thought wrong.


Posted Fri, Dec 20, 12:11 p.m. Inappropriate

Well, I'll take that answer as "I have no evidence to refute any of this". Cheers


Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »