Uncategorized

Markets

One of my pet peeves is the argument that clean energy is inferior because it relies on government subsidies -- as though oil, coal, and nuclear simply rose to the top of the market heap through pure merit. Bullsnot.

So, in the grand blog tradition of linking to posts that agree with you, do go check out this Brad Plumer post on the ancient practice of market-gaming by industries, with a special emphasis on oil.

Subsidizing cancer

Here's your fun juxtaposition for the day.

Read this.

Then read this.

Efficiency

Jamais at WC just put up a long and fascinating post, but I warn you number-phobes -- it's got numbers. If you just want the short, sweet point, here it is:

An aggressive focus on improvements to efficiency amounting to an average of 3-4% annually over the century could mean a world where everyone can live well without risk to the climate. To say that the effect of improving the efficiency of use is dramatic is perhaps an understatement. Without it, avoiding disastrous greenhouse effects will be nearly impossible; with it, avoiding the worst-case scenarios is almost over-determined.

C’est Finny

New marine management rules may hamper restoration of fisheries The National Marine Fisheries Service has released new guidelines for restoring depleted fish stocks, but some friends of the finned worry the rules may unduly favor the fishing industry. Current rules mandate that regional fisheries managers aim to restore stocks within 10 years. The newly proposed […]

They Don’t Say Test Until I Say They Say Test

Pentagon has refused to test for toxic rocket-fuel chemical Department of Defense operations are a primary perpetrator of perchlorate contamination nationwide, but the department has regularly turned down state and federal requests to test for the toxic chemical, according to the U.S. Government Accountability Office. Perchlorate — which is commonly found in rocket fuel and […]

A Virginia suburb goes through those awkward teenage years

Via this morning's Washington Post, Tysons Corner, Virginia, is going through those awkward teenage years: not quite a city, but trying to grow out of teeny-bopper suburb status. Tysons Corner planners are running into difficulties making the area around Route 7 more pedestrian friendly.

Just outside the DC beltway, Tysons Corner drivers have gotten used to all that "green time" and don't want pedestrians stopping up the road for the thirty seconds (it's a big road) it takes them to walk across.

As the planners are quickly finding out, though:

When it comes to building cities, [Gerrit Knaap, director of the National Center for Smart Growth at the University of Maryland] said, "it is better to get things right the first time. It's much more difficult to retrofit."

Washington Post: Exploring Inroads for Tysons Foot Traffic
Google Maps: Aerial photo of Tysons Corner

How to talk to an economist.

When academics get together, it can be pretty entertaining to watch. Sometimes the better part of a meeting or conference is spent hashing out perceived differences only to realize that they have been talking about the same thing using different words. This leaves only the continental breakfast the next morning for some real progress to be made.

The idea of ecosystem valuation is just one example. The folks over at the aptly-named website Ecosystem Valuation have put together some great resources for understanding just what economists are talking about when they tell me I assign passive use value to the Arctic Refuge.

Piltz interview

Recently, former government climate science guy Rick Piltz blew the whistle on now-former White House official Philip Cooney, who was watering down scientific climate-change reports. Perhaps you heard something about it? Environmental Science & Technology has an interview with Piltz. Interesting stuff. This bit is amusing: In a letter about your resignation, you wrote that […]

From now on, those that would do nothing about global warming will have to lie about it.

Flagging this very interesting post from Pascal Riche about (what Riche sees as) a leftward drift in the American public, Matt Yglesias makes a point that I think too few progressives -- and too few environmentalists -- sufficiently appreciate: all the administration's deceptions, however irritating, are a pretty clear indication that the game is up.

Liberals have a habit of screaming ourselves blue in the face about the President's lying ways, which is appropriate, but it's worth taking a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that he bothers to lie about this stuff.

Consider the environment. Neither the "clean skies" initiative nor the "healthy forests" initiatives are good ways of cleaning the air or securing the health of our forests. But by naming his initiatives thus, Bush has, in fact, surrendered an important part of the political terrain. The discourse has essentially shifted to a point where we take it for granted that federal regulations should be making the skies clean and the forests healthy. Instead of a debate about whether to undertake environment-friendly initiative we are -- ostensibly at least -- arguing over which party will, in fact, bring us clean skies and healthy forests.

And it's like that more-or-less across the board.

This is especially worth remembering in light of the fact that the Senate just passed an amendment to the energy bill that would explicitly address climate change.

The amendment (from Sen. Chuck Hagel -- see interview here) is pretty weak, certainly light years from what we'll ultimately need.

But the terrain has now shifted. The U.S. Senate is no longer debating about whether, as Sen. Inhofe says, global warming is a "hoax." It's debating what to do about it.

From this point on, if you're an elected U.S. government official and you want to do nothing about global warming -- or roll back global warming regulations -- you will have to lie about it.

New nuclear support in the McCain-Lieberman amendment may have cost it support.

Four votes.

Sens. Boxer, Dayton, Feingold, and Harkin, all supporters of the Climate Stewardship Act in the last Congress, voted against the legislation this afternoon when Sens. McCain and Lieberman offered it as an amendment to the energy bill. The amendment included new subsidies for the construction of nuclear power plants -- which Sen. Boxer, at least, has publicly opposed.

The amendment was defeated 38-60, a decline in support from the better-than-expected 43 votes it garnered in 2003.