Latest Articles

Is Ken Salazar 'too nice' to head Interior?

The New York Times editorial page thinks Ken Salazar is too nice to head the Department of Interior:

 

The word on Ken Salazar ... is that he is friendly, approachable, a good listener, a genial compromiser and a skillful broker of deals. That is also the rap on Ken Salazar.

What the Interior Department needs right now is someone willing to bust heads when necessary and draw the line against the powerful commercial groups -- developers, ranchers, oil and gas companies, the off-road vehicle industry -- that have long treated the department as a public extension of their private interests.

Conservationists and pretty much everyone else exhausted by the Bush administration's ideological rigidity and deference to commercial interests have welcomed Mr. Salazar's appointment. The Colorado Democrat has a solid voting record on issues involving wilderness and wildlife protection and can be expected to bring a strong conservation ethic to the top of the department.

Yet that will not be nearly enough to reform and reinvigorate the department. The Interior Department is an unusually balkanized agency, with eight separate divisions charged with managing 500 million acres of public land in a way that balances private and public claims. It is essential that Mr. Salazar find the right people to run each of these fiefs, and find ways to make them work intelligently and harmoniously in the nation's interest.

Stiffer regulation of coal ash would cost the industry billions

If I've said it once I've said it, oh, around eleven kazillion times now: "coal is cheap" because the coal industry externalizes costs.

Take, for instance, coal ash. It contains several substances that are classified as toxics individually, but the ash itself isn't thus classified. That means it can be stored in enormous pools with no liners, behind earthen dams that, as the disaster in Tennessee illustrates again, periodically fail.

What would happen if ash were classified as toxic? The answer can be found in this stellar piece from Bloomberg.

Increased regulation would bring costs to upgrade or close more than 600 landfills and waste ponds at 440 plants nationwide. While the Environmental Protection Agency put the price tag at $1 billion a year in 2000, power generators predict the cost would be as high as $5 billion, said Jim Roewer, executive director of the industry-funded Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, in a telephone interview.

Why so costly?

An EPA report in 2000 found a quarter of retention ponds and 57 percent of landfills lacked liners to prevent pollution from leaking into nearby water supplies, though the 2007 follow-up study found such controls more common at newer sites.

So much for cheap.

Also note this macabre/hilarious bit:

Scientists and other experts rattle off options for averting climate catastrophe

London’s Independent newspaper asked climate scientists to answer a simple question: should humanity “prepare a ‘Plan B’ to curb the worst effects of global warming?” Well, ask 40 eggheads a question, and you’ll get a very diverse set of responses. Geo-engineering is the answer! No, focus on carbon sequestration. Wrong again, it’s all about adapting […]

Eco-buzzwords make annual banned words list

Hush your mouth, eco-child: That green buzzword you were about to utter is probably on Lake Superior State University's annual list of banned words. "Green" itself topped the list, with it or "going green" garnering the most nominations. True that. Please, no more press releases titled "Midwives/Fighter Jets/Port-o-Potties Go Green!"

"Carbon footprint" also made the 34th annual List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen's English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. And as for "staycation," Dan Muldoon of Omaha, Nebraska, commented with his nomination, "Let's send this word on a slow boat to nowhere."

Regulation and public investment are more efficient means to reduce GHGs than emissions pricing

When I sat down to write about why so-called "command and control" methods are often the most effective and efficient means of fighting climate chaos, I found that Kevin Drum had posted exactly the argument I wanted to refute.

After conceding that it will take more than emissions pricing to lower greenhouse gas emissions, and that response to price signals tends to be small and slow, Drum argues that a price mechanism should be the primary means to fight climate chaos: "Still, generally speaking, taxes and carbon trading are more efficient regulatory mechanisms than command and control, so the more you can rely on them the better."

I think this default conventional wisdom is just plain wrong. Not only is elasticity low, but there are also simple standards by which we can measure energy and greenhouse-gas efficiency. Further, suitable means for increasing efficiency and lowering emissions are known. Given these three conditions, price is not the most efficient way to change behavior.

As examples, consider weather and duct sealing. It's widely acknowledged that sealing buildings yields fast paybacks -- two years or less. Yet most buildings remain under-sealed, with leaky frames and ducts. How do we change this? Well, we can raise the price of energy until people become desperate and seek out contractors. But since we already have quick paybacks, any amount we raise the price is far beyond the cost of saving the energy.

If, as I have suggested in surveys of the literature, demand response to price increases is around -.5, that means it will require $200 in emissions charges to motivate each $100 of consumer investment in energy efficiency. In contrast, investing public funds could insure that a nice woman working for an energy-efficiency utility could seal your home for around $100, plus a bit for administration. Even if that $100+ came from regressive taxation, it would still cost consumers less than a primarily price-driven policy. And if the payback is really two years or less, the government could use its ability to borrow to provide low interest financing, thus bringing the cost to consumers down below the business-as-usual price.

Colorado gov. taps Denver schools chief to fill Salazar's seat

Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter has asked Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet to take over the Senate seat being vacated by Ken Salazar, President-elect Obama's pick to run the Interior Department. An official announcement from Ritter is expected tomorrow, according to several media reports.

From Bennet's official bio:

He worked for six years prior to his tenure at the City of Denver as Managing Director for the Anschutz Investment Company in Denver, where he had direct responsibility for the investment of over $500 million. He led the reorganizations of four distressed companies including Forcenergy (which later merged with Denver-based Forest Oil), Regal Cinemas, United Artists and Edwards Theaters, which together required the restructuring of over $3 billion in debt. Bennet also managed, on behalf of Anschutz, the consolidation of the three theater chains into Regal Entertainment Group, the largest motion picture exhibitor in the world. Prior to moving to Denver, Bennet served as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration.

Bennet earned his bachelor's degree in history with honors from Wesleyan University and his law degree from Yale Law School, where he was the Editor-in-Chief of The Yale Law Journal.

Bennet served as the chief of staff to Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper for two years before being tapped to take over as superintendent in 2005. He is also a former Coro Foundation Public Affairs fellow, served as a personal assistant to Ohio Governor Richard F. Celeste, and clerked for Judge Francis D. Murnaghan on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit. He worked for a brief time at the law firm of Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering in Washington, D.C.

Read more on Bennet from the Denver Post and Rocky Mountain News.

Why the No New Coal Plants movement should be awarded the Virgin Earth Challenge prize

Dear Mr. Branson:

On Feb. 9, 2007, you and Al Gore announced the Virgin Earth Challenge at a London press conference:

The Virgin Earth Challenge is a prize of $25 million for whoever can demonstrate to the judges' satisfaction a commercially viable design which results in the removal of anthropogenic, atmospheric greenhouse gases so as to contribute materially to the stability of Earth's climate.

It was announced that the panel of judges would consist of Richard Branson, Al Gore, Crispin Tickell, James Hansen, James Lovelock, and Tim Flannery.

I'm sure that when you dreamed up the prize, you were probably thinking about how to motivate the proverbial garage inventor or moonlighting chemist to come up with a new planet-rescuing technology in the narrow sense of the term -- perhaps some sort of chemical reagent, gene-tweaked algae, or super-absorbent biochar that could suck carbon dioxide molecules out of the atmosphere.

But it's time to do some out-of-the-box thinking on climate change, starting with what sort of technological solutions we're willing to take seriously. Let's start with the idea of technology itself.

Wikipedia's definition is as good as any:

A strict definition is elusive; "technology" can refer to material objects of use to humanity, such as machines, hardware or utensils, but can also encompass broader themes, including systems, methods of organization, and techniques.

Let me propose a technology that I take very seriously, even if people like Rudolph Giuliani don't: grassroots community organizing.

The "community organizer" that Giuliani and Sarah Palin mocked at the Republican Convention in September is now about to be sworn in as the 44th President of the United States. Indeed, even seasoned politicos admitted to being fairly dazzled by the ground game displayed by Obama in winning the election against far more experienced politicians.

That was community organizing on display. And yes, it really is a technology. In fact, in solving climate change, it may be the only technology that really matters.

Two years ago, at about the time you were announcing your Virgin Earth Challenge, a bureaucrat named Eric Schuster at the U.S. Department of Energy was releasing the latest of his "Tracking New Coal-Fired Power Plants" spreadsheets. The document showed 151 coal plants under development [PDF] across the country.

An open letter to the president and first lady from the nation's top climate scientist

 

29 December 2008
Michelle and Barack Obama
Chicago and Washington, D.C. United States of America

Dear Michelle and Barack,

We write to you as fellow parents concerned about the Earth that will be inherited by our children, grandchildren, and those yet to be born.

Barack has spoken of "a planet in peril" and noted that actions needed to stem climate change have other merits. However, the nature of the chosen actions will be of crucial importance.

We apologize for the length of this letter. But your personal attention to these details could make all the difference in what surely will be the most important matter of our times.

Jim has advised governments previously through regular channels. But urgency now dictates a personal appeal. Scientists at the forefront of climate research have seen a stream of new data in the past few years with startling implications for humanity and all life on Earth.

Yet the information that most needs to be communicated to you concerns the failure of policy approaches employed by nations most sincere and concerned about stabilizing climate. Policies being discussed in national and international circles now, which focus on 'goals' for emission reduction and 'cap and trade,' have the same basic approach as the Kyoto Protocol. This approach is ineffectual and not commensurate with the climate threat. It could waste another decade, locking in disastrous consequences for our planet and humanity.

The enclosure, "Tell Barack Obama the Truth -- the Whole Truth" [PDF] was sent to colleagues for comments as we left for a trip to Europe. Their main suggestion was to add a summary of the specific recommendations, preferably in a cover letter sent to both of you.

There is a profound disconnect between actions that policy circles are considering and what the science demands for preservation of the planet. A stark scientific conclusion, that we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity, has become clear to the relevant experts. The validity of this statement could be verified by the National Academy of Sciences, which can deliver prompt authoritative reports in response to a Presidential request¹. NAS was set up by President Lincoln for just such advisory purposes.

Science and policy cannot be divorced. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consistent with what science indicates to be required. Our three recommendations derive from the science, including logical inferences based on empirical information about the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of specific past policy approaches.

Tennessee coal ash spill contains high levels of toxic heavy metals

According to some just-released test results, the coal ash at the Harriman sludge spill contains high levels of toxic heavy metals, some up to 300 times the legal limit:

According to the tests, arsenic levels from the Kingston power plant intake canal tested at close to 300 times the allowable amounts in drinking water, while a sample from two miles downstream still revealed arsenic at approximately 30 times the allowed limits. Lead was present at between twice to 21 times the legal drinking water limits, and thallium levels tested at three to four times the allowable amounts.

All water samples were found to contain elevated levels of arsenic, barium, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and thallium. The samples were taken from the immediate area of the coal waste spill, in front of the Kingston Fossil plant intake canal just downstream from the spill site, and at a power line crossing two miles downstream from the spill.

This comes via the Appalachian Voices blog, a great source of breaking info and pictures from the spill. Full release beneath the fold:

Polishing turds is expensive

Great piece on why LEED-certified houses typically come at a premium.

(h/t Sam Smith)