Latest Articles
-
Wherein life teaches a journalist a lesson
I'll write something on the larger themes and context soon, but for now, I'm exhausted, my feet hurt, my back hurts, and all I've got in me is an account of my own experience, which turned out to be not at all what I expected.
Grist had one press pass to the swearing-in ceremony. Since Kate got to go to the green ball (more on that from her soon), I got the pass. Great, right? A chance to see history up close, surrounded by other privileged and important members of the media.
Because I assumed I'd basically cruise in past the crowds, as we did on Sunday for the concert, I didn't leave the house until about 10am. The ceremony started at 11:30 and I had about a half-hour walk ... I thought. On the Obama site's media guide, it said that the press entrance is "TBA." (Kinda wondering when they're going to announce it.) Anyway, I tacked toward the Capitol, assuming I'd be close to the proceedings, and approached a cop at the first entrance point.
"Where's the media entrance?"
"I don't know, but you can't come in here, it's for ticket holders."
Hm. Okay. Next entrance point, slightly farther away.
"Where's the media entrance?"
"Oh, it's on 15th and H, I think."
"Are you sure? That's the other way, away from the ceremony."
"That's what I heard."
Grr. Fine. I schlep through the packed crowds, eight or nine blocks to 15th and H, glancing nervously at my watch.
Finally get there. "Is this the media entrance?"
"This is for Lafayette media pass holders. You have a national mall media pass. You want to go a a couple blocks over."
Fine.
"Is this the media entrance?"
"No, that's at 15th and H."
-
-
Parsing Section 451 of the House stimulus package
Here are some thoughts on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recently unveiled by House leaders -- specifically, the appropriation of Section 451 (aka "Subtitle E") from the 2007 Energy Bill.
For obvious reasons, we've been following this bill very closely, which not only provides $10 per MWh to waste heat recovery and high-efficiency cogeneration projects, but it also provides a nice suite of carrots to induce the states to reform their paleolithic electricity regulatory laws. Often these laws have long been perhaps the biggest barrier to reducing the carbon footprint of U.S. electricity generation and distribution.
For less obvious reasons, it's hard to get programs like this through the Congress. This is the result of some peculiarities of the way the federal government makes decisions to spend money:
- Tax bills require one vote to enact (OK, technically three, since they have to be approved by both houses and then signed by the President, but it is a single vote on a single decision throughout). All other fiscal bills require two votes: the first authorizes the funding, and the second appropriates the money through the budget process. Since no vote is certain, this makes it much easier for regulators to get things done by tinkering with tax policy than through any other measure. In no small part, this is why the tax code is so full of complexity, loopholes, and social-engineering run amok. But I digress.
- Any appropriation process must be "scored." This is the process by which the Congressional Budget Office estimates the cost of the legislation to the Treasury for the purpose of figuring out whether we can afford it. That's quite reasonable, but the nature of the process is such that it tends to ignore most of the upside because it does not readily differentiate between good and bad investments. (It is as if you made a decision to buy a stock based on the price per share without any consideration of whether it was likely to rise or sink in the future.) This becomes especially problematic when the economy sours, as the stimulative effects of investments are not readily quantified or evaluated precisely at the time when they are most needed.
Frustrating as this may be, the good news is that the limitations are well-understood by those inside the Beltway. Setting aside what the scoring rules say, here is what Section 451 will actually do for the U.S. economy ... with lessons broadly applicable to investments in all flavors of enhanced resource efficiency.
-
How the cap-and-trade blueprint fits into domestic and international climate action
There's been a lot of buzz lately about the U.S. Climate Action Partnership and its new blueprint for a cap on global warming pollution. Last week, the diverse group of environmental nonprofits and leading companies from every sector of the U.S. economy unveiled a detailed plan for legislation -- the consensus product of two years of intense analysis and debate.
As a consensus document, it won't satisfy everyone's design for the perfect climate bill. Instead, it bridges the gap on the most important issues in the legislative debate, giving members of Congress clear guidelines for legislation that are environmentally effective, economically smart, and politically achievable.
It's an attempt to find the "sweet spot" that can move the U.S. forward on climate change, in real, practical terms, toward a strong domestic emissions cap that reduces pollution at home and enables the U.S. to lead an effective global emissions reduction effort.
Any U.S. climate proposal needs to be examined in that context. After all, even the strongest U.S. legislation alone won't secure enough global emissions reductions to solve climate change. What we need right now is strong domestic action that drives international action and contributes effectively to a global emissions reduction path that can avert the worst impacts of climate change.
The two-degree threshold
Scientific experts say that our emissions path must keep global warming within 2° of pre-industrial levels. Beyond that, the chances of catastrophic climate impacts increase dramatically. Would the USCAP blueprint as a whole contribute effectively to the global emissions reductions we need? The chart below shows that it would.
-
One other headline from Inauguration Day
This just in: Scientists say human-induced global warming is real.
-
Senate confirms Obama's picks to run Energy, USDA, and Interior
Just hours after President Obama took the oath of office, the U.S. Senate confirmed three Cabinet members who will play a role in shaping energy and environmental policy, National Journal reported. By voice vote, senators approved Steven Chu as Energy Secretary, Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary, and Tom Vilsack as Agriculture Secretary.
Interior's Web gurus were quick to note the official installation of their new boss. The department's site features a photo of Salazar front and center on the homepage, along with a press release with background on the new secretary. As of late Tuesday afternoon, Energy and Agriculture hadn't updated their sites to reflect their new bosses.
Check out Grist's profiles of these Cabinet members:
The Senate adjourned Tuesday without taking action on Lisa Jackson's nomination to run EPA or Nancy Sutley's nomination to run the Council on Environmental Quality.
-
President Barack Obama's call to action on energy and climate
Considering that this was an inaugural address, a speech whose aims are primarily rhetorical and visionary, our 44th president devoted more of his remarks to clean energy and global warming than anyone could have expected.
Yet it may be these muscular and optimistic lines that offer the greatest encouragement to the nation and the world:
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions -- who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short. For they have forgotten what this country has already done; what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose, and necessity to courage.
Obama believes the simple yet powerful words, "Make no small plans."
We can preserve a livable climate, but it will require the biggest of plans. It will require a memory of what we have accomplished in the past, most especially during World War II -- the only true model for the scale and speed of effort required.
Let's look at what he said specifically related to energy and climate, starting with the fourth paragraph:
-
The energy and climate challenge for Obama
I'd love to hear your thoughts on this day.
-----
The excitement here in D.C. is palpable. We have friends in town who brought their five-year-old and are walking down to the National Mall. My wife got an invitation to watch the whole thing from an office that overlooks the Capitol.
I'm an indoor type (Duh!) -- especially on a cold day with a wind chill that could only warm the hearts of anti-scientific global warming deniers. And someone needs to stay home with my 21-month-old daughter and blog.
She is so excited. She keeps saying "Where is Barack Obama?" and "Is Joe Biden here?" (Note: If you ask her who ran against Barack Obama, she'll answer "Grumpy old man." Go figure!)
So what is the great challenge for Obama?
Global warming, obviously, but what does he need to do?
Yes, he needs to pass a major climate bill and accelerate the deployment of cleantech. But those are really secondary challenges.
No, the single most important thing he needs to do is to change the political equation in this country.
-
Efficiency in the Obama economic revitalization plan
The long green? That's money -- and you all know what "going green" is about ...
Everyone keeps asking the members of President Barack Obama's energy and environment team if the U.S. can "afford" their agenda in light of the economic condition of the nation. (Witness the Washington Post interview with Carol Browner as one example.)
Silly question ... and they get simplistic answers, such as "we will." It's a silly question because it assumes a conflict that isn't there, as do the typical mainstream surveys of public opinion. The New York Times reports on Jan. 18:
Given a choice between stimulating the economy and protecting the environment, 58 percent of Americans said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 33 percent who chose protecting the environment. In April 2007, 36 percent said it was more important to stimulate the economy, compared with 52 percent who chose the environment.
That's a false, unnecessary choice; and simply posing the proposition may generate opposition to the most rational course of action, which is not making the choice.
The way out lies through applying a little concept in economics that many in the environmental community have tended to abhor, at least until attention became focused on energy consumption: efficiency.
Pursuit of efficiency came to be associated with exploitation of workers, despoliation of landscapes and environments, abandonment of community roots and commitments, and many abusive actions of companies large and small in the 20th century.
But most climate change agendas today start with the pursuit of what everyone seems to agree is the low-hanging fruit of efforts to lower emissions: energy efficiency. Many who challenged the necessity of efficiency in the past are now trying to increase it today and into the future.
What gives?
