Climate & Energy

Ethanol and <em>E. coli</em>, part II

Use of distiller grains in livestock rations has exploded

Yesterday, I posted about how feeding cattle distillers grains — the leftover from the corn-based ethanol process — seems to raise the incidence of E. coli 0157. I was a bit vague on precisely how much of the stuff was making it into the livestock-feed supply. Thanks to the indefatigable Ray Wallace, I now know. The answer is: a boatload, and growing. Ray pointed me to an account of a letter sent by the National Corn Growers Association to the USDA. In it, NCGA Chairman Ken McCauley argues that the USDA should continue its practice of barely regulating the distillers …

Tracking Lieberman-Warner

And the vote is …

"I now move that S.2192, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act of 2007, be reported favorably." And here's the roll call: 11 Yeahs: Baucus Boxer Cardin Carper Clinton by proxy Klobuchar Lautenberg by proxy Lieberman Sanders by proxy Warner Whitehouse 8 Nays: Alexander Barrasso Bond by proxy Craig Inhofe Isakson Vitter Voinovich A full roundup will be forthcoming.

Keep it simple, stupid!

How to structure a cap-and-trade program

From an awesomely meaty article on cap-and-trade from The San Francisco Chronicle comes this pearl of wisdom (in bold at the bottom of the quote): [T]he lesson of the acid rain program is to keep the plan simple and easy for all parties to understand. "If it starts to employ a lot of special provisions to take care of every party's special needs ... and if it starts to look like the Chicago phone book, then throw it out," [RFF economist Dallas Burtraw] said. "A poorly designed market is worse than no market at all." I'm not sure I'd go quite that far -- a carbon market's a pretty important thing, and I'd be willing to live with a less-than-perfect system if it's the only one that's politically feasible. That said, amen to the virtues of simplicity! Obviously, when designing a cap-and-trade program, there will be all sorts of pressure to create special interest loopholes, or dole out goodies to favored constituencies. Over the short-term, that might seem like smart politics -- but over the long-term, the political drawbacks of a clunky, unworkable program will far exceed any short-term benefits.

Tracking Lieberman-Warner

Improving the cap… or not

This is a big one. Sanders No. 4 would make the goal of the bill to reduce emissions by 80 (as opposed to about 70) percent by 2050. As the bill is written, the reductions in Lieberman-Warner (under the cap, and otherwise) don't meet the mark. Sanders says, "while it is fine that we reach a political agreement here, the scientific community is telling us that the agreement we are reaching here does not do the job that has to be done." Lieberman, by contrast, says, "I don't think we can get the bill out of the committee with 80 percent." Perhaps he might have taken a moment to consider whether this amendment -- an aspirational amendment -- could have passed if he, the bill's author, had supported it. Instead, he opposed it, and the amendment failed. Meanwhile, Lieberman jokingly referred to his success in a college science class he referred to as "geology and astrology [sic] ... rocks and stars". This is the guy writing our climate legislation.

Bags of coal given as party favors

Fossil Awards shame obstructionist delegates at Bali talks

You may have heard about the Fossil Awards given at the United Nations Bali climate negotiations. A collaboration between a number of youth delegations and Avaaz.org, the awards are given to nations whose delegates have obstructed progress during the course of the talks. Here's a first-hand account of the first daily Fossil Awards ceremony, when Canada won the infamous prize. Yesterday, Japan managed to win first, second, and third place for threatening to pull out of the Kyoto protocol. Check out this video of the ceremony:

Tracking Lieberman-Warner

Sanders gets smacked down

Sanders' amendment -- Sanders #3 -- would have required CCS-equipped plants to sequester at least 85 percent of their pollution in order to be eligible for additional free allowances. That's what the bill used to mandate, before it was changed earlier this month. Sanders tried to change it back and was voted down with 13 "nays," including one from his usual ally Barbara Boxer. Sanders' support of this bill may be irrelevant to its passage through committee. But if snubs like this aren't enough to convince him to continue to oppose Lieberman-Warner, it will be a sign that deep greens have lost all support in the Senate.

Welcome to the new Grist. Tell us what you think, or if it's your first time learn about us. Grist is celebrating 15 years. ×