Latest Articles

New kids' book teaches about climate science without being scary

Ms. Frizzle is nowhere in sight, but this kids' book about climate science is doing just fine. How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming, by Lynne Cherry and Gary Braasch, has netted a slew of awards, including being deemed one of the best middle-grade science books of the year by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The book, which features Braasch's photography, encourages kids to observe their surroundings and participate in climate science research -- without drenching them in doom. It offers upbeat real-life tales of students in three U.S. states and Puerto Rico tracking their local weather and connecting that to the Earth's atmosphere, as well as tips on how to live more greenly, like avoiding bottled water and eating less meat. Grist board member Bill McKibben called it "empowering!" -- and the man doesn't lie.

Peek inside the book here. And keep your eyes out for a series of related short videos, being produced by Lynne Cherry, that put the spotlight on kids shrinking the carbon footprint of their communities.

On Maddow show, Oberstar DeFazio fingers Larry Summers as destroyer of transit spending

You want to know why it's important to have a genuine, intelligent progressive on cable news? Here's why:

Waxman puts utility decoupling in the stimulus

The single most important policy change needed to promote broad-based, California-style energy efficiency is to "decouple" utility profits from sales -- to allow utilities to profit from energy efficiency (see "How does California do it?" and "Why we never need to build another polluting power plant").

Utilities are the most effective delivery channels for making homes, commercial buildings, and industry more energy-efficient, but the vast majority operate under a regulatory regime that penalizes utilities for promoting efficiency. Indeed, those regulations actually motivate utilities to encourage their customers to overuse electricity, because not only do they make more profits then, but if demand rises enough, they can get the Public Utility Commission to approve a new power plant and higher rates -- and thus more profits.

I have been assuming that Democrats would wait until the mother of all energy bills later this year to make their big push toward decoupling. But it turns out that Dems have decided to make it one of the conditions for the multi-billion-dollar energy efficiency block grants in the stimulus (see "Details of Obama's green stimulus plan released").

That is an outstanding idea. E&E Daily ($ub. req'd) has the details:

Green Corps

I once bought Nancy Skinner (then executive director of the Climate Group, now my state assemblywoman) a coffee in exchange for hiring advice. Her latte's worth of wisdom: Don't stop interviewing until you find a campaigner -- someone who knows how to rally people behind an idea and make change happen.

If you want to be that kind of person, I can think of no better path than to join Green Corps. Some of the best campaigners I know came out of their training program -- Vote Solar's Claudia Eyzaguirre and Bernadette Del Chiaro of Environment California immediately come to mind. Their alumni parties are like the who's who of the progressive movement. Applications are due soon, so get on it ...

A closer look at current U.S. CO2 pricing

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones blogged on my recent Grist post, joining my mom in the list of people who publicly praise my math skills. Thanks!

Much more interestingly, he raises this question:

Are we wiling to charge [a price for CO2 emissions] openly, with the carbon charges going to the public, [or] inside a complex giveaway to a favored corporation?

(The question is in response to my estimate here that the recently passed Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standards Act represents an implicit $300-$500-per-ton payment in the name of CO2 reduction.)

It's a great question because the truth is that under current federal and state policy, we do pay people for their actions to reduce CO2. But we do so in a horribly inconsistent way, providing not only inconsistency between technologies and "favored corporations," but also wild disparities in price.

For instance, suppose you're getting $0.03 per kWh from your state renewable portfolio standard. Those kWh displace -- on average -- 1,300 lb per MWh of U.S. power, and you are therefore being paid $46 per ton of CO2 you reduce. CO2 reduction is not the only justification for RPS policies, but would we ever have an RPS if we didn't care about CO2? I doubt it.

The good news there is that people are, today, being paid in the U.S. for reducing CO2. But is there any rhyme or reason to their price? And is it at all consistent with what others are getting for the same environmental service?

More math below the fold.

The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates

Once again, three climate activists who are not terribly good at debating agreed to participate in a decidedly unscientific format against people who mostly make stuff up. And what a shock, it had a bad outcome -- although this one seems to be partly a result of gaming the vote as much as anything else.

In 2007, it was the now-infamous climate science debate, broadcast by NPR on the proposition "Global warming is not a crisis." The pro-science side lost to the anti-science make-stuff-up side (Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott) on that one.

So you can imagine what happened when the debate proposition moved over to economics, "Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money" -- especially with the 'pro' (i.e. delayer) side handled by three world-class economist-loving liars make-stuff-uppers: Bjorn Lomborg, Peter Huber, and Stott (details here, transcript here [PDF] and, for true masochists, NPR audio here).

(Note No. 1 to all pro-climate-action debaters: It is very hard to win a staged debate with people who make stuff up. It is next to impossible to do so if they are skilled debaters. And you are guaranteed to lose if it isn't a one-on-one debate. Why? The only way to out-debate somebody who makes stuff up is to call them out on it. And if they keep doing it, you have to keep calling them out. Even the most skilled debater has difficulty publicly questioning the honesty and integrity of opponent again and again (which is why you rarely see anyone attempt it). But you'll never convince an audience that multiple 'experts' are making stuff up.)

The final result of this absurdly unscientific and meaningless activity was preordained. It was also so bogus that even the organization that put on the pointless debate actually acknowledged in its own press release (here) that part of the audience (the conservatives, of course) gamed the system:

Deep thought

Reliance on oil brings a stream of calls to "break our addiction" and find "alternative sources." Reliance on coal brings a stream of paeans to the importance of coal.

A sandstorm of renewable energy news from the World Future Energy Summit

Abu Dhabi hosted its second World Future Energy Summit earlier this week, with some 16,000 business leaders, green-tech researchers and politicians bravely forgoing northern winters for the Persian Gulf state's subtropic sun. Judging by news reports, attendees forgot the world economy is supposed to be in a panicky, keep-your-money-in-your-mattress mode, and instead engaged in a three-day fiesta of deal-making and bold renewable energy announcements. Here's a run-down:

* The host city pledged that 7 percent of its energy would come from renewable sources by 2020, up from zero today.

* GE announced plans for its Ecomagination Centre, an R&D showcase of wind, solar, water purification, and energy efficiency technologies. It will be built in Masdar City, Abu Dhabi's car-free, carbon-neutral metropolis powered completely by renewable energy. The capital of the United Arab Emirates used the summit to show off the $22 billion Masdar project, which is under construction.

* Hometown English-language newspaper The National framed the summit as a coming-out party for solar power, saying the industry has been growing "much faster than official institutions and the public think":

Long dismissed as a peripheral contributor to the world's energy matrix, technologies harnessing the sun's energy are now benefitting from billions of dollars of investment, which has rapidly increased their efficiency and cut their costs.

That optimism doesn't jibe with dire reports of the U.S. solar industry faltering amid the credit crisis and declining oil prices. But consider that the Emirates have the distinct advantages of year-round sun and the crazy amounts of oil money that enable underwater hotels, man-made islands and a $63,000 per capita income in Abu Dhabi. A $15 billion solar investment from the Masdar initiative won't hurt the local industry either.

* Several news outlets noted the unlikelihood of the oil-rich emirates becoming renewable energy leaders, including Time's Bryan Walsh, who sees it as a logical diversification strategy:

In the long term, developers of renewables know they'll win. Climate change aside, the simple fact that energy demand will continue growing rapidly once the downturn has ended means that new supplies will be needed. And no one including oil giants of the Middle East believe that fossil fuels alone will meet that gap.

House Ways and Means embraces refundable renewable tax credits

As Kate reported, the House Ways and Means Committee on Friday passed the energy tax portions of the stimulus package, including:

Investment Tax Credit Refundability. For alternative energy property put into service in 2009 and 2010, companies may apply for a cash grant equal to the value of the investment tax credit from the Department of Energy. DOE must make these grant payments within 60 days of receipt of the application and may not in its discretion deny any such applications that qualify for the credit. Companies may apply for the payments through September 30, 2011. The amount of the ITCs equal 30 percent of the base investment amount for solar, winds, and fuel cell property and equal 10 percent for geothermal and micro-turbine property.

Election of ITC over PTC. For property placed in service in 2009 and 2010, alternative energy companies entitled to the Production Tax Credit can elect to receive the Investment Tax Credit instead. This election would allow them to qualify for the refundability provisions of the DOE grant program.

Awesome! (See "Note to Obama, Congress on green stimulus: No to phony clean coal credits, yes to refundable renewable tax credits, Part 1.")

Why exactly does it matter so much that tax credits for renewable projects can be refundable? That was well explained by a recent Washington Post article:

Carbon price volatility is a real issue

Both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal were at it this week, flogging stories about how falling carbon prices are threatening clean technology. I've written before about how easy it is to get distracted by carbon prices, which, under cap-and-trade, are more of a symptom of a broader issue, not a cause.

The Journal piece is fairly defensible. The Times piece is fairly hopeless:

Another blow to the sector is the tumbling price of permits for emitting carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas. In countries where emitters must buy these permits, like those in the European Union, low prices mean emitters have fewer incentives to make their production process more efficient or move to less greenhouse gas intensive fuels.