ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

The Lamest Analogy in the History of Energy and Climate: Equating ‘Benefits’ of Keystone with Those of All U.S. Lighting!

Does the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline have any significant energy security benefits?  No.

In my recent reply to Joe Nocera, I said a line he borrowed from Michael Levi, “may be the lamest analogy in the history of energy and climate.”  Levi, who blogs for the Council on Foreign Relations, has doubled down with a modification/clarification of his original line that makes it much worse.

Explaining why will, I think, get to the heart of much of the hand-waving by Keystone advocates. First, though, let me repost the central chart that can’t be ignored:

CO2 emissions by fossil fuels [1 ppm CO2 ~ 2.12 GtC, where ppm is parts per million of CO2 in air and GtC is gigatons of carbon] via Hansen. Significantly exceeding 450 ppm risks several severe and irreversible warming impacts.  Hitting 800 to 1,000+ ppm — which is our current emissions path and the inevitable outcome of aggressively exploiting unconventional fuels like the tar sands — represents the near-certain destruction of modern civilization as we know it as the recent scientific literature makes chillingly clear.

Levi writes (emphasis added):

Nocera’s Saturday column quotes me thusly:

“The argument you hear is that because [Keystone XL] increases greenhouse gas emissions, we shouldn’t tolerate it.  Well, so do the lights in my house.  You have to be discriminating.”

Here’s Romm’s response:

“Seriously. That may be the lamest analogy in the history of energy and climate. Nocera is actually analogizing the GHG emissions increase from 900,000 barrels a day of dirty tar sands oil with flicking on the lights in your house!”

Yes, seriously. Upon reflection, the analogy turns out to be even better than I previously thought.

Let’s do some numbers. The GHG emissions increase from substituting 900,000 barrels a day of “dirty tar sands oil” for the typical barrel of oil consumed in the United States is, at most, about 20 million tons of carbon dioxide each year. This estimate is based on assuming a 15% increase in per-barrel emissions, which is the upper limit given by the expert that Romm cites; I’m setting aside the fact that we’re actually talking about less than 900,000 barrels, since part of what would be carried isn’t bitumen, but rather lower-carbon dilluent.

On the other hand, residential lighting generated (PDF) 137 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions for the United States in 2008. So yes, flicking on the lights in our houses is actually a lot worse for the climate than substituting “dirty tar sands oil” into the energy mix.

(Side note: If you believe that the circa 900,000 barrels would not back out any other oil – something that, to be blunt, is totally implausible – then the maximum emissions increase from adding that oil works out to about the same as the annual emissions from U.S. residential lighting.)

Seriously! Upon reflection, the analogy is considerably worse than I thought.

Note: If Levi had meant to compare Keystone to turning on “the light in (all) our houses” he should have said that first.

My critique was of the original analogy — “so do the lights in my house” — which was between the lights in Levi’s house and Keystone’s oil.  Levi also cut out the second half of my response:  “How bad is this analogy?  Many people choose to get their electricity from renewable sources — so for them turning on the lights don’t even increase GHGs.  The point is people don’t have any choice about  the dirty tar sands oil — but Obama does.”

But whereas the original analogy was absurd, Levi’s modification/clarification is worse in every respect.

First, residential lighting has obvious and large benefits to us all, unlike Keystone. This kills the analogy by itself. Advocates simply have failed to identify any benefit to Keystone that deserves to be in the same sentence, paragraph, or article as the benefits of residential lighting (see below).  Levi immediately asserts:

Read more

Alyssa

Chris Weitz Turns from Directing Oscar-Nominated Movies to Immigration Reform

Director Chris Weitz didn’t just make one of the best movies of 2011 with his tender exploration of the lives of undocumented immigrants, A Better Life. The process of making the film turned him into a dedicated advocate for immigration reform, reconnecting with his Mexican heritage and studying Spanish and economics so he can be a more effective advocate. And now Weitz has taken his experience in fiction and turned it to fact, directing a series of immigration reform ads pegged to Alabama’s insanely restrictive immigration law, for a coalition of groups that includes the Center for American Progress. I think this one is my favorite:

The whole campaign is doing a very good job of showing the harm that restrictive immigration laws cause to non-immigrants, whether they’re older white men who are close friends with undocumented families or black Alabamans who see hatred of immigrants as part of the unfulfilled promise of the Civil Rights movement. So-called special interests have such wider reach than we often acknowledge.

Security

John Bolton Admits Attack On Iran Might Not Stop Its Nuclear Program

Former U.N. ambassador John Bolton is one of the more outspoken Fox News pundits, nearly always advocating for U.S. and/or Israeli military action to stop Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. But appearing on Fox News today, Bolton, who still supports military action, admitted that military strikes might be incapable of breaking Iran’s control of the nuclear fuel cycle.

Indeed, the comments from Bolton fall in line with Bolton’s former colleague in the George W. Bush Administration, former CIA director Gen. Michael Hayden, who warned recently that bombing Iran may give Tehran an inducement to pursue a nuclear weapon. Bolton told Fox News this afternoon:

BOLTON: They [Israel] may attack now but not really break Iran’s control over the nuclear fuel cycle which is a very unfortunate circumstance. We’re running out of time. Israel’s running out of time. Nobody can calibrate exactly when Iran will get the bomb.

Watch it:

While Bolton and his fellow hawks are quick to refer to Iran’s nuclear weapons ambitions as a foregone conclusion, neither senior U.S. intelligence officials now the IAEA have concluded that Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon. The IAEA has expressed concerns over a possible military dimension to Iran’s nuclear program and Director of National Intelligence Jame Clapper emphasized that U.S. intelligence sources believe Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has not yet made a decision whether to pursue a nuclear weapon.

Last month, Clapper told Members of Congress that economic pressure from sanctions could effect Iran’s “cost-benefit analysis” and dissuade Tehran from taking the steps necessary for constructing a nuclear weapon.

NEWS FLASH

Fox Panel: Liberals Support Birth Control To ‘Get Rid Of The Poor’ | Taking the war on birth control to the paranoid extreme, the panel on Fox News’ “The Five” agreed this afternoon that contraception is really scheme of the left to eliminate poor people. Often-sarcastic co-host Greg Gutfeld first floated the idea, saying, “it’s more about getting rid of the poor.” “The right want the poor to get rich, the left want the poor not to exist,” he added. “It’s not a bad point,” former Bush Press Secretary Dana Perino chimed in. Co-host Andrea Tantaros added, “Yeah, population control.” “Did you really just say that?” liberal co-host Bob Beckel responded flabbergasted. Watch it:

Security

Bryan Fischer: Women ‘Are Not Prepared By DNA’ To Serve In Combat

Last week, Rick Santorum had to walk back his comment that he opposes women serving in combat because “of emotions that are involved” by saying it’s not that he’s against women serving in combat, he’s just concerned that men are emotionally unfit to serve alongside women.

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association — an organization the Southern Poverty Law Center has designated a hate group — picked up the ball for Santorum, saying outright that women aren’t capable of serving in combat:

FISCHER: If our national security is on the line, the defense of your children, your family, when that’s on the line, who do you want manning the Howitzers? Who do you want manning the M-16s. Who do you want manning the fighter planes? Do you want somebody who is characterized by sensitivity, warmth and apprehension? That is somebody who is sensitive, who is warm and who is easily spooked? Is that who you want defending your national security?

Or do you want somebody who is characterized by emotional stability, dominance, rule, consciousness and vigilance? Well if your answer is B, which I think any objective, logical, right thinking, clear-headed, non politically correct corrupted thinking person would think, clearly you have just said we ought to have men in combat. … Women are not wired, either by evolution or by God, whoever is responsible for this difference, they are not prepared by DNA and innate personality characteristics to be in those positions.

Watch the clip via Right Wing Watch:

Right Wing Watch adds that Fischer said in a column today that “the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up.”

Justice

Mississppi Lawmaker Pushes Alabama-Style Attack On Schools And Showers For Immigrants

Mississippi Rep. Becky Currie (R)

Despite the harm caused by a harsh immigration law in the neighboring state of Alabama, Mississippi State Rep. Becky Currie (R) filed a bill, HB 488, that would implement an Alabama-style law in Mississippi. Unlike anti-immigrant laws in states like Georgia and Arizona, Currie’s bill includes Alabama’s unconstitutional provisions driving the children of immigrants out of schools and potentially making it a felony for undocumented immigrants to take a shower.

Significantly, Currie is a member of the organization State Legislators for Legal Immigration (SLLI), an anti-immigrant group of 65 lawmakers whose members “have promoted conspiracy theories about supposed government concentration camps and a coming one-world government, as well as false claims that President Obama is a foreigner and a Muslim.” SLLI also touts its “working partnership” with the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), an anti-immigrant group designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. FAIR, whose attorneys include Romney immigration advisor Kris Kobach, draft much of the legislation pushed by SLLI members.

Like Alabama’s law, Currie’s bill would require schools to check a newly enrolled student’s citizenship or legal resident status, according to the bill:

“Every public elementary and secondary school in this state…shall determine whether the student enrolling in public school was born outside the jurisdiction of the United States or is the child of an alien not lawfully present in the United States.”

When Alabama schools began enforcing the same policy, students with immigrant parents were terrified. Many stayed home, and more left Alabama schools permanently as their families fled the state. The Justice Department even stepped in to ensure that the law was not stopping students’ right to an education. Students in Mississippi could face the same fear under the proposed law.

HB 488 would also prevent an undocumented immigration from entering “into or attempt to enter into a business transaction with the state or a political subdivision of the state.” This provision is open-ended, “including, but not limited to, applying for or renewing a motor vehicle license plate, applying for or renewing a driver’s license or nondriver identification card, or applying for or renewing a business license.” A similar provision in Alabama was interpreted so broadly that public utility companies refused service to anyone who could not prove they are a legal resident or citizen. Under this interpretation, it became a felony for an undocumented immigrant to simply have water at his home to take a bath.

Alabama should serve as a prime example to Mississippi of the harm that can come from extreme immigration policies designed to do little more than make the lives of undocumented immigrants impossible in that state. But it is unlikely that legislators who agree with Currie will listen.

Politics

Romney Signs Anti-Porn Pledge, Ignores Demand To Return Contribution From ‘Hardcore’ Pornographer

Last month, three of the four current Republican presidential contenders responded to a survey from the group Morality in Media’s War on Illegal Pornography campaign. They all agreed to get aggressive with violators of federal obscenity laws if elected president. Mitt Romney specifically said he would be for “strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography.”

But campaign filings show that, last September, Romney accepted the maximum campaign contribution of $2,500 from Daniel Staton, the chairman of Friend Finder Networks Inc. that owns —among several other properties — Penthouse, BDSM sites like Bondage.com and BDSM.com, and LikeMyNudePhoto.com. Romney also accepted $2,000 from Staton and an additional $2,300 from Friend Finder Network CEO Marc Bell during his failed 2008 presidential campaign.

Of course, Penthouse and the handful of similar companies overseen by Staton are top targets of the War on Illegal Pornography campaign, and would suffer dramatically under the “strict enforcement of our nation’s obscenity laws” that Romney promised to uphold.

In a statement issued to ThinkProgress, Patrick Trueman, the President and CEO of Morality in the Media, said Romney should return the contributions from Staton:

While Governor Romney cannot police all activities of his donors to determine whether to accept or reject donations, he would do well to return contributions from those like Daniel Staton who are know [sic] to own obscene or hardcore pornography websites once such contributions are called to his attention. We have no reason to disbelieve Mr. Romney regarding his pledge.

Trueman told us that he hopes “to be in touch with [Romney's] campaign over the next week or two and will raise” his concerns.

Morality in Media seeks to dramatically reduce the proliferation of pornography by demanding lawmakers uphold existing federal laws. In a post on their website, the campaign explains that “harm from adult pornography is at pandemic levels,” and claims that pornographic videos, magazines and websites are to blame for a significant number of broken marriages and leads to addiction among “many” children and adults.

As ThinkProgress and several others have reported, right-wing campaigns that call for the strict enforcement of existing obscenity laws aren’t so much looking to rein in the proliferation of pornography as they are seeking to ban it outright.

Alyssa

West Wing Writer Lawrence O’Donnell: ‘Of Course’ Obama Is A Better President Than President Bartlet

Before he became an MSNBC host, Lawrence O’Donnell spent seven years as a writer and, eventually, executive producer on the West Wing. So it’s surprising that one of the key writers behind a show that’s liberal canon agrees that President Bartlet isn’t a progressive hero. As O’Donnell told ThinkProgress in a phone interview yesterday, “It used to drive me nuts when people would simply and offhandedly refer to him as a liberal president. … It would just be ‘oh he told off the religious right.’ Who gives a fuck? Tell me, what was the bill? What was the law?”

Indeed, O’Donnell was pessimistic about liberalism’s prospects throughout the conversation. He always “kinda assumed” the West Wing’s writers “knew this guy was not a liberal” because he said the show was committed to painting a realistic portrait of what is possible in American politics, and “there was no known equation in which a liberal becomes President of the United States.”

As evidence of this point, that only Democrats tainted by a streak of conservatism can become president, O’Donnell cited presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s decision to fly home to Arkansas to personally oversee the execution of Ricky Ray Rector, a death row inmate who self-lobotomized himself in a failed suicide attempt that left him unable to even understand what it meant to be executed. When prison guards arrived to escort him to the death chamber, Rector told them that he was saving the pecan pie from his last meal “for later.”

President Bartlet came from a very different state than President Clinton. As the former governor of New Hampshire, Bartlet would have presided over a state where the death penalty was technically legal, but has not actually been carried out since 1939. As such, the first time Bartlet had to decide whether to offer a last minute reprieve to a condemned man came in the Oval Office, and it ends with Bartlet confessing to his priest that he lacked the political courage to do so:

Take This Sabbath Day Closing Scene from emily51805 on Vimeo.

O’Donnell’s pessimism was at its apex when he discussed his process behind writing this scene. “When I proposed a death penalty episode…the backstory that I wrote in my head for this president is that he pandered on the death penalty, just like every Democrat who doesn’t believe in it, in order to get elected president. And he was from a state where he never had to use the death penalty anyway.”

If anything, however, O’Donnell describes a West Wing writers’ room that was even more pessimistic than the facts on the ground required. We asked why Bartlet did not at least fight to enact a prescription drug plan for seniors or major immigration reform, both of which were realistic enough goals that they were attempted (in the first case, successfully) by President Bush. O’Donnell questioned whether Bush’s rare flirtations with progressivism were really grounds for optimism — Bush’s Medicare expansion, O’Donnell emphasized, was poorly designed. This is certainly true, but if a conservative like President Bush was willing to fight for a Medicare expansion that was not paid for, surely it would not have pushed the bounds of realism for President Bartlet to at least try to enact a similar expansion and also pay for it.

Ultimately, O’Donnell agreed that the West Wing writers’ room was a little too pessimistic about our politics’ potential to reach above the moment and achieve something transformative. When asked if Barack Obama — who actually did fight (and occasionally, win) major battles on health care, immigration, economic policy and the environment — is a better president than Josiah Bartlet, O’Donnell was unequivocal. “Of course. Incomparable. Of course.” And then he went further: “The West Wing writers room would not have come up with the idea of running a presidential campaign in which an African-American gets elected. Because the realism view would have said that’s not possible. And I say that with no disrespect for the creative process, but rather with a greater respect and awe for the real world. … We are lucky enough to live in a country in which our politics in 2008 soared above the creative imagination of its fiction writers.”

NEWS FLASH

Rahm Emanuel: ‘I’ll Push For’ Marriage Equality | While Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D) is not sure if he supports marriage equality, Chicago mayor and former Obama Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel promised to advocate for legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. “I’ll push for it because it is consistent with the values base, and the practical values base, that I think is right as a city, as a state and as a country,” he said. “If you have two loving adults, that should actually be held up as a positive, whether it’s male or female, but in this case female-female, male-male. I think that’s proper, and we shouldn’t as a state discriminate.” Illinois recently enacted civil unions.

Economy

Former Wall Street CEO Says Rule Reining In Banks’ Risky Trading Doesn’t Go Far Enough

Ever since it was first proposed, the financial services industry has launched a withering assault on the Volcker rule, a regulation meant to rein in the ability of banks to gamble with their customers’ deposits. The banks were able to water the rule down before it was passed into law — thanks in no small part to Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) — and have now submitted a heap of comments to the regulators charged with implementing the rule, in hopes of watering it down even further.

But not all members of the financial industry are against the Volcker rule. In fact, former Citigroup CEO John Reed submitted a letter to the Securities and Exchange Commission saying that the rule does not go far enough in preventing the banks from engaging in risky trading with deposits:

When a firm is focused on market gain, it will employ every available device to achieve those gains – including taking advantages of clients and putting the firm at risk. And. when it is large enough to be a threat to systemic stability, it is able to avoid the constraints of market discipline which apply to smaller actors In short, little will stand in the way of it becoming a threat to systemic stability.

The Volcker Rule is a critical response to this problem. and the proposed rule takes an important step forward in pulling into place the prohibition on proprietary trading and positions in private funds. However, I am concerned it docs not offer bright enough lines or provide strong enough penalties for violation.

Reed called for “specific and vigorous penalties” for traders who break the Volcker rule, as well as a provision requiring banks’ senior officers to sign forms attesting to their firms compliance with the rule.

Reed is no saint when it comes to regulatory matters, as he was instrumental in bringing down the barrier between investment banking and commercial banking in the 1990s, which laid the groundwork for today’s mega-banks and the financial crisis of 2008. However, he has since acknowledged that his position then was a mistake, and has pushed for strong financial reform, including breaking up the biggest banks. (HT: Huffington Post)

Older

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

Sign Up