Latest Articles

A photo tour of the green concepts and cars from North American Int'l Auto Show

The North American International Auto Show opened in Detroit with a bang. Literally. Apparently, the Chrysler Pentastar fell from the ceiling and startled a cluster of journalists as well as billionaire investor Wilbur Ross and his entourage. No one was hurt, but the portentous crash may be more than symbolic for the American auto industry if their bets on electric and hybrid vehicles fail to deliver, or if China's BYD motors beats them to the punch with their plug-in F3DM.

Though subdued -- Chrysler left the steer back at the ranch this year -- the more "rational" Detroit Auto Show saw more hybrid and electric vehicles debuts than first-generation Prius-owners could have possibly imagined 10 years-ago. The Chrysler Circuit, Lexus HS 250h, third-generation Toyota Prius, new Honda Insight, Fisker Karma S, Lincoln Concept C, BMW Concept-7, and the smart ed -- which will be powered by Tesla batteries -- comprise just a smattering of the electric and hybrid concepts and production models that will start to roll off respective assembly lines by the end of this year.

Check out the photo slideshow from Detroit below. To see the photo captions, click to enlarge and then press "show info" in the flickr slideshow.

Join the local movement with Grist

If you call Seattle home, we've got news for you ...

First things first: Howdy, neighbor! Grist is based in Seattle, too. Sure, we've got our political reporter in D.C. and an organic farmer in N.C., but most of us live and work -- and try to be as green as we can be -- within spitting distance of the Space Needle (relatively speaking, that is).

That's why we've launched Grist Local: Seattle, a weekly email featuring event listings, sustainable business profiles, and other news about the green scene in the Emerald City. You can get it zapped straight to your inbox every Wednesday for the low, low price of free! (And worth every penny.)

In fact, if you sign up now, you'll get your very first Grist Local email bright and early tomorrow (fresh off the presses). Here's a sneak peak:

Does America have the food system that we deserve?

McDonald's is on a roll. Says the NYT:

Six years into a rebound spawned by more appealing food and a less aggressive expansion, McDonald's seems to have won over some of its most hardened skeptics.

The chain has managed to sustain its momentum even as the economy and the restaurant industry as a whole are struggling. Month after month, McDonald's has surprised analysts by posting stronger-than-expected sales in the United States and abroad.

I've been won over all right. Won over to the argument that changing food policy in this country is a quixotic proposition. The article presents as progress that McDonald's responded to flattening beef consumption by going, quoth one executive, "at chicken hard."

Firstly, um, ew? And secondly, learning that McDonald's now sells more chicken than beef worldwide doesn't quite feel like the revolution is right around the corner.

Renewable energy industries lobby for more flexible tax credits

Renewable energy advocates are enthused by Barack Obama's call to double the production of clean, domestic energy and create three million jobs in the sector, but they don't think he'll be able to pull it off unless he backs two changes to the tax code -- changes they say will help spur millions more jobs in the wind and solar industries.

Right now, the tax credits for solar and wind energy (yes, the much-beleaguered credits that were finally slipped into the October bailout of the financial markets) are not refundable -- that is to say, a producer only gets the money back if it makes a profit. Problem is, given the economic downturn, not many renewable energy companies are making money. That means the tax credits aren't helping them. The solar and wind industries would like the renewable tax credits to become refundable, which would offer rebates even to companies that aren't making money.

Obama has said his stimulus plan would create nearly half a million jobs through clean energy investments, but neither the investors nor the lenders who would normally provide the upfront funding for start-up renewable projects are feeling confident enough to do so right now. It also doesn't help that some major financial backers of renewable projects -- like Lehman Brothers -- have gone under in recent months.

"Lehman goes away, and many other banks have suffered major losses because of the sub-prime crisis, and because they're suffering these huge losses they don't have much tax liability," Chris O'Brien, head of market development and government relations for North America at the Swiss company Oerlikon Solar, told Grist. "They don't need more losses, so their appetite for investing in solar projects has gone way down at a point in time where the interest in and the need for tax equity has gone way up."

Another idea floating around the Hill is for the stimulus plan to put $10 billion into a "National Clean Energy Lending Authority" that could lend to renewable projects and help support homeowners who want to retrofit. Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.) wrote a letter to Obama this week asking him to support something like this. "The current financial crisis has not only thrown us into recession, it has significantly derailed or killed off virtually every alternative energy project in the pipeline, making renewable energy yet another victim of the economic fallout," they wrote.

Senators prod DOE pick Chu for his thoughts on various energy sources

Barack Obama's pick to head the Energy Department, Steven Chu, got his turn in the confirmation spotlight this morning, with senators asking him to clarify some of his previous statements on contentious energy issues like coal and nuclear power.

The hearing before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee was, for the most part, amiable, with the lawmakers warmly welcoming the Nobel Laureate physicist. But when the subject turned to Chu's previous assertion that "Coal is my worst nightmare," some coal-state senators got a little touchy. Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.) inquired directly about the remark that's been "ricocheting around the internet," while others asked more in-depth questions about what coal-related policies Chu supports.

By equating coal to a nightmare, Chu said his point was, "If the world continues to use coal the way we are using it today, and the world -- I mean in particular not only the United States but China, India and Russia -- then it is a pretty bad dream." He continued, "That is to say in China, for example, they have not yet begun to even trap the sulfur dioxide, nitrous oxides. There's mercury. There's particulate matter, as well as carbon dioxide."

If anything, though, Chu's remarks at the hearing likely eased the lawmakers' fears, as he asserted that nuclear and coal will remain crucial components in the energy mix. On coal, Chu had previously said, "It's not guaranteed that we have a solution for coal" -- meaning that there is currently no proven technology to offset the C02 emissions resulting from burning coal. In today's hearing, he softened, saying he's "very hopeful" that carbon capture and sequester (CCS) technology is possible on a commercial scale. "I am optimistic we can figure out how to use those resources in a clean way. I'm very hopeful that this will occur and I think that we will be using that great natural resource."

Slicing and dicing global greenhouse gas data

Say you said to yourself, "Gee, I wish we could prevent global warming." Your next thought might be, "Gosh, where do greenhouse emissions come from?" Well, I asked myself just that question a while back. So I decided to jump into the IPCC Working Group III Assessment Report, and I've posted a Google workbook, called "GreenhouseGasEmissions," which should let you know just about everything you always wanted to know about the global sources of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The biggest surprise to me was the sheer number of major sources. I don't know whether it would be easier to slay a few big greenhouse gas monsters or a bunch of medium-sized ones, but we're basically stuck with the latter.

Speaking of monsters, according to my calculations, all coal-fired power plants together are responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gases (all of these figures are for 2004, in CO2 equivalent megatonnes, from IPCC Working Group III reports, and any errors are mine). Shutting down all coal-fired power plants would decrease greenhouse gas emissions by 18 percent -- but that would still leave 82 percent, and I'm assuming we want to get as close to zero human-made greenhouse gas emissions as possible.

Amazingly, the fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) used to provide heat for buildings and industry are responsible for 21 percent of greenhouse gas emissions -- more than all the coal-fired power plants. In a way, that statistic understates the importance of using carbon-free sources like wind, solar, and geothermal for electricity generation, because if we want to switch transportation from oil to electricity, we will have to replace transportation's oil, responsible for 14 percent of emissions, with electricity sources that do not include the use of fossil fuels. And if we want to eliminate the emissions from heating, we will have to use carbon-free electricity and also redesign/retrofit buildings.

Forests might be some of the cheapest of the "lowest hanging fruit" to save, since they account for almost 16 percent of emissions. But I'm worried about what to do about belching livestock -- how do we get rid of their 4 percent? It might be easier to prevent the 5 percent of all emissions caused by the overuse of nitrogen-based fertilizers.

Before we get into details, however, let's take a stroll through the basics of greenhouse gas accounting.

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?