What "Sicko" Misunderstands About Health Care
July 26, 2007
Death of the Civil Rights Movement?
August 13, 2007 | Michael Shellenberger,
Several people emailed us last spring when Eddie Glaude and Ronald Sullivan wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post arguing that the civil rights movement was moribund:
The civil rights old guard, represented by the board, seems stuck in a 1960s mind-set that expects a particular form of response from black America -- pushing for government action to remedy the effects of discrimination. This type of response was popular, successful and necessary during the civil rights movement and, in some cases, remains a powerful form of redress.
The successes and failures of the civil rights movement, however, fundamentally changed the country's racial landscape. Of course racial discrimination remains. But we have entered what has been called a post-civil-rights age that requires an array of strategies to address the complex problems many African Americans face. . .
Indeed, many current civil rights leaders fetishize the form of dissent most associated with the civil rights movement. They confuse principle with tactics. They behave as though marching and petitioning the government for redress of grievances is the only principled response to the maldistribution of burdens and benefits in our democracy. And they bristle at other forms of dissent, tactics designed to reach the shared goal of equality under law for all Americans. For many, it is either the old way or no way at all. . .
Whether or not you agree with their recommendations, it's hard to disagree with their analysis that the big civil rights groups are stuck in the grievance-based politics of the past.
A year ago NPR's Juan Williams issued a scathing polemic about the politics of victimhood in the form of a defense of the famous Bill Cosby speech to the NAACP:
Critics often charge Bill Cosby, in his Brown anniversary speech, with beating up on an easy mark: poor black people. Wrong. The critics are the ones who veer off target. Cosby repeatedly aimed his fire at the leaders of today's popular black culture, which is often not just created by black artists, but marketed and managed by black executives. He was talking about current black political leaders and, most of all, about the civil rights leaders who time and time again send the wrong message to poor black people desperately in need of direction as they try to find their way in a society where being black and poor remains a unique burden to bear.
Today, columnist Cynthia Tucker today lays out a critique of the civil rights movement that hits the same notes.
The Urban League and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, decades older than the SCLC, are also respected more for their traditions than their recent accomplishments. None of them has made a graceful transition to the 21st century.
The organizations were founded to secure basic rights for black Americans - including the vote, equal educational opportunities and equal employment opportunities. They campaigned to ensure that black Americans were no longer forced to the back of the bus or the end of the line. It is a testimony to the success of the civil rights movement, in which those organizations played a prominent role, that much of that agenda has been accomplished. . .
There are certainly many black Americans who could use help, but their troubles are not a straightforward matter of racial injustice. A huge coterie of black men is slowly disappearing into a permanent underclass, where they are not employed or employable, married or marriageable.
All of the authors argue that the civil rights establishment is outmoded. But is the argument for a post-civil rights movement -- or also a post-race-based politics? Glaude and Sullivan write:
[T]the condition of many black children, from inadequate health care to poor education, begs for new and creative approaches to problem-solving. Why can't the NAACP commit some of its resources, beyond lobbying the government, to addressing the social and moral crisis faced by African American children?
Does it any longer make sense to have policies and politics aimed specifically at people of color, African Americans, or black children -- or should we instead aim to articulate and fight for a non-racial vision of the future? This was the strategy of Marian Wright Edelman when she started Children's Defense Fund -- what can we conclude about the success of her work? What lessons can a new politics draw from Harlem Children's Zone, which we argue in Break Through is a model for dealing with concentrated poverty?
Whatever the answers are to these questions, it's inspiring to see public intellectuals like Glaude, Sullivan, Tucker, and Williams asking the tough questions, openly and publicly.
FINAL NOTE
The impetus for the Cynthia Tucker column was the tragic and terrifying execution of the editor of the Oakland Post, Chauncey Bailey, allegedly by men associated with Your Black Muslim Bakery in Oakland, whose finances he was investigating. The irony here is that Cosby actually praised a certain kind of militarism in his NAACP speech for supposedly improving public safety:
We've got to hit the streets, ladies and gentlemen. I'm winding up, now -- no more applause. I'm saying, look at the Black Muslims. There are Black Muslims standing on the street corners and they say so forth and so on, and we're laughing at them because they have bean pies and all that, but you don't read, "Black Muslim gunned down while chastising drug dealer." You don't read that. They don't shoot down Black Muslims. You understand me. Muslims tell you to get out of the neighborhood. When you want to clear your neighborhood out, first thing you do is go get the Black Muslims, bean pies and all. And your neighborhood is then clear. The police can't do it.
As far as I know, Cosby hasn't said anything about the Oakland Post shooting.
Comments
Taka, thank you for your comment.
There are certainly dangers associated with uranium mining, as with any other form of mining, and those dangers are further exacerbated by risks associated with radiation exposure (although coal and other hard rock miners are often exposed to radiation as well, and the burning of coal releases relatively large amounts of uranium and other radioactive materials into the atmosphere as well).
We did not include a factoid for recent fatalities from uranium mining, and much of the earlier mining impacts, such as those in the article you cited, were fueled by demand from the military nuclear weapons apparatus, not later civilian nuclear power operations. Like the early history of coal mining (which we don't include here), the early history of uranium mining is clearly much worse than today's operations, although both coal and uranium mining still have their impacts.
It's also worth noting in this context though, that pound-for-pound, uranium is a couple orders of magnitude more "energy dense" than coal, meaning much much less uranium must be mined, processed, 'burnt' and then reprocessed or stored to produce a given amount of energy, compared to coal. In other words, whereas coal ore, fuel and waste are measured in quantities of hundreds, thousands or even billions of tons, 'equivalent' quantities or uranium are probably described in terms of hundreds of pounds or dozens of tons. Much of the environmental and human impacts of mining and waste thus scale proportionately.
In the end though, as you clearly understand, all forms of energy have their risks and impacts (which was much the point of this post), and the key is to examine their relative risks and impacts to make informed decisions about our energy supply options. Thanks for stopping by Taka. Cheers...
By Jesse Jenkins on 2010 05 17
Thanks Phil. This is clearly a complex situation, and I'm not saying Eskom has the best plan to move forward. What I'm trying to draw attention to is the broader complexity of challenges inherent in the intersection of development, energy poverty and climate change.
For a country where energy poverty is widespread, as we agree is the case in South Africa, efficiency doesn't preclude the need for MUCH more energy. In the context of rapidly developing nations, we can talk about the most efficient EXPANSION of energy supplies and economic well-being, but clearly an absolute reduction in energy usage isn't in the cards. They'll need a LOT more energy, and if we don't want to sacrifice climate and environmental goals, we need it to be clean, and if we don't want to sacrifice economic development and poverty alleviation goals, we need it to affordable. Clean, affordable, and abundant. That's the core point I'm trying to raise. While Eskom may not have the best plan to further any of those goals, South Africa's case is emblematic of those interlocking challenges.
When it comes to balancing a renewables-only grid, the technologies "are there" in the sense that they physical exist and are known. The question is if they are affordable and readily scalable in a timely manner to meet expanding energy needs. That remains an open question and is not a trivial matter.
Thanks for the additional information about Eskom's plans. Much appreciated. Cheers,
Jesse
By Jesse Jenkins on 2010 04 02
Let the politicians spin. Let Asia take over as the supplier of the cheapest windmills (they are the inevitable source of cheaper anything). Spend money to train a bunch of guys on how to fix alternate energy machines for "green collar jobs." Piddly, incremental changes for way too much money and little return.
Meanwhile, what Americans should do is what we are best at: INNOVATE. Create "magical solutions" in the true sense - go for creative destruction via totally out of left field solutions. Experiment. Entrepreneurs go for it! Panic is right around the corner and we cannot predict what the solutions will be. Throw out seed money. Fund basic research and playgrounds for really smart, creative people. Give a monster prize for something that generates energy at some ridiculously low price.
I don't think the government can do it as a "Man to the Moon" effort because there will not be just one solution. And the answers aren't going to come from straightforward engineering or straight-jacketed bureaucracies. Smart grid? Not if we need to build a massive infrastructure to get there. We need something more like the way the Internet grew - organically, chaotically.
We need good old American Wild West adventurers to solve this problem. Let's figure out how to get out of the way and cheer 'em on!
By Georjean Adams on 2009 07 30
The main mistake in the whole argumentation is: there is no clean energy. Despite that, people insist in driving their own car (weighting about 1 ton), using it instead of walking a full hour, getting fat and living "empty" lifes that need to be filled with more consumption of energy - and yet call themselves "green" because they own a hybrid or ethanol driven machine.
The only solution (and I really mean the "only") is to learn again how to use our own bodies to move (and wash, play, etc). It would solve both the ecological and the existencial problems of modern times. And yes, public transportation systems would help a lot (if people would just leave their cars at home and use it).
By Rodrigo Dias on 2009 06 23
Good post! Thanks for given this...
By Solar Power Business on 2009 06 08
Another strategy is to emphasize a massive expansion of public transportation, something President Obama has yet to support. That would fight Global Warming, create jobs, and lower energy prices.
By libhomo on 2009 05 03
I want your price of white refined sugar CIF mutsamudu thank you
By Sabir Aly on 2009 04 05
Thanks for this article, we need to keep this in front of the public and keep pushing to get these things built...
I linked to the article on my website
xanga kingofallclergy
By ed on 2008 11 07
Ms. Hill has substantially overstated what the Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound has spent, understated the grassroots beginnings of the group and overall continues to misinform and mislead about the factual aspects of the Cape Wind project.
If Cape Cod and the islands of Nantucket and Martha's Vineyard actually receive 75% of their power from the Cape Wind turbines we will be paying, according the MMS analysis, close to twice as much as we now pay for electricity.
Talk about moonshots!
By peter kenney on 2008 07 02
Thanks for this interview!
There's also now an NPR interview online for those who want to hear more from Prof. Lackner-
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10621219
Stephen Miller
Ecoversity.org
By stephen miller on 2008 06 10
Michael -
Good luck on the technology deep dive. I know a lot of folks in the energy engineering area if anyone needs some technical assistance.
Robert
By R Margolis on 2008 05 23
Richard - Glad to hear you'd consider a CCS loophole for the coal moratorium. It's notable that while I disagree with guys like Joe Romm on a lot things, we both support CCS, as does James Hansen and, as Lindsay and Teryn pointed out in their posts, the IPCC.
In opposing CCS I think the environmental movement is being reflexively rather than thoughtfully anti-technology. Why? Because it's hard to see any movement shutting down coal burning in China and the rest of Asia any time soon. Indeed, this is never even proposed as a scenario in the IGHIH comments. Rather, there is a lot of stuff about the heartbreak, which I can appreciate, over MTR, and the value of pre-modern life, which I do not appreciate, mostly because I spent a significant amount of time in my twenties living in Latin American, occasionally in peasant communities, and thus fairly quickly got over whatever romantic view I had of pre-modern living.
Given the challenge of stabilizing emissions by 2025 (or earlier) to avoid rising above 500 ppm (or higher), I think there is likely to be a very important role played by deploying carbon capture devices near burning smokestacks to sequester the carbon. Air capture tech doesn't require compatibility, and thus has the advantage of being deployable with existing coal plants.
My understanding is that from an engineering perspective it's not that hard to do -- what's been missing has been the public or private money to do it.
But beyond the merits of any given solution, what I think is important is that the climate movement (student and otherwise) answer the question: what really matters given the reality of climate change and China's demand to modernize?
I think Wired was trying to answer that question, and even if you don't agree with all of it, the impulse to focus on what matters is laudable.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 22
Well, Michael...if you had noticed my use of the future tense "we can't let the coal industry become a undead industry" - I mean that if we get a serious carbon cap bill, which is what I was discussing, the coal industry knows that it could mean their elimination (in the United States) so they are trying to guarantee any bill will sustain their industry through massive payouts. I certainly did not mean that they are 'currently' an undead industry. But hey, this is a blog and we make quick reads sometimes.
I think I did mention your concern about a few of their statistics...but I am worried that you jumped to trumpet a story that to me seemed poorly researched or written.
Finally, I am not anti-technology and have overseen an investment driven approach to climate change on my campus. However, many of the technologically savvy people that I work with have expressed tremendous concern about the rhetorical positioning of CCS as a solution, particularly when it is probably not immediately applicable to start bending the carbon curve down. I have made myself clear that I am willing to consider a CCS loophole in a coal moratorium if they have to compete on a fair playing field with renewables and gas, especially as you have noted coal is rising in price.
Lastly, I think there are a lot of misconceptions about China on both sides, both yours and people mythologizing some pretty abject poverty. I wrote my thesis on China, but I think I will try and get some Chinese youth voices to tell their story about sustainable development - even though it will be tricky.
By Richard Graves on 2008 05 22
Teryn and Jesse deserve credit, anyway. So far they seem pretty alone.
This summer, our 14 Breakthrough Fellows are going to be taking a deep dive into technology policy for dealing with the energy and climate challenge. None of us are engineers, but we're going to do our best to understand the state of a few different technologies anyway, as case studies in what it would take to stabilize emissions. Wish us luck!
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 22
I will certainly give IGHIH kudos for looking more holistically at the energy issue. When I was in college discussing energy, coal was often ignored. The ideals of the world living off of pastoral organic farms, off the grid power, and no capitalism pre-date even my college days.
... and it would also be nice to see more folks with an engineering background on IGHIH. Increased technical discussions would give a better idea of the challenges of reaching a low carbon world.
By R Margolis on 2008 05 22
"It seems perfectly reasonable to me to call international 'development' genocide."
--ItsGettingHotInHere Contributor
Just because you were the ItsGettingHotInHere blogmaster, Richard, does not mean this is your fault. But it does raise questions about how we can form a more thoughtful and educated youth blogging community.
By Teryn Norris on 2008 05 22
Pseudo-Marxists, Richard, pseudo. Actual Marxists aren't anti-moderns. And I'm not suggesting everyone there is anti-modern -- clearly, Jesse and Teryn aren't -- but from the looks of the comments Teryn and Jesse's posts received, it seems most IGHIH commenters are.
It warms the heart to see Millenial greens carrying on the tradition, started by their parents, of insisting that poor people, in this case the Chinese, shouldn't want prosperity.
As for fact-checking, I made it clear that I disagreed with some of the Wired items.
Speaking of shoddy research, your claim that the global coal industry is on life support ("what I think we all agree we can't afford is to let the coal industry become a undead industry") and will die without subsides from cap and trade ("kept alive only by the subsidies it sucks out of a carbon auction scheme to develop carbon capture and storage to outfit their new plants") is belied by the global coal boom, not just in China but in Europe as well. In the face of growing demand, coal prices have risen from $23/metric ton in 2003 to $134/metric ton. All of that happening without cap and trade.
Please keep me posted as to how your efforts to convince the Chinese to stop burning coal work out.
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 22
Hey Michael,
Thanks for characterizing It's Getting Hot in Here as being a bunch of agrarian Marxists. We picked our logo as young people lifting up a wind turbine, echoing Iwo Jima, because the Energy Action Coalition doesn't believe in Energy.
Also, kudos for promoting a story that was so shoddily researched it is appalling. I noticed you were worried about their research on old-growth forest.
Well, how is this for an example. They compare a single window mounted air conditioner for a house in Arizona to be comparable to central heating for a house in the Northeast. Their A/C quote source: http://www.thegreenguide.com/calculators/ac-co2.mhtml
See the article: http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/magazine/16-06/ff_heresies_02ac
Seriously, this is ridiculous.
By Richard Graves on 2008 05 22
Ardous
By Michael Shellenberger on 2008 05 22
I dunno, Michael, I gotta say, I found it sort of boring too.
1) Cities vs Rural, I'm not freaking kidding you. I totally read that in Glamour (or was it Cosmo) a year ago. Sorry Wired, scooped by Glamour. Again.
2) A/C is okay. Are people seriously out there demonizing A/Cs? I don't use mine, but I also don't use my heat either. Gotta love LA.
2) Organic vs Local. Don't they know? Local is the New Black.
3) Farm forests. This one was just dumb. Moving on.
4) China is the answer!! Seriously, does Wired think that they really are the first to come up with these ideas? And that they're really that heretical? Heretical isn't China might develop alternative energy technology! Heretical would be: global warming is awesome and we should all be thrilled to bits for Canadian mangoes!
5) Genetic engineering. Okay, this one was sort of interesting. I'll give them that one. Not sure I buy it, but it was interesting.
6) Blah blah blah, we know.
7) Nuclear power, call me when you solve NIMBYism.
8) Used cars: umm, given the number of non-consumerist enviros, I'd say this is hardly controversial.
9) Adaptation. I'll give them this one too. Not because I think it's anything new, but I think people should be paying more attention to this.
I dunno. I was really excited to check this out when I read your post, but, personally, I didn't find anything in it particularly controversial or innovative. I guess for a mainstream mag it did a decent job though....
By arduous on 2008 05 22
The Wired article is a reminder that some of the debate is as much ideological as it is technical or economic. So often I hear that carbon is the big problem, but don't use CCS, or don't use nuclear, or don't... To an outsider this sounds like carbon must not be such a problem if the change advocates can be so choosey.
By R Margolis on 2008 05 21
the productive powers of labour. The separation of different trades and China may command a greater quantity both of labour and of the necessaries
By Bertie on 2008 03 27
You don't think the fact that he's working with KPCB and Generation Investment Management is a sign that he is committed to attacking this thing technologically? Am I being too optimistic by giving him lots of credit for doing that kind of investment work?
By Jake de Grazia on 2008 03 24
Solar thermal complements nuclear rather than replaces it. The power from solar thermal plants drops substantially during the night (many use natural gas to keep the coolant hot at night). Nuclear is a baseload technology (i.e., 24/7 power).
It sounds like we will need all of our non or low carbon energy technologies to make it through this challenge.
By R Margolis on 2008 03 19
I've heard about super-hot rocks, super heated rocks; an Aussie scientist says they've located a deposit in the middle of the desert that has enough energy to supply Australia's power needs for 100 years. What's more he says that there are dozens of huge geothermal site throughout the world on all continents. Are you familiar with this if so why isn't it getting more attention?
Two, I heard that 1,028,000 square feet of solar panels could provide all of the electric power needed in the US. There are about 5,000,000 commercial buildings in the US, so installing units on all of these would exceed our electricity needs. Clean energy and jobs!
By Eric on 2008 03 15
I doubt Gore will be the one making the sacrifices. He has not set a very good personal example so far and his reported 100 million dollar net worth gain directly resulting from this global warming stuff he's promoting isn't giving him any incentive to change his "wasteful--polluting" ways. Perhaps he, like the demised New York Governor, thinks he's exempt--above it all. Like--"do as I say--not as I do". Where have we all heard that before?
By Charles on 2008 03 15
I read an article in the WSJ last week about struggles the Texas electrical grid is having with the intermittent nature of wind power. Does anyone know of any grid related problems Cape Wind has or might encounter? We definitely have an energy infrastructure problem, and I'm trying to figure out what changes we're going to need to make to the grid in order to bring renewables into the economy most smoothly.
By Jake de Grazia on 2008 03 12
Charles, I wrote this blog for an audience that I assumed had some familiarity with alternative energy jargon. May I kindly suggest that you spend some time getting up to speed on the basics before commenting? Wikipedia is a fine place to start:
A solar cell is a device that converts energy from the sun into electricity.
A solar panel is a collection of these cells.
A solar plant is simply the name for a facility that manufactures large amounts of solar energy.
The New York Times article that I refer to here deals with solar thermal power rather than photovoltaics. The former works by focusing sunlight to boil water and turn a turbine, while the latter converts sunlight directly into electricity.
By Lindsay Meisel on 2008 03 07
What is a solar plant vs a solar cell or solar panel? Your article is VERY incomplete and does more harm than good for alternative energy development.
By Charles on 2008 03 07