Latest Articles

What the Obama presidency means

For several days I've been pondering how to write something interesting or insightful about Obama and What It All Means -- something that hasn't been written a hundred other places. (The internets are choked with Obama-related profundity right now.)

In the end, though, profundity is not what's needed. Obama did plenty of that on the trail, and the very fact of his ascension to office speaks for itself.

Instead, what's called for is some bluntness. The Obama presidency is in a political vise grip, squeezed between two facts:

1. The dire situation described by the fourth IPCC report is, by all indications, an underestimate. We are careening toward catastrophe, and to avoid it we'll likely have to virtually eliminate U.S. carbon emissions by 2050, while also engineering a whole range of difficult international agreements. If we don't, it's not exaggerating to say that unprecedented human misery will result, potentially putting at risk the very preconditions of human civilization.


2. There is nothing close to the public or political support necessary to pass the kind of sweeping policies necessary to eliminate America's emissions. The U.S. political class, to say nothing of the public, is nowhere near understanding or internalizing the implications of fact No. 1. By and large climate change is still viewed as a nagging, marginal, far-off problem to be addressed to the extent (and only to the extent) that it doesn't cause any economic dislocation.

This is just another way of rephrasing Gore's famous warning that the politically possible falls well short of what's necessary. The politically possible has moved forward considerably with Obama taking office, Pelosi running the House, Waxman running the Energy Committee, Markey running the Energy Subcommittee, and competent professionals in charge of executive branch agencies. But it is still far, far short. Even many people in the green world don't really get the existential urgency involved.

Over the next four/eight years, Obama (with help from many others) will bridge that gap, and we'll have a shot at a prosperous green future. Or he won't, and our children and grandchildren will inherit a world filled with unthinkable suffering.

That's it.

As housing starts slump, green building gains steam

Amid news of an epic slump in housing starts -- they fell 15.5 percent in December, to the lowest rate on record -- this tidy round-up of studies says green building will save us! OK, it doesn't quite say that, but it does show widespread support for green building, including for those sexy retrofits. Which is either my new band name or a column I'll be writing this year. Stay tuned.

Greening the alleys of Los Angeles

This article is part of a collaboration with Planetizen, the web’s leading resource for the urban planning, design, and development community. Green alley projects are popping up in cities all over the U.S. and Canada, in an effort to make the concrete jungle a little better at absorbing rainwater. A new program in Los Angeles […]

will.i.am debuts climate change song

Apparently while I was chasing famous people at Monday's green ball, will.i.am debuted a new song about climate change called "Take Our Planet Back." Here's the video:

There is no negative feedback in the climate system

The small number of credible skeptics out there (e.g., Spencer, Lindzen) have spent much of the last decade searching for a negative feedback in our climate system. If a sufficiently big one is found, then it would suggest that warming over the next century may well be small.

Most climate scientists, however, are reasonably certain that a negative feedback big enough to overwhelm the well-known positive feedbacks in the climate system, such as the water vapor feedback [PDF], does not exist. Why?

Negative feedbacks tend to dampen out climate change. If you add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere or the sun brightens, then the hypothetical negative feedback will counteract the warming, leaving the climate nearly unchanged. While it may be comforting to believe that a negative feedback exists, it is extremely difficult to reconcile the existence of a big negative feedback with our past observations of climate variability.

For example, the ice ages rely on a carbon dioxide feedback to provide their large amplitude. If there were a big negative feedback in the system, then how do you explain the large swings in to and out of ice ages? No way that I know of.

Similarly, the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum is also thought to be the result of a huge release of greenhouse gases. With a large negative feedback in the system, how do you explain the rapid temperature rise during that event?

Obama halts Bush's final rules

In one of his first acts, President Barack Obama, through his Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, "ordered a halt to all pending federal regulations until the new White House team conducts a legal and policy review of the last-minute Bush administration rules," E&E Daily reports ($ub. req'd).

It also turns out that Congress, with simply majorities, can toss any rule within 60 legislative days -- and that goes as far back as "May or June 2008."

Regulation junkies -- you know who you are -- can read Emanuel's memo here [PDF].

Reports E&E Daily:

Rahm Emanuel's memo could lead to the reversal of dozens of energy and environmental measures advanced in Bush's waning days, including standards addressing mountaintop mining, air pollution permits, logging in the West, an exemption for factory farms from Superfund reporting requirements and endangered species.

The story concludes with background and more details:

State leaders urge Obama administration to act quickly on emissions waiver

Top California officials are already lobbying the Obama administration to approve the state's aggressive emissions program, a lobbying effort that began even as the president's pick to run the Environmental Protection Agency has yet to receive Senate confirmation.

California Air Resources Board Chair Mary Nichols today sent a letter to EPA Administrator-designate Lisa Jackson pleading the state's case to move forward with its tailpipe emissions rules. The Bush administration in December 2007 turned down the request, and ever since then California's leaders (and officials from 13 other states that also want to pursue standards tougher than the federal rules) have been pleading their case. The plan is aimed at achieving a 30 percent reduction in vehicle greenhouse-gas emissions by 2016.

"We feel strongly that under its new leadership, EPA will recognize that the decision made by the former administrator to deny California the waiver to enforce our clean car law was flawed, factually and legally, in fundamental ways," said Nichols in her letter [PDF].

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) also sent a letter today on the subject, addressing his to President Obama.

"Your administration has a unique opportunity to both support the pioneering leadership of these states and move America toward global leadership on addressing climate change," wrote Schwarzenegger. "I ask that you direct the U.S. EPA to act promptly and favorably on California's reconsideration request so that we may continue the critical work of reducing our greenhouse gas emissions and their impact on global climate change."

In her confirmation hearing last week, Jackson said she would reconsider their request. Obama promised on the campaign trail to urge approval of the waiver.

Obama's early actions bode well for the environment

Within a few hours of inauguration on Tuesday, President Obama's Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel issued a memo [PDF] telling agency and department heads to freeze movement on 11th-hour regulations from the Bush administration. He wrote:

... no proposed or final regulation should be sent to the Office of Federal Register for publication unless and until it has been reviewed and approved by a department or agency head appointed or designated by the President after noon on January 20, 2009

Exceptions can be made for regulations pertaining to "health, safety, environmental, financial, or national security matters" -- but of course it will now be the Obama administration determining what qualifies for those exceptions.

The memo also asks department heads to consider pushing back for 60 days the effective date for new regulations that have been published but have not yet gone into effect.

Among the rulings put on hold was the Bush administration's revision to endangered species rules, which would have blocked the Endangered Species Act from being used to curb global-warming emissions and given scientists in the federal government less input on listing species. More to come on other environment-related regulations now on hold.

UPDATE: The freeze on publishing new regulations also means that the Bush administration's controversial decision to take gray wolves off the endangered species list won't go into effect.

Critter fans are applauding: "The past eight years have been a nightmare for wildlife. Fortunately, within hours of assuming office, President Obama has put the brakes on the Bush Administration's 11th hour attacks on wolves and the environment. President Obama is a breath of fresh air," said Brian Vincent, communications director for the group Big Wildlife.

Texas journalist paddles Gulf Coast to show shifty ecosystem and toxic threats

I've canoed beneath freeway overpasses in Seattle's Union Bay, but I somehow never undertook anything like this: San Antonio Express-News reporter Colin McDonald is kayaking the length of the Texas Gulf Coast, some 370 miles of alternating natural shoreline and industrialized landscape. He's blogging about the journey at Uncharted Coast, so named because the constantly shifting line between land and water has frustrated map-makers for centuries.

Having so far avoided the barges and tanker ships that ply the coastal shipping lanes, McDonald documents the unholy mix of wildlife diversity and intensive industrial use. He encounters a lot of remaining damage from Hurricane Ike and chats up locals who regale him with tales of pirates (of the insurance company variety, but still).

It's a nice bit of explanatory journalism that shows just how little separates resort-lined beaches from toxic sites like the McGinnes storage pits. McDonald also wrote an overview of the trip for the Express-News.

With Fiat's technology, Chrysler will build more small and midsize cars

Some commenters suggested my earlier post, "Chrysler to electrify entire product line," should have been filed under "humor." How was the company going to survive the current collapse of the auto industry, let alone find the money to invest in green cars?

But now the NYT reports:

The Italian automaker Fiat agreed on Tuesday to take a 35 percent stake in the struggling American auto company Chrysler, which was forced last month to seek a federal bailout amid fears it might not survive.

And, as the article notes, this creates a real eco-opportunity for Chrysler: