Latest Articles

Green as in money

Wow -- somebody spent a lot of time taking notes at Grist, then found some deep, deep pockets and spent a lot of money putting up a slick corporate environmentalism-lite site called "Mother Nature Network."

It's a gagger.

The only blessing is that, given the cost structure required to keep all those beautiful people going, it's either going to be a vanity enterprise (like the Washington Times) or short-lived.

Florida PSC votes to establish a state renewable portfolio standard

My colleague Gwen Rose has spent a large part of the last two years working -- with a coalition of allies -- on a solar program for Florida. One would think solar in the sunshine state would be an easy sell, but it's been a rather tough slog.

Which is why we are pleased to report some good news. On Friday night, the Florida Public Service Commission voted unanimously to support a 20% by 2020 renewable portfolio standard.

We anticipate the program would establish about $300 million a year for solar. That's a big deal.

The fight now moves to the legislature, but for the moment, congrats to the many people who worked long and hard to put the sun in the sunshine state.

Green mideast peace

Cool video from Current about a nonprofit in Israel that brings kids together across borders to work on water problems:

Required reading for novice climate economists

Whether it's Pacific Northwest flooding or the other "strange" weather phenomena we've been seeing in the U.S. and across the globe, the present-day risks of a changing climate are real and threatening -- to say nothing about the future risks.

But the current economic downturn often drowns out calls for major spending to lower emissions or otherwise address climate change. Still, the reality is that the two -- economic and environmental revitalization -- can and should go hand in hand.

A great introduction to why is available from Frank Ackerman in Dollars & Sense magazine. "Climate Economics in Four Easy Pieces" doesn't even need five full pages of English to make a strong case for action that stands up to climate change deniers.

Another rate increase in the name of cheap coal

Duke Energy just got approval to raise rates 18 percent to cover the continued rising price tag for its 630-MW planned coal plant in southwestern Indiana.

The new price tag? $2.35 billion, or $3,730/kW.

By my highly unscientific but quixotically regular analysis, that's a new record, just topping AEP's $3,700/kW proposed facility in Virginia. Way to go, Duke!

One note: This plant will not sequester its CO2, and $2.35 billion does not represent the full cost being borne by Indiana ratepayers:

On Wednesday, the commission also approved Duke Energy's $17 million plan to study the plant's potential to capture a portion of its carbon dioxide emissions as part of the company's proposal to possibly store the gas permanently deep underground.

So not only is it expensive, but it's also environmentally dangerous. But if we throw a few million ratepayer dollars at "studying" CO2 sequestration, maybe we can put a nice report together showing that someday in the future, it will only be expensive.

This apparently was insufficient to appease the environmental community:

Environmental and government watchdog groups oppose the plant and have sued to try to halt it, calling the project a huge waste of money that would be better spent on renewable energy such as wind farms. They also warn that its price tag could go even higher if Congress acts to impose caps on carbon dioxide emissions linked to global warming.

Crazy hippies. When will they learn? We need to burn more coal and raise power prices because coal is cheap. Why is that so hard to understand?

ReadyMade: Depression posters for today

ReadyMade asked a group of graphic designers to "reimagine the populist poster art of the first Great Depression." The results are cool, and a couple of them are greenish, like this one from Nick Dewar:

So much for 'clean coal'

Originally posted at the Wonk Room.

Before Thursday's Senate hearing on the devastating Tennessee coal plant billion-gallon ash spill, Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) demolished the "clean coal" myth. Alexander told Knoxville's WVLT-TV:

Coal is a dirty business.

Watch it:

China to increase coal production 30 percent by 2015

The Canberra Times/AFP has the alarming news:

China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 per cent by 2015 to meet its energy needs, the Government has announced, in a move likely to fuel concerns over global warming.

(Note to Canberra Times: Some statements are so obvious you can skip the journalistic hedging.)

Land and Resources Ministry chief planner Hu Cunzhi said the Government planned to increase annual output to more than 3.3 billion tonnes by 2015.

That is up from the 2.54 billion tonnes produced in 2007, according to the ministry.

In short, from 2007 to 2015, China will increase its coal production by an amount equal to two-thirds of the entire coal consumption of the United States -- an amount that surpasses all of the coal consumed today in Europe, Eurasia, the Middle East, Africa, and Central and South America.

Such is the legacy of eight years of the Bush administration blocking all national and international action on climate change, and indeed actively working to undermine international negotiations by creating a parallel do-nothing track for countries like China. As Chinese officials have told me, we gave them the cover to accelerate emissions growth.

Some might claim a different president would never have been able to get China on a different path. But if Al Gore had been elected picked by the Supreme Court in 2000, I assert that China would not be planning for its 2015 coal production to be triple that of current U.S. coal production.

Changing China's rapacious coal plans will arguably be Obama's single greatest challenge in terms of preserving a livable climate and thus the health and well-being of future generations and thus any chance at a positive legacy for his presidency.

The story continues:

As mandates and government aid ramp up, the case for ethanol runs out of steam

As President-elect Barack Obama and the new Congress mull a bailout for ethanol makers, the industry absorbed two body blows this past week.

1) The Environmental Working Group released a study revealing the profound opportunity costs associated with our government's generous support for ethanol.

The corn-based fuel grabs three-quarters of all federal renewable-energy tax credits, EWG reports. Ethanol gets more four times as much cheese as wind, solar, and geothermal combined. If you add in support for biodiesel, biofuels grab 80 percent -- four dollars in five -- of federal tax largesse to renewable fuels. In short, the dubious practice of turning corn and soy into liquid car fuel is crowding out other more energy-rich and sustainable energy sources.

2) A professor from Iowa State University -- ground zero of ethanol fervor -- has broken ranks and issued a scathing, cogent critique [PDF] of of the ethanol program. Here's a juicy sample from the paper, by Dennis Keeney, emeritus professor, Department of Agronomy and Agriculture and Biosystems Engineering:

About 6.7% of the gasoline used in the U.S. will be displaced by ethanol in 2009, when corrected for the lower energy content of ethanol and assuming an annual gasoline consumption of 140 billion gallons. Assuming a net energy gain in the conversion of corn to ethanol of 1.25, there is a net energy displacement of approximately 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline, about a 2% net energy gain. If the energy in nonfuel byproducts (e.g. distillers grains, which are used for cattle feed) is removed from the equation, the net energy gain is close to nil. In other words, ethanol from corn will do nothing to boost net energy supplies.

Let's put these two assessments together: We're handing three-quarters of the resources we have for alternative fuels to one that delivers precisely ... nothing. At a time of rapid climate change and mounting budget deficits.

Below, a few choice nuggets from the two papers.

Green(ish) news from our nation's capitol

• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) wants to get funding for FutureGen -- the proposed "zero emissions" coal plant that the Bush administration axed due to ballooning costs -- into the stimulus package. Durbin said Thursday that he got a "positive response" when he discussed it with energy secretary nominee Steven Chu. His state-mate Barack Obama pushed to revive the plant back when he was just a senator.

• At a hearing on Thursday, Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chair Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) announced the newest Democratic members of his committee (though their appointments aren't yet final): Evan Bayh (Ind.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), and two new senators, Mark Udall (Colorado) and Jeanne Shaheen (New Hampshire).

• It's looking increasingly likely that Wall Street big-wig Steve Rattner, who works for the private investment firm Quadrangle Group, will be named as Obama's "car czar."