Comments on: Did Time magazine’s Bryan Walsh cut-and-paste a faulty critique of Obama’s clean energy efforts? http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/ The Latest on Climate Science, Solutions, and Politics Sun, 21 Mar 2010 13:59:56 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Alessandro Pavanati http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-135013 Alessandro Pavanati Thu, 01 Oct 2009 09:01:54 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-135013 Dear all, I would like to give you the opportunity to see an Italian implementation of President Obama's policy on energy, environment and housing. Mario Cucinella is an Italian architect that projected a low cost/low emissions home. That's called 100K Home, which means 100.000 euros cost, extremely low par comparison to Italian prices. Mario Cucinella (founder of Mario Cucinella Architects) has been invited to the United States of America to present his work on sustainability in architecture at the Italian Embassy in Washington and the Italian Cultural Institutes of New York and Washington. Both are Italian governmental institutions, as the Italian government endorses President obama’s vision on energy and environment. The 100K Home Project has generated great interest in both Europe and USA and will be presented on both occasions. The events are promoted by the Italian Cultural Institutes of New York and Washington and the Italian Embassy and Consulate. Monday October 5th 2009 at 6.30 pm (local time)at the Auditorium of the Italian Embassy – 3000 Whitehaven Street, Washington- Mario Cucinella will speak about the zero carbon 100K€ Home project Low Cost, Dream Home, Low Environmental Impact. On Monday morning he will be received by the Director and Associate Professor of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Maryland, Madelen Simon. After Washington, tuesday 6th October at 6.00pm (local time) at the Italian Cultural Institute of New York – 686, Park Avenue New York City – Mario Cucinella will give a lecture entitled “Sensitivity, Creativity, Sustainability”. Mario Cucinella will bring to an American audience his vision of ecological and sustainable architecture which is in line with President Obama’s vision of the “green economy” (reiterated during his recent speech at the UN General Assembly). Cucinella’s “green” vision was honoured when he received the prestigious 2009 ‘MIPIM Green Building Award’. Mario Cucinella is the only Italian architect invited to exhibit at ‘For Sustainable Living’ (the exhibition opened in Paris on May 13th and that will run until November 1st next). If journalist and experts are interested on the project, you can contact me directly at +39 347 1265589 or at pavanati@dellasilva.com. My bests, Alex. Dear all, I would like to give you the opportunity to see an Italian implementation of President Obama’s policy on energy, environment and housing. Mario Cucinella is an Italian architect that projected a low cost/low emissions home. That’s called 100K Home, which means 100.000 euros cost, extremely low par comparison to Italian prices. Mario Cucinella (founder of Mario Cucinella Architects) has been invited to the United States of America to present his work on sustainability in architecture at the Italian Embassy in Washington and the Italian Cultural Institutes of New York and Washington. Both are Italian governmental institutions, as the Italian government endorses President obama’s vision on energy and environment. The 100K Home Project has generated great interest in both Europe and USA and will be presented on both occasions. The events are promoted by the Italian Cultural Institutes of New York and Washington and the Italian Embassy and Consulate. Monday October 5th 2009 at 6.30 pm (local time)at the Auditorium of the Italian Embassy – 3000 Whitehaven Street, Washington- Mario Cucinella will speak about the zero carbon 100K€ Home project Low Cost, Dream Home, Low Environmental Impact. On Monday morning he will be received by the Director and Associate Professor of the Faculty of Architecture of the University of Maryland, Madelen Simon. After Washington, tuesday 6th October at 6.00pm (local time) at the Italian Cultural Institute of New York – 686, Park Avenue New York City – Mario Cucinella will give a lecture entitled “Sensitivity, Creativity, Sustainability”. Mario Cucinella will bring to an American audience his vision of ecological and sustainable architecture which is in line with President Obama’s vision of the “green economy” (reiterated during his recent speech at the UN General Assembly). Cucinella’s “green” vision was honoured when he received the prestigious 2009 ‘MIPIM Green Building Award’. Mario Cucinella is the only Italian architect invited to exhibit at ‘For Sustainable Living’ (the exhibition opened in Paris on May 13th and that will run until November 1st next). If journalist and experts are interested on the project, you can contact me directly at +39 347 1265589 or at pavanati@dellasilva.com. My bests, Alex.

]]> By: Franklin Barrett http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101365 Franklin Barrett Tue, 04 Aug 2009 17:21:42 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101365 Is this just like the RE-ENERGYSE initiative that Obama proposed? An "obvious" mistake that the White House will "get around to fixing"? Please. [<em>JR: What the frig are you talking about? You still can't admit what Obama clearly campaigned on. How could he possibly have spelled it out in more detail over and over again. Please!</em>] Is this just like the RE-ENERGYSE initiative that Obama proposed? An “obvious” mistake that the White House will “get around to fixing”?

Please.

[JR: What the frig are you talking about? You still can't admit what Obama clearly campaigned on. How could he possibly have spelled it out in more detail over and over again. Please!]

]]> By: Jason http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101252 Jason Tue, 04 Aug 2009 00:00:11 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101252 Joe, Please explain why the $150 billion over 10 years for Energy R&D figure is still on the White House website. To my knowledge you have never addressed this. http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/energy_and_environment/ [<em>JR: Since it is an obvious mistake, like many things on the web, I have always assumed that it was the work of some intern type. That's why I never "addressed" it. But it does gives those who want to attack Obama for supposedly not keeping a campaign promise he didn't actually make something to point to -- so I'm assuming the White House will get around to fixing it.</em>] Joe, Please explain why the $150 billion over 10 years for Energy R&D figure is still on the White House website. To my knowledge you have never addressed this.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/ issues/ energy_and_environment/

[JR: Since it is an obvious mistake, like many things on the web, I have always assumed that it was the work of some intern type. That's why I never "addressed" it. But it does gives those who want to attack Obama for supposedly not keeping a campaign promise he didn't actually make something to point to -- so I'm assuming the White House will get around to fixing it.]

]]> By: David B. Benson http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101248 David B. Benson Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:35:50 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101248 350 ppm isn't low enough. Glaciers will still melt further back than is needed in those localities which rely on glaciers for melt water. Around 300 ppm CO2e is probably the correct goal. 350 ppm isn’t low enough. Glaciers will still melt further back than is needed in those localities which rely on glaciers for melt water. Around 300 ppm CO2e is probably the correct goal.

]]> By: Jay Alt http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101156 Jay Alt Mon, 03 Aug 2009 16:50:06 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101156 Others have drawn some of the same conclusions as TBI. See paragraph 3 - http://www.fas.org/press/_docs/Nobelist%20Letter%20-%2007162009.pdf [<em>JR: Uhh, not really. I'm sure those Nobelists support passing the climate bill, whereas TBI aggressively opposes passing the bill. But it is true that the Nobelists have bought into the myth TBI pushes, since the letter ends, "We hope that you will urge the Congress to send you a bill that will invest in energy research, development, and demonstration at an amount approaching the stable $15 billion annual support that you have proposed." At least they added "demonstration" -- but as I've shown, Obama didn't propose $15 billion annually for RD&D. Don't confused my constant debunking of TBI's falsehoods with opposition to much greater RD&<strong>D&D</strong> spending. TBI uses their nominal support for clean energy as the "street cred" they need to trash anybody who actually tries to pass serious legislation to boostclimate and clean energy.</em>] Others have drawn some of the same conclusions as TBI. See paragraph 3 -

http://www.fas.org/ press/ _docs/ Nobelist%20Letter%20-%2007162009.pdf

[JR: Uhh, not really. I'm sure those Nobelists support passing the climate bill, whereas TBI aggressively opposes passing the bill. But it is true that the Nobelists have bought into the myth TBI pushes, since the letter ends, "We hope that you will urge the Congress to send you a bill that will invest in energy research, development, and demonstration at an amount approaching the stable
$15 billion annual support that you have proposed." At least they added "demonstration" -- but as I've shown, Obama didn't propose $15 billion annually for RD&D.

Don't confused my constant debunking of TBI's falsehoods with opposition to much greater RD&D&D spending. TBI uses their nominal support for clean energy as the "street cred" they need to trash anybody who actually tries to pass serious legislation to boostclimate and clean energy.]

]]> By: Mike#22 http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101123 Mike#22 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:48:17 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101123 Dan, I was fooled a few times by innocuous statements from Pielke(s) and TBI. Some of the stuff over at TBI looks useful. Many thanks to JR and others journalists for exposing Pielke(s) and TBI. There is a LOT of material, all of it delayer/denier falsehoods, all dressed up to look fair and balanced. To quote the long eared one, Read The References, above. As regards the Time magazine article, it looks to me like thay have also inserted the TBI mantra into Energy Secretary Chu's testimony: "But according to many energy experts — including Steven Chu, Obama's Nobel Prize-winning Energy Secretary — the science isn't there yet. Significant basic research and development needs to happen before renewables can truly displace fossil fuels" making it sound like Chu is against the immediate deployments of renewable energy across every sector. Walsh and Editors have some explaining to do. [<em>JR: Good point, Mike. I need to do a Chu post. Not only is he for immediate and aggressive deployment of clean energy, especially efficiency, he is also for a high carbon price. So while he does believe we need major technological advances to avert catastrophic global warming -- and who doesn't, given that we probably need to get back to 350 pppm? -- he is no delayer.</em>] Dan, I was fooled a few times by innocuous statements from Pielke(s) and TBI. Some of the stuff over at TBI looks useful.

Many thanks to JR and others journalists for exposing Pielke(s) and TBI. There is a LOT of material, all of it delayer/denier falsehoods, all dressed up to look fair and balanced. To quote the long eared one, Read The References, above.

As regards the Time magazine article, it looks to me like thay have also inserted the TBI mantra into Energy Secretary Chu’s testimony: “But according to many energy experts — including Steven Chu, Obama’s Nobel Prize-winning Energy Secretary — the science isn’t there yet. Significant basic research and development needs to happen before renewables can truly displace fossil fuels” making it sound like Chu is against the immediate deployments of renewable energy across every sector.

Walsh and Editors have some explaining to do.

[JR: Good point, Mike. I need to do a Chu post. Not only is he for immediate and aggressive deployment of clean energy, especially efficiency, he is also for a high carbon price. So while he does believe we need major technological advances to avert catastrophic global warming -- and who doesn't, given that we probably need to get back to 350 pppm? -- he is no delayer.]

]]> By: Dan C http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101106 Dan C Mon, 03 Aug 2009 05:26:56 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101106 I am a relatively new reader who is unclear as to why such strong, [snip], language is regularly used with regards to the Breakthrough Institute (and Dr. Pielke Jr.) and their work given that, on the whole, you both appear to be advocating for very similar goals: massive investment into clean energy. Clearly you disagree on the role of emissions targets, which is certainly a topic worthy of healthy debate, but much of the remaining incisive commentary seems to relate more to semantics that serve only to polarize two groups that are in fact largely on the same side of the discussion. [<em>JR: As a new reader, you should probably spend some time on Climate Progress and the science blogosphere to fully understand this particular issue. TBI and Pielke pretend to advocate similar goals and thus they sound like they are on the same side as climate science activists like me. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are very skilled at what they do, because their goal is to be credible enough with the media so that they can then launch vicious "contrarian" attacks on actual climate science activists. I think the best overall post I've written on TBI -- with links to their disinformation-based attacks on Gore, Obama, Waxman, and other clean energy advocates, plus a withering critique of their supposed environmentalism by a well-known academic -- is <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/22/waxman-markey-offsets-breakthrough-institute-shellenberger-nordhaus-media/" rel="nofollow">here</a>. One of the top environmentalists in the country described TBI as the North Koreans of the climate debate -- engaging in the most outlandish and egregious behavior in order to get noticed by everyone else. As for Pielke, among media figures who claim to believe in the IPCC, he is probably the most debunked person in the entire science blogosphere (although Lomborg is close). He is beloved of and widely quoted by the deniers -- Sen. Inhofe and Marc Morano -- for a very good reason. They basically have the same goal of delaying serious action on climate. Pielke viciously smears the professional reputation of real climate scientists on a regular basis over the tiniest of semantic disagreements (see here) My posts on TBI and Pielke comprise maybe 1% to 2% of my overall posts, and it is a general policy to mostly ignore them until their disinformation breaks through to the MSM. But if you think this is professional behavior by Pielke -- see <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/28/the-lies-of-roger-pielke-jr/" rel="nofollow">here</a> -- then you have a major disagreement with me and the overwhelming majority of my readers. My "goal" is not "massive investment into clean energy." That would be an inevitable outcome of my primary goal, which is avoiding catastrophic global warming. I have no idea what TBI and Pielke really believe. I know what they say and do -- which shows no actual evidence that they are at all interested in avoiding catastrophic global warming, since they categorically refuse to propose policies that could possibly solve the problem (see <a href="http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/28/2008/12/22/finally-roger-pielke-admits-he-supports-policies-that-will-take-us-to-5-7%c2%b0c-warming-or-more/" rel="nofollow">here</a> for instance). Indeed, given that TBI is working full time to kill the climate and clean energy bill, it is impossible to say they are on the side of anyone who cares about the health and well-being of future generations.</em>] I read and value both your blog and that of Dr. Pielke Jr. for advancing useful ideas and information for our clean energy future; I do not care about who shut down who's blog or who is a climate "denier", nor does that benefit anyone as we attempt to move forward and solve our climate and energy issues. I ask respectfully as a reader that you try to focus on the issues and not the personal battles--and perhaps even acknowledge the ways in which your viewpoints converge--in order for a healthy policy debate to continue to thrive. (As a nice example, I thought your discussion of the McKinsey report on July 29 was terrific.) Thanks very much, Dan [<em>JR: Thanks. I hope you stick around. We won't agree 100% on everything -- but that is true of everyone who comes.</em>] I am a relatively new reader who is unclear as to why such strong, [snip], language is regularly used with regards to the Breakthrough Institute (and Dr. Pielke Jr.) and their work given that, on the whole, you both appear to be advocating for very similar goals: massive investment into clean energy. Clearly you disagree on the role of emissions targets, which is certainly a topic worthy of healthy debate, but much of the remaining incisive commentary seems to relate more to semantics that serve only to polarize two groups that are in fact largely on the same side of the discussion.

[JR: As a new reader, you should probably spend some time on Climate Progress and the science blogosphere to fully understand this particular issue. TBI and Pielke pretend to advocate similar goals and thus they sound like they are on the same side as climate science activists like me. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are very skilled at what they do, because their goal is to be credible enough with the media so that they can then launch vicious "contrarian" attacks on actual climate science activists. I think the best overall post I've written on TBI -- with links to their disinformation-based attacks on Gore, Obama, Waxman, and other clean energy advocates, plus a withering critique of their supposed environmentalism by a well-known academic -- is here. One of the top environmentalists in the country described TBI as the North Koreans of the climate debate -- engaging in the most outlandish and egregious behavior in order to get noticed by everyone else.

As for Pielke, among media figures who claim to believe in the IPCC, he is probably the most debunked person in the entire science blogosphere (although Lomborg is close). He is beloved of and widely quoted by the deniers -- Sen. Inhofe and Marc Morano -- for a very good reason. They basically have the same goal of delaying serious action on climate. Pielke viciously smears the professional reputation of real climate scientists on a regular basis over the tiniest of semantic disagreements (see here)

My posts on TBI and Pielke comprise maybe 1% to 2% of my overall posts, and it is a general policy to mostly ignore them until their disinformation breaks through to the MSM. But if you think this is professional behavior by Pielke -- see here -- then you have a major disagreement with me and the overwhelming majority of my readers.

My "goal" is not "massive investment into clean energy." That would be an inevitable outcome of my primary goal, which is avoiding catastrophic global warming. I have no idea what TBI and Pielke really believe. I know what they say and do -- which shows no actual evidence that they are at all interested in avoiding catastrophic global warming, since they categorically refuse to propose policies that could possibly solve the problem (see here for instance). Indeed, given that TBI is working full time to kill the climate and clean energy bill, it is impossible to say they are on the side of anyone who cares about the health and well-being of future generations.]

I read and value both your blog and that of Dr. Pielke Jr. for advancing useful ideas and information for our clean energy future; I do not care about who shut down who’s blog or who is a climate “denier”, nor does that benefit anyone as we attempt to move forward and solve our climate and energy issues. I ask respectfully as a reader that you try to focus on the issues and not the personal battles–and perhaps even acknowledge the ways in which your viewpoints converge–in order for a healthy policy debate to continue to thrive.

(As a nice example, I thought your discussion of the McKinsey report on July 29 was terrific.)

Thanks very much,
Dan

[JR: Thanks. I hope you stick around. We won't agree 100% on everything -- but that is true of everyone who comes.]

]]> By: Joe http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101090 Joe Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:44:13 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101090 I agree. I agree.

]]> By: Susan Kraemer http://climateprogress.org/2009/08/02/did-time-bryan-walsh-cut-and-paste-the-breakthrough-institute-clean-energy/#comment-101089 Susan Kraemer Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:42:53 +0000 http://climateprogress.org/?p=9668#comment-101089 Egregious. On the other hand, trumpeting a (supposed) superiority of Asian renewables investment does help break through the Senate Republicans endless claims that China is doing nothing about climate change (therefore we don't need to do anything either) Egregious.

On the other hand, trumpeting a (supposed) superiority of Asian renewables investment does help break through the Senate Republicans endless claims that China is doing nothing about climate change (therefore we don’t need to do anything either)

]]>