Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Alternative energy in MA; pie for RI

By

OK, OK, I'll try to blog my way out of the Earth Day doghouse …

In the midst of a climate crisis, Massachusetts (among other states) is stepping up to the plate — at least as far as alternative energies are concerned. WBUR is running a nice series this week on the variety of state initiatives —

CRAP! WHO'S THROWING THE PIES??! WTF? Seriously … WTF? (??)

Ah … seems the little terrorists left a flyer:

“Thomas Friedman deserves a pie in the face…,” the flier said, “because of his sickeningly cheery applaud [sic?] for free market capitalism's conquest of the planet, for telling the world that the free market and techno fixes can save us from climate change. From carbon trading to biofuels, these distractions are dangerous in and of themselves, while encouraging inaction with respect to the true problems at hand…”

 Uh … did the flyer enumerate the “true problems at hand”, and how precisely to solve them? I'm really curious to know, if only so as to avoid future pie-incidents.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure that more oil will decidedly not save us from climate change, so with that, I'm on the Massachusetts alt-energy bandwagon … at least until the pies come.

(Seriously, I was in the middle of writing an innocuously cheery post in favor of a benign energy policy at last — and then read about the Friedman-pies. Very weird.) 

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. As the foreign affairs expert on the NYT opinion page, Friedman cheered the Iraq war on, and on, and on, always saying “the next six months are critical to win this.”

    <

    p>Moreover, he writes badly–probably a consequence of the poor thinking skills that had him cheering on the war.  If the pie-throwers’ manifesto was poorly written, that is fitting indeed.

      • I strongly disagree with Thomas Friedman, and am so literal minded that I cannot grasp the concept of a metaphor, even when beaten over the head mercilessly with the metaphor for hundreds of pages.

        <

        p>I, the reviewer, am also profoundly unfamiliar with the definition of the word “hunt” and choose to call attention to this fact in such a way that exposes myself to maximum ridicule.  (Fake ed. note:  All herding animals hunt.  All of them.  For food.  How does he think the bison find more grass after all the grass in the place they are is gone?)

        <

        p>Also, I am unfamiliar with the concept of synergy; they didn’t teach this at anti-globalization class.

        <

        p>Capitalism sux!  Anti-glabialization rulz!

        <

        p>Yeesh, I didn’t finish Friedman’s book because I got tired of the repeitive metaphor, but that review was infinitely worse.

    • and wrote the pie-throwers manifesto himself.

      Perhaps he thought it would help him sell more books if he got himself pied.  I know it's not a well thought out plan, but hey, this guy is a cheerleader for laziz-faire capitalism, so how far ahead could he think? 

  2. It’s our behavior, stupid!
    It’s our policies, stupid!
    No, it’s the economy, stupid!
    Or is it all of the above?

    <

    p>Thomas Friedman wants to have it both ways – globalization (which by its very nature is a carbon-intensive and eco-unfriendly phenomenon) and a geo-green global enviro-friendly hootenanny. He wants to have his industrial techno-society and a smart/clean/green way of powering it.

    <

    p>The realities of climate change are scary, but what’s even scarier for most people is that the real solutions do not fit neatly into a package — whether a compact flourescent lightbulb or a brand spanking new energy policy that can be labeled green or clean. The real solutions are an affront to everything we have internalized about our society — namely an economy dependent on a)growth and b)cheap energy. Sadly we are learning that while cheap in the short term, our fossil-fueled economy was actually borrowing from the future. And we still don’t get it. The trucks that whiz back and forth on our interstates, fully equipped with freezers and refrigerators, to keep the shelves stocked, represent an utterly unsustainable fiasco. The cheap homes we’ve built up across the vast expanse of land this country has to offer are becoming even cheaper — not just because of a falling housing market but because of an inherently unsustainable design flaw: their dependence on cheap gas for transport. All the while this lifestyle has set into motion the forces of global warming… which has already entered what Gore called a period of consequences.

    <

    p>The big questions are out there… but they are not being asked of our legislators, or by our legislators, of our candidates, or by our candidates. They are being asked by citizens in revolt, and people who are ready to face up to the truthful answers, and students who are so disempowered that the only chance they have to break through is to pie the Thomas Friedmans – a/k/a the complicit jerks with the pulpits – in the face.

    <

    p>As the farm bill drags out even more, with massive subsidies for agribusiness that contribute to global warming, food insecurity, and costly health epidemics, isn’t it strange that the presidential candidates don’t tread there, even if they’re being asked question after question about nonsensical distractions? As millions of people around the world are joining the millions of hungry people already out there, is it possible to call a biofuel bill “benign”? What about our commoditization of food, with the commodity markets the new home of hedge speculators?

    <

    p>At what point will the Friedmans take a stand for justice instead of profit? At what point will our elected officials challenge our unsustainable economic system for the sake of the the people of the world, for the sake of the planet?

    <

    p>We can’t beat ourselves up over our individual contributions to climate change and injustice. Our behaviors are fueled by our policies – which are failing us in the starkest of ways. Our policies are fueled by profits , as our political system has been bought up, and our means of communication completely corporatized. The big questions will not be televised, and the big answers are a fundamental challenge to our economic and political system… and so they won’t be televised either.  

    • That these global warming activists are indistinguishable from religious zealots.  Salvation can only be acheived through widespread, societal poverty.  And not just a little, but dramatic grinding poverty and extreme asceticism.  Anyone who suggests otherwise by noting that technology has managed to fix each of the preceding environmental crises: deforestation and fuel shortgages; insufficient food production, etc., must be resisted and subjected to bizarre public shamings and even violence.  No!  We must have a dramatic decline in our standard of living to acheive salvation!

      <

      p>Mix in a little Jesus and chant, and these guys would make excellent medieval ascetics.

      • Care to generalize any further, CMD? I share your distaste for “empowerment’s” zealotry, but do you really think these kinds of statements represent “global warming activists” as a whole? I don’t.

        <

        p>empowerment needs to tell us what a real alternative to Friedman looks like in the real world. Otherwise it’s a rant, and not very helpful. More pie, anyone?

        • thanks for the opportunity. the real alternatives are human-powered (and not chevron’s concept of human energy), and they are happening as we speak.

          <

          p>the real alternatives are the vandana shivas of the world who are creating food communities in india, teaching people to collect rainwater during the monsoon season for use during the dry season, helping farmers save seeds and protest the dominance of monsanto and archer daniels midland.

          <

          p>the real alternatives are the wangari maathais who are helping the women of kenya plant trees to stave off climate change.

          <

          p>the real alternatives are the organic farming associations (like MOFGA and NOFA) who have for 35 years created genuine problem-solving communities answering the tough questions like how to keep low-tech small farms alive in a world which values quantity over quality, speed over care, profit over natural perfection.

          <

          p>the real alternatives are the farmers markets that bring fresh, local food to us on a human scale, where we can talk to the growers and better understand where our food comes from and the people it takes to bring it to us.

          <

          p>the real alternatives are the community-supported agriculture farms where a true community effort makes the small farm feasible.

          <

          p>the real alternatives are community-based economics projects like the berkshares local currency, like co-op power, like the lynn time bank, like nuestras raices in holyoke, like sustainable south bronx, like the intervale farm in vermont, like the mondragon region of spain, like the emilia romagna region of italy.

          <

          p>the truth is that the real solutions are community-based solutions… just look at cuba after they were cut off from soviet oil and petrochemical fertilizers (i highly recommend the movie The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil).

          <

          p>but instead our government subsidizes the automobile, industrial agriculture, high-tech pharmaceutical industry (for treating epidemics like obesity and diabetes that are caused by our industrial food system), the fossil fuel industry, etc. billion dollars for biotech!! let’s give away millions to bristol myers squib!! let’s build alternative energy casinos with ethanol-powered tele-kinetic transportation!!!

          <

          p>it’s nice that BMG endorsed obama… but what’s his role in the nuclear/coal/ethanol world? why does he take their money and pretend that he’s not influenced by it?

          • … but I don’t think they’re incompatible with a thriving solar/wind/CO2-neutral-biofuel energy industry, for example.

            <

            p>Hadn’t heard about the tele-kinetic transportation, but on balance, I think I’m fer it. The things you can do with corn …

            • with a thriving solar/wind/C02-neutral-biofuel industry.

              <

              p>our lifestyle is only made possible by the magical energy density (not to mention all of the other spectacular features) of oil.

              <

              p>where will our food come from in 10 years? we are depleting water, we are wrecking topsoil, and we are shipping food thousands of miles so that we can have exotic fruits like oranges and bananas on demand.

              <

              p>what green power will keep the fruit pyramids at whole foods stocked? wind? solar? biofuel? it’s simply not possible. we basically have a choice — live with the consequences of dire warming (goodbye boston) or change our habits, our behaviors, our economies, our policies, our politics, our communities, etc…

              <

              p>the great green hype – is a madison avenue creation. green car of the year?! 21 miles per gallon. NBC has gone green? they have gone “clean” coal and nuclear. wal*mart at the forefront of the (second) green revolution? give me a break! chipotle (a/k/a mcdonalds) leading the local foods revolution? it’s just not workable.

              • “our lifestyle is only made possible by the magical energy density (not to mention all of the other spectacular features) of oil.”

                <

                p>That sounds plausible, but can you provide backup? Currently, you might be right, but is our lifestyle really impossible w/o oil, forever and ever amen?

                • would be that you can use the magical energy density of oil to build a sustainable solar-based infrastructure to support a technological society once the oil is gone.

                  <

                  p>That is the technical meaning of the much-abused term “sustainable development.”

                  <

                  p>That’s not what we have done so far, but there is still time.

                • Why are people so insistent that our “way of life” not change?  Is it just that you believe it can’t change, or do you believe that it shouldn’t have to, because it is perfectly fine?

        • Not sure how to be more specific, as the article named no names.

          <

          p>Please read it as “Glaboal warming activists at Brown who thre pie at Friedman” and others who believe that a rgression of technology and society is called for.

          • wouldn’t be a regression of society, if those aspects are bad for society.  And re-prioritizing our investments in technology is not regressing technology, it is recognizing that we aren’t here to serve technology.  It isn’t a sacred cow that must always receive “full funding” and everyone should be hell-bent on advancing it as fast as possible.  It has a much bigger cost than the $200 we pay for a new digital camera.

      • hmmm… strange coincidence that the defenders of our “standard of living” (even when they know that we are contributing ungodly proportions to the warming of the planet,  even as climate refugees have already become a reality) adhere to a faith in technology, based only upon its past “successes”, on past “progress”. it’s too inconvenient to pay attention to the fact that such progress has actually had a horrific impact on the planet on which it depended. it’s too inconvenient to pay attention to the extreme exploitation of human and natural resources that such progress was built upon.

        <

        p>it is this paradigm of technology and progress and economic growth that has created vast inequities on a global and local scale, where billionaires have the world at their fingertips and SUVs are fed with biofuels, while people go hungry. the grinding poverty exists, my friend, but you are blind to it.

        <

        p>believe me — the world i envision is devoid of poverty as well as billionaires. the world i envision has people that lead happy, fulfilling lives, where cooperation is the dominant mode as opposed to your competitive, destructive world.

        <

        p>true sustainability includes justice — environmental justice, economic justice, and social justice.

        <

        p>i ask you to question your own zealotry…

        <

        p>your faith in the dollar — the U.S. economy is less than robust. we are borrowing way over heads at the federal level, at the level of state and local governments, and at the corporate and household level. at some point we have to pay back our debts… we have been printing money and dropping interest rates, but at some point our chickens… (i’ll let rev. wright finish this sentence)

        <

        p>your faith in technology — the grand arrogance that we ingenius humans have not only engineered the world we live in, but that we have also accounted for all the consequences of our endeavors… and unintended consequences are all fixable via more technology. what about the unintended consequence of treating humans like cogs? what techno-fix do you have for that one? how about more fulfilling virtual realities like second-life? or genetically engineered potatoes that replace the missing serotonin?

        <

        p>your faith in science — as a scientist by background, i have profound admiration for scientific pursuit, because i see it as a quest for truth. but our corrupted version of science — led by profit margins more than any other vision — is not so benign. and i ask you to consider the wisdom of structuring our lives around scientific models of the incredibly complex system our planet is… as the realities of climate change are manifesting themselves at timescales previously assumed impossible, the models are being adapted. the greenland ice sheets sliding off into the ocean would put much of boston underwater. and the emerging science is showing this is not a far-fetched possibility… and you’re gonna sit behind your computer and mock my concerns because of your blind faith in our techno-society?

        <

        p>who’s the zealot?

        • your faith in the dollar — the U.S. economy is less than robust. we are borrowing way over heads at the federal level, at the level of state and local governments, and at the corporate and household level. at some point we have to pay back our debts… we have been printing money and dropping interest rates, but at some point our chickens… (i’ll let rev. wright finish this sentence)

          <

          p>Call it faith, or just common sense, but the dollar is still THE global monetary instrument, and US debt as a percent of output is a lot less than post WWII and also less than in the 1990s.  

          <

          p>And about those chickens. That you wish to defer to a mininster rather than economic statistics and policy makers tells me something about your faith.  

          <

          p>Turning your back on the technology and market forces that brought us to where we are today, in favor of small agrarian scenes from a bad Kevin Cosner movie–whether you’re right or wrong–does sound based in faith rather than reason.

  3. are that we want all this technology to continue full force, faster internet and smaller camera phones and better special effects and video games and perfect health till we’re 140 and designer babies with perfect genes and jobs jobs jobs for everyone, and yet we think that if we do the dishes more efficiently or switch to high-tech light bulbs and unplug the cell-phone charger and promote wind farms and alternative energy we’re cool.  

    <

    p>The true problems at hand are that all of us are working too hard and driving to too many useless jobs to do unnecessary stuff and being very selfish and me-first,  when we should be working minimally, cooperatively, and caring for each other.  We are trying to have too high a standard of living.  We are working way too hard on genetic engineering and post-genderism and feminism and Healthworks and other energy-demanding trivial pursuits, instead of accepting physical labor to sustain a local economy of basic living.

    <

    p>Rant not complete, but i’ll let that simmer for a while…

    • I’ll just pick one.

      <

      p>Feminism is not an energy-demanding trivial pursuit.
      Feminism is about treating half the world’s people as full human beings.  This means women should be allowed to discuss anything with their doctors, as men have always been.  (I’m talking about the old Bush gag rule.)  This means employers shouldn’t say, “You have a uterus, and you might get pregnant, so I’m giving this promotion to a guy.”  This means it is long past time to overturn the conservative  SCOTUS decision in Goodyear v. Ledbetter to allow corporations to pay women less money for the same work men do… if the corporation can keep it secret for at least 180 days.

      <

      p>Feminism is an idea separate from people using too much energy or buying too many gadgets or driving too many miles.

      • I’d like to suggest that feminism means honoring women, and the very real and specific things that entails as well: motherhood, childbirth, breastfeeding, family life, the natural attachment babies and young children have for mommy, etc. Not to mention an entire worldview in which all relationships don’t reduce to the power of physical force.

        <

        p>It’s not just treating women the same as men; it’s valuing women.

        • Wow, your version of feminism is almost like Dr. Laura’s or Phyllis Schlafly’s.  There is a long way we have to go to respecting and honoring women and treating women as full human beings, it’s not as if we did that in the Fifties and we shoudl go back to that, no way, the right form of feminism is something that society has never figured out quite right.  We started thinking it meant everyone had to have one of those nice office jobs like men all seemed to have in the fifties, and therefore that required a change in the kinds of work that everyone did, at least Americans did.  The old kinds of jobs were sent off to Indonesia and Singapore and China. The need to make everyone independent and equal took energy.  We shouldn’t confuse postgender feminism for a real feminism of honor and respect for women.

          <

          p>To get back on topic, to save the earth, we have to ditch postgender feminism and all the research and resources it requires and ditch the idea that everyone should be independent and have the same kinds of jobs and everyone should be working.  Two income families are not only bad for the environment, they are going to strain the income gap so much it will break the economy.

  4. A move away from the fossil fuel economy is critical for Massachusetts.  This we know:

    <

    p>1) We’re already paying through the nose for fossil fuels to power our state, heat our homes and move around.

    <

    p>2) We don’t have any home-grown fossil fuels to speak of.

    <

    p>3) They’re not getting any cheaper.

    <

    p>It is high time to launch a big initiative to move the state towards clean, renewable, homegrown energy sources.  Wind, solar and efficiency can be done now and we need to invest in developing technologies like advanced solar, non-food bio-fuels (cellulosic).

    <

    p>Just yesterday, Ohio passed a renewable energy standard that is STRONGER then Massachusetts’.  At this point, Ohio and Texas are leapfrogging us on this critical issue, pretty embarrassing no?

    <

    p>So what do we need to do?

    <

    p>Two things MUST happen this legislative session for Massachusetts to remain a leader in clean energy, efficiency and a clean energy future.

    <

    p>1) Pass the energy bill! The House and Senate have both passed strong energy bills that put efficiency and renewables at the heart of our energy policy.  The bills are currently held up in conference committee.  The committee must act quickly to resolve the remaining issues.  One of the key issues remaining is whether or not the state should put in place a strong greenhouse gas performance standard for so-called ‘clean coal’ technologies.  That seems like a no brainer- if we’re subsiding clean coal because it is clean, we need to have safeguards to insure it actually is.

    <

    p>2) Pass the Global Warming Solutions Act. We all know that Bush isn’t going to do anything helpful on global warming before they leave, but in the meanwhile states have lead the charge by committing to making substantial emissions reductions.  Massachusetts has not, and it is high time that we do.
    Furthermore, by committing the state to making the steep reductions required by science, both in the short term (20% by 2020) and the long term (80% by 2050) the state can send a strong signal to clean energy businesses and entrepreneurs that if they locate their business here, and invest in clean technologies, that a market will exist for them, now and in the future.  
    Without a strong, long term commitment to taking action, the folks who will build our clean energy economy will go elsewhere, where they know the government will support their efforts.

    <

    p>The good news is that both bills are on the verge of passing.  If the legislature and the governor can work together, this could be a historic year for the environment, and the clean energy economy in Massachusetts.  We must not be content with small steps and half measures at this point.  It is high time for bold and meaningful action and these two bills are big steps in that direction.

    • Last I heard, the Ohio law defined coal as a renewable energy source. (Well, I guess if you wait long enough….) Do you know if that is still in the law?

      <

      p>I am very skeptical of many of these state plans, which seem to be about making impressive claims for the future but which are not too strong on the implementation. Yes, it’s useful to have leaders come out in favor of these things, but the proof of this pudding is yet to come.

      • Not sure about the coal, but they have an overall 12.5% renewable energy standard while Massachusetts is stuck at 4%.  The energy bill which has passed the house and senate here would get us to 14% or more, and probably with better definitions.  For the record the MA version also includes ‘clean coal’ as an alternative (but not renewable) energy source.  

        <

        p>I get why Ohio might do that (they have coal) but am clueless as to how it benefits Massachusetts to put public money into ‘clean coal’, especially without the performance standard that is in the Senate bill.

        <

        p>As for the carbon caps, I think your skepticism is well placed, but the evidence is pretty clear- if you mandate more renewables and less carbon, green businesses move to your state and you make progress.  California is a great example of this- they passed a big solar energy bill and have seen a big spike in investment and renewable energy.

        <

        p>Ultimately, yes, we need a national policy, and the next president will have to be the one to do it.  But in the meanwhile we can either sit on our hands, or have states pass bills that can be the model for that national policy.

        <

        p>  

        • I didn’t say anything about carbon caps one way or the other. I certainly agree that cap & trade can work and ought to be one of the tricks in the bag (if that is what you are saying).

          <

          p>I certainly don’t think the Great and General Court should declare coal a renewable energy source, or round pi to 3, or any of that nonsense.

        • The Massachusetts RPS minimum requirements are:

          <

          p>1.0% by 2003  
          1.5% by 2004  
          2.0% by 2005  
          2.5% by 2006  
          3.0% by 2007  
          3.5% by 2008  
          4.0% by 2009  
          an additional 1.0% each year afterward until DOER ends additional requirements.

          <

          p>As far as I know, DOER hasn’t ended additional requirements, which means that it will go up by 1% per year indefinitely.  Personally, I’d like to see the lege codify the 1% annual increase up through 2025 to remove the ambiguity, but unless DOER actively stops the increments, the MA RPS is not stuck at 4%.

  5. The curtain rolls back to reveal a costumed Bullwinkle the moose.

    He recites: 

     

    Simple Friedman met a pieman

    Speaking while at Brown,

    Said simple Friedman to the pieman

    “What is with the frown?”

    Said the pieman to simple Friedman 

    “The world it is not flat”

    Then punctuated the debate

    With flying pastry:  Splat! 

     

     

Archives