Latest Articles

Rep. Nick Rahall kicks off series of hearings on offshore drilling

House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall (D-W.Va.) on Wednesday kicked off a series of hearings on offshore drilling, an effort, he says, to determine the best way to proceed after the congressional moratorium on development of the outer continental shelf (OCS) was allowed to expire last October. Wednesday’s hearing came just a day after […]

Green lifestyle blamed for England's rodent woes

Britain is experiencing an explosion in its rat population, and green living is to blame.

On the prospects for broad public understanding of climate science

"On Darwin's Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution"

How did $50B high-risk, job-killing nuclear loans get in the stimulus?

[I urge readers to stick their head in a vise before reading this.]

I have previously discussed the non-job-creating $50 billion in nuclear loan guarantees the Senate put into the stimulus (see here). For the record it was Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), which I point out merely because "R-Utah" perfectly describes thinking behind this farce.

Not only won't these loans generate any jobs in Obama's first term, but as Peter Bradford, former member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, explained to me, it could actually kill jobs. How?

The capital markets are not swimming in credit. If you have billions in taxpayer backed loans for your project, even for a project that will take years to finalize and see actual jobs, you may well suck up money that might be otherwise be available for, say, wind projects that are shovel ready now. Bradford called the nuke loans "straw ready."

Worse, utilities that actually use these loans to build a nuclear plant would face an all but certain drop in their credit rating -- see here. That means we are setting ourselves up to take over more trouble assets, since the Congressional Budget Office estimates the likely default rate of these loans at over 50 percent. If you liked nationalizing banks and insurance companies, you'll love nationalizing nuclear utilities!

But here is where it gets particularly farcical: The loans only got snuck into the bill by budget gimmickry that replicates the high-leverage, fraudulent risk analysis that got us into the subprime mortgage and credit default swap mess. Some leading nuclear energy experts explained this to me Tuesday, and I will do my best to explain it to you.

Umbra on bamboo origins

Dear Umbra, Sustainably grown bamboo is a very good choice for fabrics. But how does the consumer know it is harvested sustainably? After all, some bamboo is clear cut from old-growth stands. Even in cultivated bamboo there are some very unsustainable practices (for instance, harvesting too young). How can you know if the bamboo fabric […]

Senate and House reportedly reach deal on stimulus with $70 billion in green spending

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Wednesday afternoon announced that congressional negotiators had finalized a deal on the economic stimulus package. The $789 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act contains an estimated $70 billion in funding for clean energy, energy efficiency, and public transportation, according to reports from the Hill. Well, maybe. There still […]

Since the Kyoto ETS went into effect, traded emissions have risen

From 2005 through 2007, emissions from within facilities covered by the Kyoto Emissions Trading Scheme have risen by around 1.8 percent. (If we adjust for facilities entering and leaving the system, which I'm not sure we should, that total would be more like 1.6 percent.)

This rise in emissions happened in spite of the fact the E.U. emissions as whole have fallen. This is not a secret, exactly, but when people talk about instituting cap-and-trade in the U.S. it is worth remembering this is not a case of taking something that worked, just not as well as we like, and making it better. Phase I of European cap-and-trade was a failure.

Poll: How likely is it that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century?

I'd be interested in hearing your answer to this question in the comments.

How desperate is the conservative pollster Rasmussen to glom onto the climate issue and both trivialize and confuse the debate with hyperbole, unscientific polls, and inane, vaguely worded questions? Pretty damn desperate, to judge by their headline poll last Thursday:

23% Fear Global Warming Will End World -- Soon

Nearly one-out-of-four voters (23%) say it is at least somewhat likely that global warming will destroy human civilization within the next century. Five percent (5%) say it's very likely.

Uhh, what does this polling question mean anyway:

Bike-sharing in Minneapolis, and other cycling news

Just because it’s winter doesn’t mean there’s no bike news out there. To wit! Minneapolis is working on a bike-share program called, appropriately enough, Nice Ride Minnesota. But its launch has been pushed back, reports the Minnesota Daily, due to “complications in securing the $1.75 million in federal funding necessary to implement the program.” Hm, […]

The players: cap-and-trade agonistes

In the last few posts, I covered some of the groups and institutions that will shape climate/energy policy in the next few years. Analyst and all-around brainiac Holmes Hummel, in a presentation linked to by Adam Browning, has a nice visual representation that sheds additional light on the landscape, from a slightly different angle. It […]