Corn ethanol to the max

Bush to ethanol industry: don’t worry, you’re gonna get your fat mandate

The stock market is a glorified casino, and I’m no betting man. Plus I’m broke. But if I were flush and even a bit of a gambler, I’d be buying up shares in ethanol companies …

U.S. and allies are, as expected, stick-in-the-muds at Bali conference

Bali update: The latest draft of negotiations is said to still contain text saying that developed nations should cut emissions by 25 to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020. The U.S., Japan, Canada, and …

Hillary and Big Meat

HRC taps a CAFO champion as co-chair of Rural Americans for Hillary

"A lot of pig shit is one thing; a lot of highly toxic pig shit is another. The excrement of Smithfield hogs is hardly even pig shit: On a continuum of pollutants, it is probably …

Is the competence of CBS News overblown?

Presidential candidates answer dumb question about global warming

I have complained a number of times — even on CNN! — that the mainstream political press is ignoring the issue of global warming, particularly in the context of the presidential race. Well, it seems …

Al Gore is so wrong

There is no comparison between Chinese and American GHG emissions

Al Gore's Nobel Prize speech, as reported by the NY Times: ... he singled out the United States and China -- the world's largest emitters of carbon dioxide -- for failing to meet their obligations in mitigating emissions. They should "stop using each other's behavior as an excuse for stalemate," he said. Much as I love him, Gore's sentiment here is far too generous to the good ol' U.S. of A. There is simply no fair comparison with China. We're not equally responsible for the problem. Not even close.

Dealing with uncertain risks

Jim Manzi replies to Ryan Avent

The following is a guest essay from Jim Manzi, CEO of Applied Predictive Technologies (APT), an applied artificial intelligence software company. He writes occasionally for National Review and blogs at The American Scene. ----- Last week on this site Ryan Avent presented a thoughtful response to my recent article at The American Scene arguing against a carbon tax. Grist has graciously invited me to reply. As I understand it, Ryan had three basic criticisms of my logic: the impacts of global warming will be more messy, unpredictable, and heartbreaking than I let on, I don't understand the economic trade-offs that make a carbon tax an elegant solution to the problem, and the technology-focused approach to the problem I propose is insufficiently conservative. I'll try to address each of these in turn, all with a spirit of open-minded inquiry. The first objection highlights the fact that productive global warming debates almost always hinge crucially upon predictions of the future. Consider three generic types of predictions: deterministic ("If I let go of this pencil, it will fall"), probabilistic ("If I flip this coin, it has a 50% chance of coming up heads and a 50% chance of coming up tails"), and uncertain predictions, for which we can not specify a reliable distribution of probabilities ("There will be a military coup in Pakistan in 2008"). Economists will immediately recognize the distinction between probabilistic and uncertain forecasts as, in essence, Knight's classic distinction between risk and uncertainty. Strictly speaking, all predictions are uncertain, but as a practical matter we treat different predictions differently based on the observed reliability of the relevant predictive rules used to generate them. No serious person believes that even the physical science projections for climate sensitivity (i.e., how many degrees hotter the world will get if we increase atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration according to some emissions scenario), never mind our predictions for how fast the world economy will grow or the economic impact of various degrees of climate change, are deterministic. This is why climate modelers and integrated climate-economics modelers spend so much time developing probability distributions for various outcomes and combining possible outcomes via odds-weighting to develop expected outcomes. When we hear a modeling group say "the expected outcome is X," it doesn't mean they've assumed only the most likely scenario will occur; it does mean, however, they assume their distribution of probabilities is correct (not being idiots, of course they constantly work hard to try to test and improve this distribution of probabilities). For the moment, let's assume that predictions of global warming outcomes are probabilistic. I go into all this in my posts and articles in much greater detail, but if we take Nordhaus's DICE modeling group at Yale as a benchmark, we can make the following observations about global warming:

Gore will not serve under any future administration

Al Gore says that he will not serve in a future administration. If he returns to politics, which he still “does not expect” to do, it will be as a presidential candidate. Virtually every Dem …

Notable quotable

“And we ought to declare that we will be free of energy consumption in this country within a decade, bold as that is.” – Mike Huckabee, Republican presidential candidate, 10 Dec. 2007 [UPDATE: It appears …

Western states and feds agree to new pact on Colorado River drought rules

The seven states served by the Colorado River agreed with federal officials last week on new rules for how to manage the river’s all-important water in times of drought. The agreement stipulates through 2026 what …

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.