Uncategorized

SNL serves up a solution to the great diaper debate

Can't decide between cloth and disposable? Now there's a better way:

Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in

Australia has been suffering its worst heat wave on record, the first time temperatures exceeded 110 degrees Fahrenheit for three days running. It's been so hot that on Thursday, the low at Melbourne airport was 87 °F.

Australia is the canary in the coal mine for climate-driven desertification. The astonishing decade-long drought in southern Australia was declared 'worst on record' last year. The U.K.'s Independent notes:

Australia, the driest inhabited continent on earth, is regarded as highly vulnerable. A study by the country's blue-chip Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation identified its ecosystems as "potentially the most fragile" on earth in the face of the threat.

Australia is but the first and most seriously impacted of the arid sub-tropical (and near-sub-tropical) climates that are facing horrific desertification from climate change. For instance, Lester Snow, director of California's Department of Water Resources said Friday:

We may be at the start of the worst California drought in modern history.

Two years ago, Science ($ub. req'd) published research that "predicted a permanent drought by 2050 throughout the Southwest" -- levels of aridity comparable to the 1930s Dust Bowl would stretch from Kansas to California. The U.K.'s Hadley Center warned in November 2006 that their research predicted multiple permanent Dust Bowls around the planet on our current emissions path:

Things I don't like to see on my soap label

Warning: Trivial content ahead. Do not read if you are seeking the latest developments regarding carbon taxes, coal, or cap and trade.

My quest for a suitable hand soap has become somewhat epic in scope. Said soap must meet several criteria: a) an ingredient list that doesn't make me squirm; b) a reasonable price point; c) a scent that doesn't make my fella wince.

More often than not, my quest is shelved by the logistical hiccup known as "we ran out of soap" -- in which case I end up at the local grocery store, scouring labels and sniffing scents and getting frustrated and generally looking like a crazy old soap lady.

Magic exists: It's called 'cap-and-trade'

One of the problems with carbon taxes is that they're static. Let's say you set a tax at $20 per ton of CO2. It's going to stay at $20 when the economy is hot, even if the tax rate doesn't do much to reduce emissions. Conversely, when the economy goes south, the carbon tax will persist at $20, even though emissions may be dropping fast on their own -- and companies may need some breathing room.

The first scenario is bad for the climate. The second scenario is bad for the economy.

If only there were a way for carbon pricing to respond to changing economic conditions in real time without any intervention from policymakers. If only. That would be like magic.

But I have good news for you: magic exists! There is such a thing as a magical self-adjusting carbon tax. It tracks economic conditions precisely and it always ensures the right amount of reductions. It's called "cap-and-trade."

'Irreversible' climate change does not mean 'unstoppable' climate change

Note to media: The Ghost of Climate Yet to Come says, "It's not too late!"

RealClimate makes a good point with the title of its post, "Irreversible Does Not Mean Unstoppable" about the recent NOAA led paper (see here):

We at Realclimate have been getting a lot of calls from journalists about this paper, and some of them seem to have gone all doomsday on us.

Indeed, this is the perfect paper for someone, like say, Lou Dobbs, who can go from hard-core doubt/denial to credulous hopelessness in one breath, as he did Friday (h/t ClimateScienceWatch):

Let's assume, for right now, that there is such a thing as climate change, let's assume it's manmade. What indication-what evidence do we have, what reason do we have to believe that mankind can do anything significantly to reverse it because a number of people, as you know in the last two weeks, are reported that, that, this is a 1,000-year trend irrespective of what we do.

Yeah, let's assume, for right now, there is climate change and let's further assume it's man-made since there's like no factual basis for actually knowing those things. Then let's tell the public the latest research means if there is man-made climate change, the situation is now hopeless -- when in fact the latest research makes it all the more urgent to keep total emissions and concentrations as low as posisble

Seriously. This guy has his own hour TV show on a major cable network -- albeit one that fired its staff covering science and environment and hired a psychic to cover climate change (OK, let's assume, for right now, that I made up that last part).

The whole world has become Dickensian, which just happens to remind me of another Dickens story relevant to the theme that irreversible does not mean unstoppable:

In which industry conquers nature

This is neither here nor there, but it just occurred to me: Last night, the Steelers -- a team named after Pittsburgh's legendary industrial past -- beat the Cardinals, a team closely identified with a bird. Industry beats nature. Prophecy?

Vote today on your fave carbon cap video

Environmental Defense Action Fund is holding a video contest to "explain in 30 seconds how capping global warming pollution could help solve our oil addiction."

They've narrowed down the video submissions to the top five and are encouraging everyone to vote on a favorite by tonight. Check out two of the five videos below and vote on the best one here. The winning video producer will receive the Climate Activist's Choice Award, which comes with a $1,000 prize.

A small example of dynamic ice

Looking up from my keyboard, I saw a perfect illustration of what's happening underneath ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica. Two recent snowstorms dumped eight inches of heavy snow, followed by an afternoon of very warm air and a sharp rain. The rainwater lubricated the snow packs on my neighbor's roof and they began to slide. The temperature fell quickly with nightfall, leaving us with a perfect example of dynamic ice.

See the photo below the fold:

Yes, carbon taxes are more transparent than trade system

Proponents of carbon trading over carbon taxes deny that carbon taxes are more transparent -- because you can play any game with a tax you can with a trading system. But the point of transparency is not that games become impossible, but that they become more obvious, and thus easier to stop.

When it comes to handing out permits (grandfathering) rather than auctioning them, carbon tax advocates clearly have the better of this argument.

The equivalent with a carbon tax would be to write big polluters a check -- not more difficult in the abstract, but a lot more visible than creating a property right.

"For every one that doeth evil hateth the light..." John 3:20.

How awful does a bill have to get to lose your support?

Here is a question for cap-and-trade supporters. Nancy Pelosi has already said she wants to wait until 2010 (she later changed this to late 2009) to get a cap-and-trade bill through. Now maybe you can push one sooner. But to get one through soon (even by the revised late 2009 schedule) you are probably going to have to allow for substantial giveaways (grandfathering) rather than 100% (or anything like 100%) auctioning. You will probably have to give up any certainty claimed for a cap-and-trade by agreeing to a price ceiling (off-ramp/escape clause). You will probably have to allow counterfeit emissions reductions (offsets).

Right now it looks like this will be in any bill, but it will almost certainly be a condition of getting anything through in 2009. And even if you agree to all this, odds are you won't get anything through this year.

So let me ask you: what is your limit for this sort of thing? Is there any point at which you will say, "this is not acceptable, I'll oppose the current bill and try again later"?

[Update] Every cap-and-trade supporter I've run into who considers themselves "practical" about the politics says that 100% auctioning is out of the question, that no off-ramp (price ceiling) is out of the question, that no offsets are out of the question. The above assumes my experience represents the views of "players" on this issue in general. So let me modify this. Is there anyone who considers themselves knowledgeable about the practical politics, who supports cap-and-trade who disagrees with these premises?