In a speech Tuesday, President Bush aimed to pacify Americans’ concerns about skyrocketing fuel and food prices with the assurance that it’s all Congress’ fault. Bush advocated tackling energy prices by throwing environmental protection to the winds (in not quite those words), urging Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and rah-rah-ing new coal and nuclear power plants. Bush also expressed openness, though not support, to a summer-long gas-tax suspension, an idea backed by presidential contenders John McCain and Hillary Clinton but not Barack Obama.
Yesterday, David noted comments by an oil analyst who predicted $200 oil by 2012. Today, that analyst was joined in his prediction by none other than the chief of OPEC, Chakib Khelil (who's also Algeria's energy minister). Mr. Khelil's comments were not date-specific, though this article leads me to believe he was thinking $200 oil could come much sooner than 2012. Meanwhile, we saw more of the same from both President Bush and Big Oil.
It is fine and necessary to put a price on carbon, via either a carbon tax or 100 percent auctioned cap-and-trade permits. But in the latter case, when those permits are not sold directly to polluters but are released into a secondary market (either via auctioning or, worse, via giveaways), those markets tend to prioritize maintaining their own existence over reducing emissions. In short, a price is fine; an actual market is not.
George Voinovich. There’s an important story in yesterday’s edition of E&E (as always, $ub. req’d) about two alternatives to Lieberman-Warner that have recently been floated in the Senate. One comes from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and the other — not so much a bill as a “set of principles” — from a coalition of the nation’s biggest and dirtiest coal companies. Together they serve as an excellent primer on the conservative movement’s latest approach to climate change. What do they want? No mandatory caps or a safety valve. Voinovich’s bill ditches cap-and-trade entirely, at least for a three-year evaluation period. …
This is the third in a five-part series exploring the details of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. See also part 1 and part 2. Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that tomorrow morning, you wake up, reach in your pocket, and find that you suddenly have billions of dollars of cash. Before you have a moment to celebrate, you also realize that you are lying in the middle of an interstate, and there is a big truck coming. What do you do? (a) Issue an RFP for research, development, and deployment of technologies that will help you get off the highway; (b) Issue an RFP for research, development, and deployment of crash-retardant pajamas; (c) Invest in wildlife conservation measures to protect the flora and fauna on the side of the highway that are about to be covered in blood, guts, and twisted metal; (d) Set aside money for truck driver grief counseling, or; (e) All of the above. If you chose (e), read no farther. You have identified yourself as a person who thinks that the Lieberman-Warner approach to greenhouse-gas reduction is perfection incarnate. If, on the other hand, you think that there was a fairly important idea not even listed amongst the options above (hint: it has to do with getting your butt off the highway and/or stopping the truck), then you understand the flaws innate to the Lieberman-Warner approach. (And if you chose a, b, c, or d ... you're one odd duck. But at least you've signaled your self-interest in high-tech solutions to simple problems!)
The last time we checked in with the laggardly Interior Department, it was saying it needed until June 30 to decide whether to place polar bears on the endangered-species list. But the department had better find its Decider Pants soon, as a federal judge has sided with green groups to impose a new deadline of May 15. “Other than the general complexity of finalizing the rule, defendants offer no specific facts that would justify the delay [from the original deadline of Jan. 9], much less further delay,” wrote U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken. The department proposed in Dec. 2006 that …
I am on this week’s podcast from PolticalAffairs.net. I’ll confess when the PA guy called me I didn’t know it was a record of “Marxist thought online,” but hey, let a thousand flowers bloom. As it happens I was talking about a market-based carbon policy, kind of an odd subject for a Marxist podcast, but it was fun. If you listen closely, you can hear me stirring my lunch on the stove as I talk. Multitasking might explain why I was talking so damn slowly. It sounds like I’m high. (I wasn’t, promise.) I start in around the halfway mark:
This is the second in a series; see part one. I said in my previous post that of the three goals of climate policy — simplicity, political buy-in, and efficiency — it is possible to get only two at once. You can get simplicity and buy-in. You can get simplicity and efficiency. But when you start trying to get buy-in and efficiency together, you lose simplicity (see: Lieberman-Warner). I’ll describe two proposals, one of which focuses on buy-in and one on efficiency. Both achieve simplicity, primarily by routing money around, rather than through, the clusterf*ck that is the federal appropriations …
A friend recently sent me a one-page press release from an ethanol lobby group that purported to debunk "myths" of biofuels. Our ensuing discussion helped me clarify why even people who once were excited and optimistic about biofuels (like me) are now so opposed to production subsidies (as opposed to R&D). My friend asked (paraphrasing), "If not biofuels, then what?" and noted that what we're doing now -- "squeezing oil out of rocks" -- is not exactly good for the planet. For me, the bottom line is simply this: Ethanol is no more a renewable fuel than hydrogen is. Rather, ethanol is a way for us to consume natural gas, diesel oil, and coal (not to mention a huge volume of water and vast acreage of cropland) to make motor fuels. All this is on top of serious problems raised by studies about land diversion for carbon emissions and food availability. It's important to remember that fossil fuels are biofuels (fuels made from once-living matter), so using that term alone isn't helpful.
We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.