Latest Articles

Father of 'deep ecology' dies at 96

OSLO — Norway’s perhaps most famous philosopher Arne Naess, who invented the concept of “deep ecology,” has died at the age of 96, his publisher said Tuesday. “Arne was a very open-minded person, not very orthodox, and interested in many fields,” his editor Erling Kagge told AFP, confirming that Norway’s foremost philosopher of the 20th […]

British PM eyes 'historic opportunities' for change with Obama

LONDON — The arrival of Barack Obama in the White House presents the world with “historic opportunities” on key issues including climate change and terrorism, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Tuesday. Brown told The Sun newspaper that he and the US president-elect, who takes office next Tuesday, had a “historic chance to move the […]

Kerry and Clinton note action on climate change as key diplomatic concern

The hot news in foreign relations on Tuesday was, of course, the confirmation hearing for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to be the next secretary of state. But also noteworthy is the new head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's declaration that the panel's attention will soon turn to global warming, which he plans to be the subject of the panel's first hearing this year.

Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.), who takes over the committee with Joe Biden's ascension to the vice presidency, tells the New York Times that he wants to use his committee to urge the Obama administration to act fast on climate change. "I think we are standing on the threshold of a huge opportunity to actually get something done," he said. "The Obama administration is going to have to get up to speed very, very quickly."

The Times described Kerry's new role as "a gold-plated consolation prize," considering he ran for the presidency in 2004 and was rumored to be a top contender for secretary of state post under Obama. But Kerry seems to be ramping up to use his chairmanship for big things, not least of which is climate change. Shortly after it became clear that he wasn't going to the Department of State, he pledged that his committee would "pick up the baton and really run with it" on climate.

His first action as chair of the committee, though, was to preside over Tuesday morning's confirmation hearing for Clinton. His made a nod to climate change in his prepared opening remarks:

Before turning to Senator Lugar, let me say one thing about global climate change: Many today do not see it as a national security threat. But it is -- and the consequences of our inaction grow more serious by the day. In Copenhagen this December we have a chance to forge a treaty that will profoundly affect the conditions of life on our planet. The resounding message from the recent Climate Change Conference in Poland was that the global community is looking to our leadership. This Committee will be deeply involved in crafting a solution that the world can agree to and the Senate can ratify. And as we proceed, the lesson of Kyoto must remain clear in our minds: all countries must be part of the solution.

In her own opening remarks, Clinton recognized Kerry's work on climate and pledged to focus on the issue in her new role as the country's top diplomat:

You, Mr. Chairman, were among the very first in a growing chorus from both parties to recognize that climate change is an unambiguous security threat. At the extreme, it threatens our very existence but well before that point it could well incite new wars of an old kind over basic resources like food, water and arable land.

President-elect Obama has said America must be a leader in developing and implementing a global and coordinated response to climate change. We will participate in the upcoming UN Copenhagen Climate Conference and a global energy forum; and we'll pursue an energy policy that reduces our carbon emissions while reducing our dependence on foreign oil and gas; fighting climate change and enhancing our economic and energy security.

TVA could have planned for a normal accident such as the coal ash spill in Kingston, Tenn.

Those coal ash spills should have been expected.

Normal Accidents is a 25-year-old book by Charles Perrow, subtitled "Living with High-Risk Technologies." Perrow, reflecting on the Three Mile Island nuclear incident and other accidents, argued that modern advanced technologies are so complex, and require such careful monitoring and management, that accidents, including potentially massive system failures, have to be considered "normal," not exceptional, events.

The technologies he wrote about included many we consider commonplace today, but climate change and other global environmental impact risks were not among the "accidents" he anticipated.

Economists seem to have learned precious little from the book, highly acclaimed as it was. Economic calculations still get made on the basis of "expected values" -- the statistically most likely outcomes -- despite the fact that these values do not accommodate the virtual certainty of unexpected events.

Analyses like Environmental Impact Statements -- required for major federal investments under the National Environmental Policy Act -- are still based on what economists call "expected utility theory" (EUT). Based on past experience and recorded data, we project the probability of different events and use those odds in combination with the "utility" or value associated with each alternative event to arrive at an expected value for a course of action.

That doesn't make sense ... or does it?

Obama's pick to head regulatory oversight agency draws criticism, sends Dave on tangent

Last week Obama announced that he'd be appointing Harvard Law professor (and prolific public intellectual) Cass Sunstein as head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.

You could be forgiven for reacting to that news with a large yawn. But it's important!

First of all, OIRA is a big deal -- the conduit through which the entire suite of federal regulations passes. It can be used, as it was under Reagan and Bush, to stifle such regulations, or -- as will hopefully be the case under Obama -- to make them smarter and more effective. Ezra Klein has a great rundown on OIRA here, explaining its history and significance.

Some progressives are worried by the appointment because Sunstein is an outspoken proponent of cost-benefit analysis (CBA), which has been the death of many a progressive reg. Over on The New Republic, NYU Law professor Michael Livermore makes the case that Sunstein is a good choice because CBA needs to be reformed rather than scrapped. (It's a case he and his colleague Richard Revesz have made on Grist more than once.)

Do the emissions from a single Google search matter?

Apparently the question of how much greenhouse gas emissions can be traced to a single Google search is the hottest topic on the internets.

Research from U.S. physicist Alex Wissner-Gross says a single search produces 7g of CO2. Google says, nuh uh, it only produces 0.2g CO2 -- less than your personal computer generates while running it. Lots more here.

There may be some value in drawing attention to the substantial carbon footprint of the IT industry, but by the time this kind of thing gets filtered through the media it ends up yet another story about how every human action is a source of guilt and shame. Now they want us to search Google less?

In fact, the emissions of Google searches is a goofy distraction. As Joe notes, the internet has been a phenomenal driver of energy efficiency and dematerialization. Imagine how much clueless driving around has been eliminated by Google Maps!

White House chefs and the limits of personal choice

About a month ago, high-profile foodies got pretty amped up about whom Obama would choose as White House chef. Three of them -- Berkeley sustainable food doyenne Alice Waters, Gourmet editor Ruth Reichl, and New York City restaurateur Denny Mayer -- even got together to pen a letter urging the incoming president to replace the current White House chef with someone who chooses locally grown, organic food -- preferably sourced from an on-site vegetable garden. According to a New York Times account, the letter states:

A person of integrity who is devoted to the ideals of sustainability and health would send a powerful message that food choices matter. Supporting seasonal, ripe delicious American food would not only nourish your family, it would support our farmers, inspire your guests, and energize the nation.

Last week, Obama defied this gentle effort to convince him to send the incumbent chef packing. Cristeta Comerford, who has been in charge of cooking first-family meals for the Bushes since 2005, will retain her post, the Obama team announced.

My first reaction to this news was disappointment. After choosing an agribiz-friendly pol as USDA chief, couldn't Obama at least make a symbolic nod in the direction of the sustainable-food movement by picking a new chef?

Now I'm not sure what the fuss was about in the first place.

Thirteen years ago

"There's a strong possibility that Barack will pursue a career in politics, although it's not very clear yet."

-- Michelle Obama, in a 1996 interview with Le Monde (which also included her husband) that's just been published in English for the first time

Steven Chu’s stances on key energy issues: a primer for his confirmation hearing

Stephen Chu. Steven Chu, Nobel laureate and director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, will go before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee for his confirmation hearing on Tuesday, where he’s certain to be grilled about his positions on key energy and climate issues. Here’s a guide to what Chu thinks — or at […]

Robert Mendelsohn says global warming is 'a good thing for Canada'

I asserted in Part 1 that economists don't understand climate science. Exhibit 1 would be Robert Mendelsohn, an economics professor at Yale University, whose "research" has prompted headlines in our neighbor up north like "A warmer climate could hold lots of benefits for Canada" and "The UP side of global warming":

Leading the charge is Robert Mendelsohn, an economics professor at Yale University, who says the benefits of global warming for Canada -- from a longer growing season to the opening up of shipping through the Northwest Passage -- will outweigh the negative effects.

"You're lucky because you're a northern-latitude country, Mendelsohn says. "If you add it all up, it's a good thing for Canada."

This series will have three recurring themes about Voodoo Economists aka Mainstream Economists who Opine on Weather (MEOWs):

1. MEOW's understanding of what global warming is doing to the planet now and what it is likely to do by 2100 on our current emissions path ranges from arrogantly incomplete to criminally ignorant. They really talk more about the weather than the climate.
2. MEOW's cost-benefit calculations ["if you add it all up"] are analytically unsound and qualify more as an opinion than a scientifically accurate statement.
3. The right wing loves what the economics profession is saying and publishing on climate, which is why they quote and cite them so giddily.

For instance, you would never know from this article -- or any of Mendelsohn's comments -- that Canada is already suffering widespread and completely unpredicted devastation from climate change:

"The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada" notes Doug McArthur, a professor at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver.

The pests are "projected to kill 80 per cent of merchantable and susceptible lodgepole pine" in parts of British Columbia within 10 years -- and that's why the harvest levels in the region have been "increased significantly." One analyst calls the devastation "probably the biggest landscape-level change since the ice age."

Losing every harvestable pine tree in British Columbia is apparently not a big deal to arrogant MEOWs like Mendelsohn:

Forests will become more productive, Mendelsohn says. The northern forests will expand into the tundra and the southern forests will grow better. The types of trees in different regions will change. Fire and disease might well take out old forests, but Mendelsohn says forestry companies can also be allowed to go in and take out at-risk trees. "Rather than let it be destroyed naturally, you harvest it into the marketplace and then just let the natural systems replace what should be there next."

Yeah, cut down the "old forests" before the climate-driven pests get them and replace them with "what should be there" -- that's an economic plus for everyone! If you look up hubris in the dictionary ...

The reality on the ground is quite different than the opining from Mendelsohn's ivory tower (Note to self: Maybe the towers are made of ivory because in economist-land there ain't no friggin' trees left). As the Chicago Tribune reported this month in a story titled, "Canada's forests, once huge help on greenhouse gases, now contribute to climate change":