ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

The 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award

Welcome to the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.

2010 saw widespread and growing evidence of rapidly warming global climate and strengthening scientific understanding of how humans are contributing to climate change. Yet on the policy front, little happened to stem the growing emissions of greenhouse gases or to help societies prepare for increasingly severe negative climate impacts, including now unavoidable changes in temperature, rainfall patterns, sea-level rise, snowpack, glacial extent, Arctic sea ice, and more. These physical impacts will lead to sharply increased disease, military and economic instabilities, food and water shortages, and extreme weather events, among other things. Without appropriate risk management action, the United States will be hit hard. There is no safe haven. Yet confusion and uncertainty about climate change remain high in the minds of too many members of the public and Congress.

Why? In large part because of a concerted, coordinated, aggressive campaign by a small group of well-funded climate change deniers and contrarians focused on intentionally misleading the public and policymakers with bad science about climate change. Much of this effort is based on intentional falsehoods, misrepresentations, inflated uncertainties, and pure and utter B.S. about climate science. These efforts have been successful in sowing confusion and delaying action – just as the same tactics were successful in delaying efforts to tackle tobacco’s health risks.

To counter this campaign of disinformation, we are issuing the first in what may become a series of awards for the most egregious Climate B.S.* of the Year. In preparing the list of nominees, suggestions were received from around the world and a panel of reviewers – all scientists or climate communicators – waded through them. We present here the top five nominees and the winner of the 2010 Climate B.S.* of the Year Award.

Read more

Yglesias

Endgame

Could you plan an escape?

— House GOP rules changes will give Paul Ryan an unprecedented amount of power for a Budget Committee Chairman.

— North Dakota going after teacher pensions.

— Barack Obama’s bad losses.

— Ezra Klein sketches the argument in defense of Obama’s approach.

— Ten percent of the way through Quicksilver I see Neal Stephenson’s deeper into monetary issues than ever before!

— My photos from Mexico.

The Pains of Being Pure at Heart, “Say No to Love”.

Yglesias

Bringing Back Real Filibusters

One of the most popular ideas for Senate reform is to make would-be filibusterers do a “real filibuster” where you talk and need to hold the floor. But how do you do that in practice? Tom Udall explains his idea to Brian Beutler:

As things currently stand, the onus is on the majority to put together 60 votes to break a filibuster. Until that happens, it’s a “filibuster,” but it’s little more than a series of quorum calls, votes on procedural motions, and floor speeches. The people who oppose the underlying issue don’t have to do much of anything if they don’t want to.

Here’s how they propose to change that. Under this plan, if 41 or more senators voted against the cloture motion to end debate, “then you would go into a period of extended debate, and dilatory motions would not be allowed,” Udall explained.

As long as a member is on hand to keep talking, that period of debate continues. But if they lapse, it’s over — cloture is invoked and, eventually, the issue gets an up-or-down majority vote.

That doesn’t do away with the principle of unlimited debate. If the minority is determined — and what senator doesn’t like to talk — it can wait out the majority and force them to pull the legislation.

This seems like a pretty modest change, but I imagine it would have a real impact on things like nominations.

Alyssa

Cryptonomicon Book Club, Part III: Adapt or Die

Part I is here. Part II is here. Standard rules apply below the jump: spoil up to, but not beyond, the section entitled “Phreaking.” And for next week, let’s read up to the section entitled “Conspiracy.”
One of the things that’s struck me most reading our most recent chunk of Cryptonomicon is the extent to which it is both about historical moments of innovation and change, and the extent to which it is itself a historical document. The sections that are about internet startups feel sort of  quaint and anachronistic, both in the technology Randy, Avi, and others are using, and in the way they understand startups and business models.


This is a bit of a diversion from the point I’m going to get around to eventually, but Lee wrote in comments in our first discussion that “the breathless way NS goes about describing Avi makes me wonder whether he doesn’t unself-consciously venerate these Silicon Valley VC types (making allowances for the fact that the bubble hadn’t yet burst).” I think is this not quite accurate, and the Epiphyte Business Plan is the best example of this:

Unless you are as smart as Johann Karl Friedrich Gauss, savvy as a half-blind Calcutta bootblack, tough as General William Tecumseh Sherman, rich as the Queen of England, emotionally resilient as a Red Sox fan, and as generally able to take care of yourself as the average nuclear submarine commander, you should never have been allowed near this document….After taking vows of celibacy and abstinence and forgoing all of our material possessions for homespun robes, we (viz. appended resumes) w ill move into a modest complex of scavenged refrigerator boxes in the central Gobi Desert, where real estate is so cheap that we are actually being paid to occupy it, thereby enhancing shareholder value even before we ahve actually done anything.

My suspicion is that Stephenson admires Avi’s hucksterism, rather than him as a technologist, in the same way, as much as the Dentist is a parody, he is capable as hell. Stephenson likes survivors, especially when they’re a bit off-kilter, be they morphine-addicted smart-aleck Marines, semi-autistic cryptographers who have affairs with German spies because what the hell, dreamy coders who make throwaway deals for buried treasure. I feel like he could have written one hell of a Western.


But really what this section of the novel got for me, and why I think it works even if the technology Avi and Randy are using feels dated, is that it’s about moments when you change or die, the points at which we become different kinds of humans. Bobby Shaftoe feels the shift coming in the way he fights his war:

Shaftoe has killed Chinese bandits on the banks of the Yangtze by stabbing them in the chest with a bayonet. He thinks he killed one, once, just by hitting him pretty hard in the head. On Guadalcanal he killed Nips by shooting at them with several different kinds of arms, by rolling rocks down on them, by constructing large bonfires at the entrances to caves where they were holed up, by sneaking up on them in the jungle and cutting their throats, by firing mortars into their positions, even by picking one up and throwing him off a cliff into the pounding surf. Of course he has known for a long time that this face-to face style of killing the bad guys is kind of old-fashioned, but it’s not like he’s spent a lot of time thinking about it. The demonstration of the Vickers machine gun that he witnessed in Italy didx sort of get him thinking, and here he is now, inside one of the most famous killing machines in the whole war, and what does he see? He sees valves.

Of course, Bobby Shaftoe’s probably more likely to make the transition to a new age because he’s the kind of guy who will try out sushi and martial arts, just as Lawrence Waterhouse seems likely to make it because he’s able to see the world differently at the precise moment when there is a need for his kind of differentness, when elites start to desperately need non-conformists. There’s something remarkable about Yamomoto’s revelation as he’s about to die: the margin between the time you have to make these realizations is perilously thin, especially when the things that are changing about you aren’t just sort of fundamental communications things like the rise of the internet, but matters of more immediate life and death.


I’ll be curious to see how this emphasis on evolution plays out. Obviously, we know from history if not from the novel yet that being overly-evolved—in other words, in touch with and accepting of his homosexuality—doesn’t exactly play out for Alan Turing. And I think we’re also reaching the point in the novel when it’s going to be important for characters to be able to look back, without being captured by it. I assume that Randy’s mysterious correspondent is Enoch Root, something Randy can’t puzzle out yet because he can only see the new meaning of a root@ email address, rather than looking back (of course, Enoch Root isn’t really a fathomable phenomenon by any set of rules, old or new). I’ll be curious to see how Avi’s Judaism sorts itself out. And of course, given Stephenson’s focus on lineage, some understanding of these characters’ pasts is going to matter in comprehending their future. 

Yglesias

Against Utopia

Earlier this week, Dave Weigel wrote “Do libertarians promise utopia? Sure. So do the socialists who came up with the ideas that motivate Democratic politicians.” Today he followed up on his meaning, arguing “it’s a dead end to accuse ideologues of promising rainbows if their ideas are adopted.”

It is and it isn’t. I have a utopian bent, personally, and have been known to muse to my girlfriend about how at Taiwan’s level of population density we could fit 500 million people into 10 percent of the land area of the United States and turn the rest into yawning wilderness. But I think it’s really a pretty serious mistake to think about politics in these terms. It’s not that people should be “politically realistic” in their aspirations, it’s that it’s really important to think about concrete, specific policy changes and the specific consequences likely to in fact flow from them. Absent that kind of practicality you get things like loosening regulations on the banking sector followed by a financial crisis followed by complaints that “the real problem is Fannie and Freddie and bailouts,” followed by deciding it’s actually best to leave Fannie and Freddie in place after all then when someone does propose reforming Fannie and Freddie someone else shouts back that the real problem is deregulation.

The underlying issue is that if you’re committed to any form of reasonably liberal politics, which almost everyone in America is, then you’re committed to a world of endless ideological disagreement and interest-group pluralism. Too often, people think about politics by starting from the assumption that there will be post-political utopia in which everything is frozen into place, then reasoning backwards from how that utopia looks.

Yglesias

CBPP On Film Subsidies

I wrote about the bad idea of targeted tax subsidies for movie production, and it turns out that the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities did an informative overview of the situation recently:

Today, 43 states offer them, compared to only a handful in 2002. Over the course of state fiscal year 2010 (FY2010), states committed about $1.5 billion to subsidizing film and TV production (see Appendix Table 1) — money that they otherwise could have spent on public services like education, health care, public safety, and infrastructure.

The median state gives producers a subsidy worth 25 cents for every dollar of subsidized production expense. The most lucrative tax subsidies are Alaska’s and Michigan’s, 44 cents and 42 cents on the dollar, respectively. Moreover, special rules allow film companies to claim a very large credit even if they lose money— as many do.

This is terrible economics and certainly not “free market” economics of any kind. But I’d bet you dollars to doughnuts that a great many of the legislators and governors who backed these subsidies think of themselves as small government conservatives, since they’ve got it into their heads that taxes are bad and thus anything that reduces tax revenues must be good.

Alyssa

Plate and Mail

I sort of wonder if this is the movie Pegg and Frost should have been making, rather than Paul:

Mashing up stoner comedy and fantasy is a good idea, and even sort of traditional, isn’t it? The trailer did remind me that one of the impacts of being a) young and b) almost completely isolated from non-book pop culture in the 1980s was that I totally missed the cheesy, pre-advances-in-special-effects, live-action fantasy movies of the era. I did see Labyrinth in college, and though I get the humor in David Bowie’s terrifying codpiece, I’m not sure I truly appreciated it, and of course I’ve seen The Princess Bride. Is it worth digging into the tradition further? Any suggestions about where to start?

Economy

Foreclosures Increase As Mortgage Modification Programs Lose Steam

Even with the foreclosure moratoriums that a few of the nation’s biggest banks instituted following the robo-signing scandal, foreclosures for this year will likely top one million. According to a report released yesterday by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision — two of the federal bank regulators — foreclosure activities were up significantly in the last quarter:

The number of new foreclosures increased to more than 382,000 — 31.2 percent more than in the previous quarter and 3.7 percent more than a year earlier. The number of foreclosures in process increased to 1.2 million — 4.5 percent more than in the previous quarter and 10.1 percent more than a year earlier. The number of completed foreclosures also increased to nearly 187,000 — 14.7 percent more than in the previous quarter and 57.5 percent more than a year earlier.

A large reason for the jump, according to the report, is that mortgage modifications under the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP) — the Obama administration’s signature foreclosure prevention effort — have dropped significantly. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, said that a main problem driving the foreclosure machine is the “inadequacy of loan modification programs”.

For months, it’s been apparent that HAMP and the administration’s other programs designed to keep borrowers in their homes are going to fall woefully short of their goals. HAMP has processed only about 500,000 permanent loan modifications, out of 1.4 million trial modifications that have been initiated. The redefault rate (the number of borrowers who again fall behind on their mortgages, post-modification) for the program is an ugly 21 percent.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that just $12 billion of the $50 billion dedicated to foreclosure prevention will be spent. The Congressional Oversight Panel for TARP, which also oversees HAMP, estimates that at the current rate HAMP will only benefit 700,000 homeowners, far less than the 3-4 million that the Obama administration said would receive aid. “Absent a dramatic and unexpected increase in HAMP enrollment, many billions of dollars set aside for foreclosure mitigation may well be left unused. As a result, an untold number of borrowers may go without help,” the panel said in a report.

There are still plenty of things that can be done to fix HAMP and ensure that the full resources dedicated to foreclosure prevention actually wind up in the hands of homeowners. Here are some recommendations.

Yglesias

Models for Congressional Reform

Tyler Cowen complains that it’s hard to assess proposals for congressional reform since “There is no simple model at hand.”

I think there’s a tragic neglect of comparative politics in the United States, and my favorite relevant model is the one presented in George Tsebelis’ Veto Players: How Political Institutions Work. The key issues here are trying to understand who has agenda-setting powers, how many veto players are there, and who the veto players are. And the distressing development in American politics over the past 20 years has been the tendency of routinized filibustering plus growing party discipline to make the Senate Minority Leader into a veto player, especially on things that aren’t top-tier issues that dominate the public discussion.

That’s not really a workable system, though I note that there’s some reason to believe that presidential democracy is unworkable in general if you have ideologically coherent political parties. At a minimum, when the US conquers a country (Italy, Germany, Japan, Iraq) and sets up a new government, we almost never opt to replicate our own system. The exception is Afghanistan where Presidentialism was done at the behest of Hamid Karzai’s Pashtun allies who thought this would help him monopolize power. I think time has proven that insightful, but mostly in a bad way.

Politics

NC Lawmaker Lashes Out At Burr For DADT Repeal Vote: ‘Homosexuals Are Sexual Predators’

During his re-election bid this past November, Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC) said that he supported the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and expressed concern about “changing the accommodations for troops if the policy changed.” But following the Pentagon’s review of the ban and the testimony of military leadership, Burr ultimately voted for final passage of repeal, even as he remained worried about lifting the measure during a period of war. “I feel that this policy is outdated and repeal is inevitable,” he said in a statement. “However, I remain convinced that the timing of this change is wrong, and making such a shift in policy at a time when we have troops deployed in active combat areas does not take into consideration the seriousness of the situation on the ground.”

Burr’s vote took repeal advocates and his conservative constituents by surprise. Qnotes, a North Carolina based newspaper, is reporting that the harshest remarks came from Mecklenburg County commissioner Bill James, who compared gay people to “sexual predators” and warned that Burr will pay a price for his vote:

Homosexuals are sexual predators,” James wrote in one email from a string of several between county board members, Roberts and County Manager Harry Jones, and provided by James to qnotes. “Allowing homosexuals to serve in the US military with the endorsement of the Mecklenburg County Commission ignores a host of serious problems related to maintaining US military readiness and effectiveness not the least of which is the current Democrat plan to allow homosexuals (male and female) to share showers with those they are attracted to.”

James added, “The US Government would not allow Hetero men and women to share showers and other personal facilities yet the leading homosexual in Congress (Barney Frank) thinks it is OK for homosexuals to do so allowing enlisted men and women to fall prey to higher ranking or more powerful homosexuals who ogle them (or worse).” [...]

“I suspect Richard Burr will pay a high electoral price for his actions but whether it boots him from office next time is unknown,” James wrote. “I know I won’t be supporting him even if he does have an R after his name.”

This isn’t the first time James has relied on homophobic slurs, Qnotes reports: “He often uses derogatory language or slurs to describe LGBT people in debates or communication with fellow public officials and constituents. During debate last December on domestic partner benefits for county employees, James leaned over to his Democratic colleague, Vilma Leake, and called her son a ‘homo.’ Leake’s son died from AIDS in the 1990s.”

But while conservatives in North Carolina are only rhetorically condemning repeal, social activists in Virginia — whose two Democratic Senators also supported lifting the ban — are proposing a bill that would ban gays from serving in the Virginia National Guard. Gov. Bob McDonnell (R), commander in chief of the Guard, still supports DADT but said that the proposal is unconstitutional, since the “National Guard should follow the same rules as the rest of the military.”

Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.

Older

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up