Cliff Stearns in the seamy spotlight.

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) was a moderate back when GOP moderates were allowed in the House of Representatives. Those days are past, however, and Stearns has had to scramble to adapt to the new atmosphere of Tea Party fruitcakery. He was trounced in the race for chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee in 2010, largely because his colleagues viewed him as a squish. Earlier this month, he announced he's leaving his district to escape a Tea Party primary challenge, jumping to a newly drawn district nearby. Now he's desperately trying to bank enough money and credibility with conservatives to survive beyond 2012.

The process has not been kind to his dignity or his integrity. Instead, Stearns has wormed his way into one of the seamier niches in the Republican ecosystem: circus ringmaster for show-trial investigations designed to create headlines, the niche Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) had hoped to dominate. The investigation into Planned Parenthood and the investigation into Solyndra are both Stearns' babies; both have dragged on forever and both have uncovered zero wrongdoing. That hasn't stopped Stearns from playing partisan warrior with a crude zeal that frequently crosses the line into cringe-worthy absurdity (like when he said Energy Secretary Steven Chu should be fired over Solyndra).

Of all the subjects that haunt the climate conversation, none is so vexed as growth.

The details are complex, but the dilemma is simple: Growth seems to improve humanity's quality of life and drive ecological overshoot at the same time.

On one hand, economic growth leads to poverty reduction, better health, technological innovation, and (local) environmental improvement. On the other hand, it has pushed us into the red zone on climate and a number of other global ecological indicators. Humanity's lot steadily improves while biophysical systems are pushed closer to the edge. It's a sticky wicket. Pro-growth and anti-growth types often seem involved in entirely separate conversations, passing like ships in the night. How can we reconcile their perspectives?

Last week, researcher Kate Raworth of Oxfam International proposed a new framework for understanding how human development and ecological boundaries fit together. Happily, it's a doughnut. Here's what it looks like:

An energy-efficient Navy? Tanks, but no tanks.

What is the Republican take on global military strategy? A recent hearing offers a glimpse -- a hilarious, horrifying glimpse.

On Feb. 16, the House Armed Services Readiness Subcommittee held a hearing on the U.S. Navy's budget request for fiscal year 2013. I confess I did not have the fortitude to watch the entire two-and-a-half-hour affair, but CQ wrote up a summary that covers some of the lowlights.

The GOP's main objection, expressed by chairman J. Randy Forbes (R-Va.), is that the Navy is accepting budget cuts in the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan winding down. Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus should be out in public, contradicting his commander in chief and objecting to the cuts, the Republicans believe.

Ani DiFranco: Which Side Are You On

Ani DiFranco is what you'd call a "known quantity." She's been cranking out albums since 1990, roughly one a year, so if you're going to be into her thing, you probably already are.

I'm not an Ani fanatic (there are some serious Ani fanatics), but I'm a fan. I came to her through the double live album she released in 1997, which is still my favorite. The woman knows how to put on a live show!

One year ago today, Reps. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) and Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) -- chairs of the House Energy Committee and Oversight Subcommittee respectively -- sent a letter to Energy Secretary Steven Chu "seeking documents and information about a $535 million loan guarantee ... awarded to Solyndra, Inc."

That letter marked the beginning of an investigation that has since involved 31 more congressional letters, five congressional committee hearings, nine congressional committee staff briefings, 187,000 pages of documents from the administration, 72,000 pages of documents from Solyndra investors, testimony from five administration officials from three different departments, and a sworn committee interview with an Obama "bundler."

What are the results of this expansive (and no doubt expensive) investigation?

Bupkis. Nothing.

With the Keystone XL pipeline back in the news this week, there's been some interesting discussion on the interwebs about the tensions between climate analysts and climate advocates. Time's Bryan Walsh has a nice run-down and cites an interesting recent post from George Hoberg called "The Three Logics of Climate Politics." Here's Hoberg:

The logics of analysis and advocacy are fundamentally different. The analyst is guided by aspirations for truth and well-reasoned argument, and guided largely by the value of maximizing the cost-effectiveness of solutions. They chaff against exaggerations and misuse of data by advocates on all sides, and search for the best reasoned argument for the most efficient path forward.

In contrast, the climate advocate is trying to maximize political leverage in an effort to foster systemic transformation of the energy system. The logic of political action and movement building is different from the logic of policy efficiency. The advocate works to strategically frame problems and solutions that work politically, not those that best adhere to the standards of analytical rigor. Frequently, this involves exaggerated claims that aggravate the analyst.

I would frame it slightly differently, as a spectrum rather than a dichotomy. On one end you have the beat reporter: all facts, no opinion. Then there's the analyst, who shapes facts into coherent stories about the way things are and arguments about policy choices. Then there's the advocate, who endorses particular political outcomes. And on the far end, the activist, who sets about to create those political outcomes.

Photo by doctorwonder.

This is the fourth post in a mini-series on the rebound effect. Here are posts one, two, and three.

Let's briefly review what we've covered so far in my rebound series:

1. Climate change means we need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, a lot, beginning immediately.
2. There are two ways to reduce GHG emissions from energy: increase low-carbon energy supply and/or decrease total energy consumption.
3. Ramping up clean energy supply can't be done fast enough to keep us within our carbon budget, certainly not in the short- to mid-term, if at all. So we've got to use less energy.
4. There are two ways to reduce energy demand: reduce the energy intensity of the global economy and/or reduce the growth of the global economy.
5. Substantially reducing global energy intensity turns out to be extremely difficult, thanks in part to the rebound effect.
6. If energy intensity can't be reduced quickly enough, then the only answer left (other than failing to stabilize global temperature at all) is slowing GDP growth. Yikes.

So where does this leave us? In my mind, two big questions remain, regarding Nos. 5 and 6.

The Seattle area is pioneering a new way to track CO2 emissions -- and it's more exciting than it sounds! (Photo by James Arnott)

As long as the U.S. federal government remains a basket case on climate change, most progress is going to take place at the sub-national level, in states and cities. It's difficult to find a state or metro area of any size that does not have plans (or at least aspirations) to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. That's true in "red" parts of the country as well as "blue."

What has become clear over the last few years, however, is that cities, in particular, do not necessarily have the tools they need to do the job. In part that's because they're subject to forces governed at the state or federal level. But it's also because the task is new enough that many tools just haven't yet been invented.

One of the biggest gaps is also one of the simplest: measurement. It turns out there's no comprehensive, standardized way for cities to track their carbon pollution. This lack of shared metrics is an invitation to empty rhetoric and symbolic gestures. What gets measured gets solved, etc. etc.

He won't be around forever.

A great many people believe that one of the primary barriers to action on climate change is the existence of a cadre of "climate deniers" -- people who refuse to accept the now-overwhelming scientific evidence for anthropogenic climate change. There is a great deal of tortured introspection among people in my circles about how to reach the deniers and bring them around to reality. (Seriously. You should see some of the email threads.)

Most climate hawks have finally moved past the "deficit model," the notion that the solution to climate skepticism is to pour more facts on the pile or repeat the science more slowly and loudly, like an American tourist overseas. But the implicit assumption that the road to climate progress runs through the hearts and minds of the doubtful remains intact.

Over time, I have come to disagree. I don't think the climate deniers will ever change their minds. What will happen is that they will, to put it bluntly, die off. We might wish it otherwise, but I fear that change on climate -- real change, non-linear change -- will not happen until the generational cohort in which climate denialism is concentrated begins passing into the sweet beyond.

As I have argued previously, energy is a potential wedge issue for Democrats. The mindlessly pro-fossil, anti-renewables posture of the congressional GOP is supported only by committed Republicans. Independents are far more open to environmental concerns and far more supportive of clean energy. With the right message, delivered consistently, Democrats can bring Independents to their side.

More evidence for this thesis came yesterday in the form of a poll [PDF] commissioned by environmental groups from Geoff Garin and Allan Rivlin of Hart Research. The pollsters did 1,000 interviews, distributed among four key swing states: Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, and Ohio. Their findings are quite revealing, in a number of ways.

First and most important: Despite a concerted and well-funded attack on Obama by oil companies, focused on just those key states, the majority of voters still trust the president over congressional Republicans on energy (45 to 38 percent) and jobs (44 to 39 percent). There's a well of trust from which to draw.