Climate & Energy


It’s a few days old now, but don’t miss Tyler Hamilton’s column on CCS in the Toronto Star. It focuses on Canada, but the story is basically the same: despite all the talk and hype, …

Three Wall Street banks announce funding restrictions for new coal power plants

Photo: iStockphoto Three major investment banks, Citigroup, J.P. Morgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley, will announce new environmental standards today that are expected to make it more difficult for large coal-fired power plants in the United …

Holistic climate medicine

Our command-and-control air-pollution regulations are working against our climate policy

With the climate policy discussion now settling into lines of cap & trade vs. carbon tax, and allocation vs. auction, it has implicitly moved beyond the top-down, command-and-control models favored by early plans (and in particular the multi-pollutant, "4P" bills). This market focus is a good thing, on balance. What isn't good is that it's only being applied to greenhouse gas pollution. Our existing air pollution laws create disincentives to GHG reduction. Modernization of these (non-carbon) pollution laws may be the single most important thing the federal government can do to lower GHG emissions. As we head out of the harbor, it's time to haul up the anchor. Relevant history The Clean Air Act, coupled with New Source Review, has dramatically lowered SOx, NOx, and particulate emissions. It has also substantially increased GHG emissions. The reasons why are three-fold: 1. The rules were set on a so-called "input basis." Come under a certain parts-per-million of exhaust and you are OK. Exceed it and you're in violation. This has the perverse effect of discouraging energy efficiency: if I lower absolute pollution (tons/yr) by 40% and cut fuel use by 50%, I have reduced the flow of fuel and combustion air by more than I've reduced pollution (e.g., the "millions" in the parts-per-million formulation). Thus my ppm actually increases and I can't get a permit anymore.

Show me the (oil) money

New tool tracks financial ties between politicians and oil companies

Check out Follow the Oil Money, a tool from the Center for Responsive Politics Oil Change International. You can find out exactly how much oil money any politician is getting (by zip code). You can …

Canadian sportswriters better than 99.9 percent of U.S. media

It's truly depressing to find a better, more solid treatment of climate change and peak oil in the fricking sports pages of a Canuck paper then you will ever find in most U.S. papers. This sports writer schools the NHL and educates readers with a technique unheard of down here: assuming the readers aren't morons! What a nefarious trick!


Dept. of Energy paints different picture of clean coal than president’s SOTU

Over at Solve Climate, David Sassoon is taking a nice leisurely stroll through the Dept. of Energy’s Carbon Sequestration Technology Roadmap and Program Plan (2007). Some astonishing sights await! First, he notices that despite some …

Brit's Eye View: Going nuclear

British government embraces a nuclear-powered future

Ben Tuxworth, communications director at Forum for the Future, is the new author of Brit's Eye View, a monthly Gristmill column on sustainability in the U.K. and Europe. The column was previously written by Tuxworth's colleague Peter Madden. After much delay, the British government started the new year with an announcement on nuclear power generation. It seems they have finally succumbed to the prevailing industry logic, which says that we need big bits of power-generating kit to plug into the grid to provide base loading, and nuclear is the perfect low-carbon solution. And because investment in any other possible solution -- particularly energy-efficiency measures and renewable technologies -- has been so poor over the last 20 years, it is now the only answer to a coming crisis in energy provision. The crisis is with us because the existing fleet of stations in the U.K. is either already obsolete or coming up for decommissioning in the next few years. Paradoxically, this eases the question of where to build: most of the new plants will be built on existing sites. These sites are on the coast, raising interesting questions about the effect of sea-level change, but for now they're the obvious choice as, despite industry claims about improved safety, it will be very difficult to find new localities in which nuclear power plants are welcome. Presenting nuclear as the best option for the U.K. seems to require pretty healthy doses of both wishful thinking and faith in hope over experience. Bringing this new generation of power stations online in time to meet the gap in supply means they must be up and running in 10 years, very close to the theoretical minimum from decision to delivery. The only other station being built in Europe at present, in Finland, is two years into construction and already two years late, and $1 billion over budget. To speed things up, we have to wish away objectors and hobble the planning system, for which special legislation is already proposed. But the big debate at present is what the true cost of these installations will be. Who will pay for building, running, and more importantly decommissioning them, and management of the waste over the coming millennia? The British government is anxious to avoid any suggestion that the taxpayer will pick up the tab, despite the fact that no nuclear reactor in history has been built without state subsidy. Order-of-magnitude underestimations of costs -- some of which are simply unknown -- litter the history of the industry, and government bailouts have been the consistent consequence.

Concentrations v. emissions

Tackling the biggest source of climate confusion

Avoiding catastrophic global warming requires stabilizing carbon dioxide concentrations, not emissions. Studies find that many, if not most, people are confused about this, including highly educated graduate students. I have personally found even well informed people are confused on this point and its crucial implications. We need to cut emissions 50 to 80 percent below current levels just to stop concentrations from rising. And global temperatures will not be stabilized for decades after concentrations are stabilized. And of course, the ice sheets may not stop disintegrating for decades -- and if we dawdle too long, centuries -- after temperatures stabilize. That is why we must act now if we want to have any reasonable hope of averting catastrophe. One 2007 MIT study, "Understanding Public Complacency About Climate Change: Adults' mental models of climate change violate conservation of matter," concluded "Low public support for mitigation policies may be based more on misconceptions of climate dynamics than high discount rates or uncertainty about the risks of harmful climate change." Here is a great video clarifying the issue, which you can send to folks. It is narrated by my friend Andrew Jones: If you want to play the simulation itself, go here. They make use of the bathtub analogy: While atmospheric concentrations (the total stock of CO2 already in the air) might be thought of as the water level in the bathtub, emissions (the yearly new flow into the air) are the rate of water flowing into a bathtub.

Whither the alternative energy market?

Q&A with Eric Janszen on whether an alt-energy bubble is in the making

Eric Janszen Eric Janszen, the founder and president of, recently argued in Harper's Magazine that the alternative energy segment is a prime candidate for a massive asset bubble, potentially dwarfing both the dot-com and housing bubbles. I wrote about Janszen's prediction last week. This week, Janszen joins us for a question-and-answer follow-up.

Got 2.7 seconds?

We've devised the world's shortest survey to find out what kind of actions our readers are taking. You know you want to.