Latest Articles

Umbra on cleaning cars inside and out

Dear Umbra, I recently bought a new-to-me car (fuel efficient!). It’s the nicest car I’ve ever owned, so I want to keep it well-maintained and clean. What are some environmentally friendly ways to keep my car clean, both inside and out? I’d rather not use gross chemicals and harsh soaps. Will good ol’ vinegar and […]

Why cap-and-trade requires that Bangladesh evict radical Islamists

David Frum is known as one of the more sensible, policy-oriented conservative writers -- he parted ways with the hyper-ideological National Review over non-lockstep comments about the woeful state of the Republican Party. So I came to his posts on cap-and-trade hoping to find some glimmer of ... something. Maybe hope that there is a way to connect with reasonable conservatives, common ground from which to begin a dialog.

First Frum wrote a post that got virtually everything about the policy wrong. Ezra Klein tried to set him straight. Frum responded with ... more misunderstandings. (Ezra tried again.) In particular I want to focus on two bits:

Yes people can escape the tax by using less electricity. But the tax is still falling on them - they are just feeling its effects in a different form, by reducing their consumption. They are still worse off, just worse off in a different way.

Uh ... there's literally no way to use less electricity without being "worse off"? There's no such thing as energy efficiency?

And then:

(Sorry - I know Ezra will say that the point is to persuade the utilities to rely on windmills instead. But that's energy fantasy, not energy policy!)

There's no such thing as renewable energy either!

I was in the midst of grappling with some reasonable way of responding to someone who doesn't believe in energy efficiency or renewable energy when I came across this comment on the post, from reader sinz54:

There is a big difference here: If an American company dumps waste into the Hudson River, they are hurting mostly AMERICANS. So that's a national problem for our fellow citizens. Whereas if an American company dumps carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it is primarily the undeveloped world that will be hurt by it. Unlike America, nearly all of Bangladesh (population 200 million) will be flooded out when the north polar ice cap melts. So we Americans are essentially restricting our economy, and impoverishing our own people, to keep the undeveloped world safe from global warming. Why are we doing them this multi-trillion-dollar favor without them paying us for it? The world cannot control global warming without U.S. cooperation. We should strike a very hard bargain for that cooperation. For example, I would insist that Bangladesh clean up its act and kick *ALL* radical Islamists out of their country before we do anything to keep their country from being flooded. We've got the political leverage. Let's use it!

I am rarely speechless, but ... I really don't know what to say about this stuff. I don't see how a group of people in this universe are going to make it back to the real world in time to create bipartisan climate policy.

Global warming could delay, weaken monsoons: study

CHICAGO — Global warming could delay the start of the summer monsoon by five to 15 days within the next century and significantly reduce rainfall in much of South Asia, a recent study has found. Rising global temperatures will likely lead to an eastward shift in monsoon circulation which could result in more rainfall over […]

'So am I'

I promised an economy run on clean, renewable energy that will create new American jobs, new American industries, and free us from the dangerous grip of foreign oil. This budget puts us on that path, through a market-based cap on carbon pollution that will make renewable energy the profitable kind of energy; through investments in wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient American cars and American trucks.

...

I realize that passing this budget wont be easy. Because it represents real and dramatic change, it also represents a threat to the status quo in Washington. ... I know that oil and gas companies wont like us ending nearly $30 billion in tax breaks, but that's how we'll help fund a renewable energy economy that will create new jobs and new industries. In other words, I know these steps won't sit well with the special interests and lobbyists who are invested in the old way of doing business, and I know they're gearing up for a fight as we speak. My message to them is this:

So am I.

The NYT's false 'guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements' charge began with false charge by Pielke

In all the hubbub about George Will's falsehood-filled columns and Andy Revkin's equation of Al Gore with George Will in the New York Times, one simple fact has been a largely overlooked:

Contrary to Revkin's assertions, Former Vice President Al Gore is not guilty of "exaggeration," let alone "guilty of inaccuracies and overstatements."

Having communicated at length with Gore's staff and Revkin, I will show that not only did Gore do nothing worthy of the NYT's criticism, but in fact he acted honorably and in the highest traditions of science journalism. Contrary to the impression left by Revkin in his February 24, "News Analysis" piece (see here), Gore and his team work overtime to accurately represent the data and the science.

Gore is very careful in his use of language, more careful than the NYT -- and far more careful than the man who initiated the indefensible charge, Roger Pielke, Jr. As Dylan Otto Krider wrote at Examiner.com:

It was Pielke who provided Revkin with his Gore infraction to "balance out" his article on Will to allow Revkin to say "both sides do it" ...

As we will see in this two-parter, Revkin's case is so weak, so nonexistent, that it rests almost entirely on his interpretation -- on his indefensible overinterpretation -- of one word by Gore, a word that Revkin didn't even include in his article for reasons that will soon be obvious to all.

Part 1 focuses on how Pielke started all this by fabricating a bunch of baseless charges against Gore and smeared the good name of thousands of scientists.

UN report warns fishing industry on climate change

ROME — The fishing industry must do more to confront the effects of climate change as well as get a grip on the perennial problem of overfishing, said a UN report to be published Monday. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture report said responsible fishing practices must be more widely implemented and called for […]

Some perspective on tax-and-dividend and a better alternative

James Hansen has again been lecturing Congress on the virtues of tax-and-dividend. I'm no policy expert, but neither is Dr. Hansen, so I'm going to share some of my own amateur observations for the benefit of fellow Grist wonks.

Hansen did some calculations and came up with the following dividend estimates for a $115/ton (equivalent to $1/gallon) tax:

Single share: $3000/year ($250 per month, deposited monthly in bank account)

Family with 2 children: $9000/year ($750 per month, deposited monthly in bank account)

Wow! Free money! That sounds enticing. Of course, the money has to come from somewhere, so people's energy costs would, on average, increase by the same amount. But with that much money sloshing around there are bound to be huge inequities. For example, I live in northern California, where we have a mild climate and little coal power, and I don't need to drive much, so I might see my net income rise by maybe a couple thousand dollars. That would be nice, but folks back east who are paying more wouldn't like it one bit.

The tax rate and dividend should increase with time. ...

[The tax rate should increase until fossil fuel energy is not competitive with clean energy.]

Nothing's going to happen until the tax rate is high enough to overcome the price barrier. Once it does, there will be a "tipping point" at which clean energy will start to overtake fossil fuels and a variety of positive feedback mechanisms (competition, technology, economies of scale, learning by doing) will make the transition self-sustaining and gradually less dependent on price supports. So what is needed is a high price incentive right away -- not a gradually escalating incentive.

However, a high price incentive does not imply a high tax; it is possible to have an initially high and declining carbon price incentive implemented through an initially low and increasing carbon tax.

One last foray into the economics discussion

The guys at Environmental Economics replied to my post on economics and climate here and here. Read if you like. I would protest that "the extreme position by some environmentalists that economics is evil" has nothing to do with me or what I wrote, and that if there is some war between Environmentalism As Such and Economics As Such I want nothing to do with it, but ... feh.

I just want to make one final point, somewhat abstracted from the details of this oh-so-illuminating back and forth. In the course of decrying the pointlessness of a battle between greens and economists, Ryan Avent defends me from Tim Haab's charge that I'm an idiot:

Roberts is very smart on these issues and has a very sophisticated, and for the most part correct (in my view), outlook on carbon pricing.

First, thanks!

Now, not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but note the evidence offered that I'm not an economic philistine: I respect carbon pricing. I don't want to make too much of a passing comment, but this strikes me as endemic to these debates: the notion that when it comes to environment and energy issues, "economics" means "market-based policy" means "pricing."

This seems like a weirdly constrained use of economics to me -- reflective of the narrow range of economics visible in America's public conversation -- and it's made for a weirdly constrained debate. Economists themselves aren't necessarily guilty -- see here -- but it's true of many people arriving newly to climate/energy policy debates. They discover that Economic Science says one thing and fuzzy headed advocates say something else, so of course they want to be Sensible and side with Economic Science (don't want to get patouli on you!). Thus you get a weird kind of zealotry around pricing from people who know very little about the specifics of environmental history or regulation or technology, whereby they wildly overstate the potential of pricing and proclaim confidently that Economic Science has discredited the alternatives. (*cough*carbon tax advocates*cough)

Seems to me, though, economic thinking could go both more micro and more macro than carbon pricing.

Dutch call on green guru to open up cradle-to-cradle certification

A while back I noted Fast Company's big expose on green guru William McDonough. Despite the hype and promise around McDonough's intellectual work, it hasn't done much to change the business world, for reasons having to do with what his critics characterize as ineptitude and vanity. Specifically, his cradle-to-cradle certification process has remained jealously guarded, run only through his firm, woefully behind on assessing products and responding to requests.

Now author Danielle Sacks has a short follow-up, about a Dutch attorney and several Dutch gov't organizations pleading with McDonough to open up the C2C process, if not completely open source then at least to public-private partnerships.

It's odd. The notion of keeping this stuff jealously guarded, proprietary, and for-profit seems so counter to the spirit of McDonough's work. I can't make sense of it.

A closer look at PG&E's immensely promising solar proposal

Last Tuesday, PG&E, the second largest utility in California, announced a major new solar initiative: 250 megawatts (MW) of utility-owned, distributed generation solar, and a further 250 MW to be built by private solar developers, under fixed-price contracts, at the utility's cost of service.

This is very good news, with implications I predict will reverberate through the solar policy community for quite awhile.

First, let's take the issue of utility involvement in the distributed generation solar market. I co-wrote an article on this last fall with my colleague Kevin Fox. The upshot: utility involvement in solar brings the opportunity for new economies of scale, but can also raise concerns about the potential of monopoly power crowding out private solar developers and stifling competition. The future of solar is dependent on nurturing a competitive workforce throughout the value chain, and healthy competition to foster a robust market and bring costs down for consumers.

Our suggested cure: utility involvement in the distributed generation solar industry should be conditioned on opening access for private solar companies to provide the same value to ratepayers. On first look, PG&E's application appears to meet this standard. The program maximizes the benefits of utility involvement while minimizing the potential drawbacks.

PG&E's solar program follows on the heels of similar announcements from Southern California Edison, San Diego Gas & Electric, and Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. SCE and LADWP's approaches contained efforts to limit markets and exclude participation, and as a result have been met with robust challenges.

The second policy implication concerns discussions around feed-in tariffs. While this is not a classic feed-in tariff in that it doesn't contain a must-take element (developers will submit projects to PG&E under standard contract and prices, winners will be selected based on assessed project viability and other elements), this proposal will re-introduce the spirit of competition when discussing fixed price contracts. More on this later.

Finally, we are going to see a lot of discussion on the price. PG&E projects that its cost of service will be the equivalent of $0.246/kWh, plus time-of-delivery adder, totaling $0.295 kWh. Given that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission just signed a contract for 5 MW at $0.235 in one of the least sunny places in California, and Austin Energy signed a 30 MW contract for a reported $0.165 c/kWh, I believe this is a case of PG&E underpromising so as to overdeliver. We'll see once they make their actual bid. In any event, it's sunny days for the California solar industry.