Uncategorized

On the greenness of Jimmy Fallon's set

Word is that Jimmy Fallon's new late-night set is green, with features including low-VOC paint and reclaimed seats from Radio City Music Hall.

Which is cool and all. Except wouldn't it have been greener to just ... use the old set? (That said, kudos to Build It Green! for salvaging Conan's remains.)

And P.S.: As Kate rightly points out, Jimmy's house band, The Roots, is oh-so-green -- seen most recently at last weekend's Power Shift conference.

Google CEO tells conference to get ambitious

Following Mulally (that's fun to say ... following Mulally following Mulally whee!) last night was Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google. Good lord what a contrast!

Most of what Schmidt had to say was about Clean Energy 2030, Google's big renewable energy plan. I won't go over that again. Suffice to say it's great.

WSJ's Alan Murray started off by asking Schmidt what he would say to a shareholder who didn't approve of Schmidt's focus on renewable energy and do-goody environmental stuff. Said Schmidt:

Money we save on energy goes straight to the bottom line. Lower costs mean higher earnings. Green energy done right is more profitable than old energy. Is that a crisp enough answer for you?

Yes. (More on Schmidt's remarks on the WSJ energy blog.)

One of my favorite things about Schmidt is that he clearly understands, as so few people in the climate/energy discussion do, that one of the central barriers to renewables and efficiency is dumbass utility regulations. People tend to recoil from the subject -- so boring! so technical! -- but nonetheless, it's the elephant in the room.

And it prompted one of the more interesting exchanges in the audience Q&A.

First, Michael Morris, CEO of American Electric Power (a Southeastern utility), stood up and and showed that fossils can walk and talk. In so many words, he said building retrofits are a myth, renewables are far away, and decoupling (so utilities can make money from efficiency) is bogus. Specifically, "I'm not a decoupler. If my revenues go down, they go down." (Yes, I'm sure AEP and the utility regulators it's in bed with will stand by idly and watch its revenue go down.)

Then Peter Darbee, CEO of PG&E (a California utility) stood up and showed what it looks like to live in the 21st century. He said he's made tons of money off decoupling. He said PG&E's found it easier to reach their renewable targets than anyone thought. He said ambitious targets always sound "impossible" when they're first proposed and American innovation always hits them.

Schmidt and Darbee come out of the forward-looking, ambitious, innovative culture of California tech. They both seem frankly astonished at the lack of ambition, the fear, the smallness of thinking -- not only of some of the business folk, but of the media too. Eventually Schmidt burst out: "This is America! We can do this!"

I hope.

Economists rip off climatologists, get away with it

As if we didn't have enough problems with the atmosphere, now along come economists to rip off the rhetoric of climatology. Or so I argue in an op-ed in the Ventura County Star. Here's the "nut graph," as they say in journalism:

The more we discuss the economic crisis in terms of the physical world, the less we discuss the climate crisis itself, even though restoring balance in the atmosphere will be far more difficult than reviving the faltering economy. It's an alarming irony. As we worry about our melting savings and our vanishing jobs, we forget about melting icecaps and vanishing species.

If you like to double-check sources, check out a linked version of the op-ed.

Gore backs idea for a new .eco domain name

Al Gore and his Alliance for Climate Protection are partnering with the group Dot Eco LLC to pursue a new top-level domain for environmental groups and initiatives, “.eco.” Rather than a “.com” or a “.org,” groups could choose to use this new domain to show their eco-tasticness. According to the press release, “.eco will be […]

Waterkeeper Alliance unveils anti-coal campaign

The essay below was written by Steve Fleischli and Scott Edwards of Waterkeeper Alliance.

Right now the coal industry is engaged in a multi-million-dollar campaign propagating the lie that coal and so-called clean-coal technology are the answer to America's future energy needs. Nothing could be farther from the truth. There is no such thing as clean coal.

Waterkeeper programs in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Utah, and West Virginia have been fighting the coal industry for years. Now, they have joined together with the nearly 200 programs of Waterkeeper Alliance in a grassroots campaign called "The Dirty Lie" -- because none of us can afford to wait another minute to start creating a new national energy policy that frees us from a reliance on fossil fuels.

You don't have to live in the coal fields or in the shadow of a coal-fired power plant to be affected by this filthy industry -- coal causes acid rain, pollutes our water and food chain with mercury, and is grossly accelerating climate change. From mining it to the disposal of ash after it's burned, there is no part of the coal industry that is good for the environment, good for people, or good for America.

Every year, the 1,100 coal-fired power plants in America spew 48 tons of toxic mercury into our air, poisoning hundreds of square miles of rivers, lakes and streams, accumulating in fish, and entering our bodies through fish consumption.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that one of every six women of childbearing age now has unsafe mercury levels in her blood and, potentially, breast milk, putting more than 410,000 American children born each year at high risk for neurological damage and a grim inventory of illnesses.

And while coal-fired power plants generate about half of America's electricity, they contribute 80 percent of the total greenhouse gases from electricity production that cause global warming. Yet, even if carbon capture and sequestration technology existed to remove these emissions, it still wouldn't make coal clean.

The International Polar Year: 'Arctic sea ice will probably not recover'

Some of the top polar scientists in the world have concluded (boldface in original):

Our main conclusions so far indicate that there is a very low probability that Arctic sea ice will ever recover. As predicted by all IPCC models, Arctic sea ice is more likely to disappear in summer in the near future. However it seems like this is going to happen much sooner than models predicted, as pointed out by recent observations and data reanalysis undertaken during IPY and the Damocles Integrated Project. The entire Arctic system is evolving to a new super interglacial stage seasonally ice free, and this will have profound consequences for all the elements of the Arctic cryosphere, marine and terrestrial ecosystems and human activities. Both the atmosphere and the ocean circulation and stratification (ventilation) will also be affected.

This is what U.S. experts have been saying for a while (see here). Though not every scientist got the memo (see here). And this is just one in a long line of climate impacts coming up faster than the models projected (see here for a list).

But what I think is quite interesting is that this is the first time I've seen such leading polar scientists elaborate so bluntly the potentially dire consequences of an ice-free arctic:

Sue Tierney withdraws her name as candidate for deputy secretary of energy

I am sorry to report that Sue Tierney will no longer be a candidate for deputy secretary of energy. She sent out an email today to friends indicating that was her decision. She would have been a first rate deputy (see here).

The email was private, so I won't discuss its contents. I will say that just months as acting assistant secretary in 1997 was pretty much all I could take of that unbelievably demanding and stressful job. And the workload -- and travel -- gets more demanding and stressful the higher up you go. Deputy is two levels above assistant secretary, so I honestly don't know how anybody manages those jobs -- and it is no surprise to me that anyone ultimately decides it isn't right for them.

I don't think it will be particularly easy to replace Tierney's multiple skill sets and talents -- but it is absolutely critical that Steven Chu pick someone who is an energy expert, preferably someone with some DOE experience, and preferably someone who can help on the crucial issue of transmission (see here).

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

What's the alternative?

Fossil fuel energy prices are down right now due to the recession suppressing demand, but the mid- and long-term trend is up. Coal, oil, natural gas -- all up. If we do nothing, energy will keep getting more expensive for Americans, and it will impact the poor disproportionately.

The progressive proposal is to price carbon, strengthen efficiency regulations, and invest in green energy and infrastructure. This will produce a short-term rise in energy prices followed by a mid- and long-term stabilization and reduction as renewables and efficiency scale up.

Conservatives react with outrage to the notion of policy that will produce an increase in energy prices, of any duration.

But ... what's their alternative? Energy prices are going up regardless. What's their solution to that problem?

I sincerely don't understand. Someone explain it to me.

Greenhouse-gas emissions continue to grow in the U.S.

Shocker! In the absence of a national program to cap and reduce the amount of planet-warming gases we’re pumping into the atmosphere, U.S. emissions continued to grow in 2007. The country’s overall emissions increased 1.4 percent that year, with the majority of that increase coming from fuel and electricity consumption, according to a new draft […]

As reservoirs fall, water prices should rise

Last week, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger declared a state of emergency and warned of possible mandatory water rationing as the state struggled through its third consecutive year of drought. This well-intentioned response to the latest water crisis should not come as a surprise.

Whenever prolonged droughts take place -- anywhere in the United States -- public officials can be expected to give impassioned speeches, declare emergencies, and impose mandatory restrictions on water use. Citizens are frequently prohibited from watering lawns, and businesses are told to prepare emergency plans to cut their usage. A day after the restrictions are announced, the granting of special exemptions typically begins (as in Maryland a few years ago, when car washes were allowed to remain open even if they were not meeting conservation requirements).

The droughts eventually pass, and when they do, water users go back to business as usual, treating water as if it were not a scarce resource. Water conservation efforts become a thing of the past, until the next drought, until the next unnecessary crisis. Isn't there a better way?