ThinkProgress Logo

Climate Progress

What to do about the Farm Bill?

biofuels.jpgI am no expert on the intricacies of the farm bill, but it will have a huge impact on climate. Fortunately the Center for American Progress does have an expert, Jake Caldwell. He has written a great piece, “A New Farm Bill: The Work is Not Finished.” I will excerpt the energy-related parts:

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-IA) and the Senate Agriculture and Senate Finance Committees have done a commendable job so far preparing for the next generation of cellulosic biofuels–liquid fuels sustainably produced from energy crops such as switchgrass and agricultural wastes such as corn stalks and rice hulls. The Senate bill increases funding for farmers growing new biofuel feedstocks in a sustainable manner. It also provides significant provisions for increasing research and development by bolstering financial incentives for new cellulosic biofuel refineries and increasing funding that would allow biorefineries to purchase and transport diverse biofuel feedstocks.

The Energy Title of the Senate Farm Bill also provides for the use of transparent certification and labeling criteria to encourage sustainable production of biofuels through the innovative “Voluntary Renewable Biomass Certification Program.” An investment in advanced biofuels must be accompanied by enhanced environmental safeguards and incentives for biofuel producers to conserve land and water resources, maximize lifecycle greenhouse gas emission reductions and the low carbon characteristics of fuels, and grow energy crops in a sustainable manner.

What is the farm bill missing, energy-wise?

Read more

Security

Hagel: New Unilateral Iran Sanctions ‘Escalate The Danger Of A Military Confrontation’

chuckha.jpg Today, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson accused the Quds division of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps of proliferating weapons of mass destruction and sponsoring terrorism. They announecd new unilateral sanctions, the “broadest set of punitive measures imposed on Tehran since 1979.”

In his weekly news conference today, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, sharply criticized the administration’s move, warning that it brings the United States one step closer to war:

“Unilateral sanctions rarely, ever work,” Hagel said by phone during his weekly news conference. “I just don’t think the unilateral approach and giving war speeches helps the situation. It will just drive the Iranians closer together.” [...]

“It escalates the danger of a military confrontation,” Hagel said.

“I certainly think engagement is critical … direct engagement,” said Hagel. “That’s what great powers do.”

In the press conference today, Rice insisted that the United States continues to pursue the “path of cooperation” with Iran. But the administration’s announcement comes just a day after CQ reported on the administration’s $88-million request to equip B-2 “stealth” bombers with a new 30,000-pound bunker buster — a weapon “meant for the kind of hardened targets found chiefly in Iran.”

On Sunday, Vice President Cheney issued “his sternest warning to date on Iran,” promising that there will be “serious consequences” if Iran continues “on its present course.” President Bush also last week publicly warned for the first time of the risk of “World War III” if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

Yglesias

Air Power

airstrike.jpg

Max Bergman and Fred Kaplan both note that the Army’s increased reliance on air power in Iraq is probably helping to produce the welcome decrease in American casualties. The only problem, as they both note, is that this seems to imply a shift away from a counterinsurgency strategy, which requires more risk-taking on the part of soldiers (i.e., dead Americans) in order to rely less on firepower (i.e., fewer dead Iraqis), back toward the failed force protection policies of 2005-2006.

Not, however, that I think we should go back to high casualty counterinsurgency tactics. Rather, the tendency of our commanders in Iraq to keep shifting back to low casualty strategies reflects politicians’ perfectly accurate view that there’s nothing left in Iraq such that it’s both actually achievable and worth asking lots of people to die for. That, though, means we should adopt the ultimate casualty-reduction strategy of ending the war. Remaining in force while saving lives by adopting immorally destructive and ultimately counterproductive strategies is a very bad idea.

Politics

Thompson Downplays Iraq Insurgency: ‘A Bunch Of Kids With Improvised Explosive Devices’

thompsonkid.jpg Speaking during a stop in South Carolina today, former Sen. Fred Thompson (R-TN) downplayed the Iraq insurgency as child’s play. The insurgency is made up of “a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices,” Thompson said:

We will not be a safer country, we will not be a safer America if the whole world watches us being defeated by a bunch of kids with improvised explosive devices.

CNN has video of his remarks.

The core of Thompson’s machismo argument for remaining in Iraq appears to be that we can’t lose to “a bunch of kids.” His “analysis” is detached from the reality of what troops face in Iraq. A 2006 report by the International Crisis Group noted that the Iraqi insurgency is “no longer is a scattered, erratic, chaotic phenomenon,” but rather had developed into a sophisticated, coordinated operation:

“Groups are well organized, produce regular publications, react rapidly to political developments and appear surprisingly centralized,” the report said.

It noted the insurgency, a predominately Sunni Arab movement, has grown “more confident, better organized, coordinated, information-savvy.”

This past June, a senior military official told the Washington Post, “We are starting to see more sophistication and training” in the insurgents’ attacks.

Earlier this month, Thompson said Iraq had WMDs prior to the U.S. invasion. Steven Benen notes an alarming pattern of Thompson’s cluelessness on issues of substance.

Politics

So Damn Many

The real reason people of a certain age see everything through the prism of the Baby Boom Youth Experience is, obviously, that there are just so damn many baby boomers that they’re able to get away with it. The cohorts right before and right after the baby boomers are just too small to form an insular and self-referential circle. My generation is really big, and someday we’ll be as annoying as the boomers are today, but for now too many of us are too young and obscure to inflict it on others.

Politics

Class and Voting

Paul Krugman posts a telling graphic from Gelman, et. al. showing that the correlation between income and voting behavior has generally grown stronger over time (the dot is the correlation, the whiskers are the range of uncertainty):

incomevoting.png

Krugman comments that “the conventional pundit wisdom about the relationship between class and voting” — namely that there’s less class polarization than there used to be “is, literally, the opposite of the truth.” The difficulty is that there’s a lot of ambiguity about how we should define class. Fortunately, the best article on this controversy was written by me. Krugman, following Larry Bartels, wants to define the “white working class” as being composed of white people in the bottom third of the income distribution (which, note, is considerably less than one third of all white people). Dissenters from this view make some good points:

Gopoian and Whitehead point out that €œonly one-third of the Bartels voters were actively doing paid work,€ a fact that undermines the €œworking€ half of the working-class label. What’s more, €œof those who were working, nearly half were under the age of 30,€ a category that would include such non-obvious members as several 20-something Ivy League€“educated members of the Prospect’s staff.

In short, the low-income whites who Bartels finds to be strong backers of the Democratic Party have a marked tendency to be retirees or students and even those who are working tend to be very young. The alternative definition of “white working class” is “white people who don’t have a bachelor’s degree.” Under that definition of white working class, the white working class does, indeed, support the Republican Party. However:

The education-based definition of the working class comes with problems of its own. Using the education criterion, almost two-thirds of white voters, and a significantly larger portion of the overall population, get defined as €œworking class,€ arguably making the group too large to target politically in a meaningful way. The median household income of non€“ college-educated whites was $47,500 in 2004, slightly above the national median. Consequently, the working-class category of those without four-year college degrees ends up comprising a rather miscellaneous group, lumping together people living below the poverty line with many reasonably well-off people. Indeed, college dropout and richest man in America Bill Gates is considered working class under this standard. One outlier hardly disproves a theory, but according to the NES fully 29 percent of voters have some college education but no degree, slightly outnumbering those with a bachelor’s degree or more. The €œsome college€ group was, according to 2004 exit polls, the educational cohort in which Bush achieved his best performance. Thus, the conservative inclinations of the educationally defined working class are largely attributable to the sentiments of its best-educated members.

The moral of the story, in my view, is that we need better data. With a sufficiently large data set and adequate statistical tools, it should be possible to try to prize apart the influence of age, income, and educational attainment on voting as separate factors. But as things stand, the picture looks very murky. One major takeaway, though, is that people need to write and talk more carefully about the oft-neglected “some college” crowd. This is a much larger proportion of the population than educated professionals tend to realize, and it’s their conservative political views that mainly drive the right-leaning voting habits of the entire non-college block. Since I feel like most pundits don’t realize that “some college” status is so common, they also don’t realize what occupations “some college” people are doing, or really have a clear picture in their heads of who these people are even though their political views are the cornerstone of a major trump in contemporary political journalism.

Climate Progress

Get used to high oil prices

No one is going to come to the rescue on the supply side — and, of course, we remain stuck with an administration that doesn’t believe in demand-reduction strategies.

opec.gifAs the Wall Street Journal (subs. req’d) reported in “OPEC’s Lever Loses Its Pull on Oil“:

Oil prices are hovering near historic highs, but consuming nations shouldn’t expect quick relief from OPEC, the world’s only source for big, quick supplies.

For several reasons, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries has neither the clear leverage nor the inclination to open the spigots and drive down the price of crude, which jumped past $90 a barrel in intraday trading in New York last week for the first time.

This figure shows how little spare capacity OPEC has — essentially none outside of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudis have no inclination to initiate a major price drop, especially since these prices do not appear to be destroying demand.

Moreover, the International Energy Agency (IEA) warned back in July that it saw “OPEC spare capacity declining to minimal levels by 2012.

And the WSJ notes no one outside of OPEC will be coming to the rescue either:

Read more

Older

Newer

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

Sign Up