Latest Articles

Why large future warming is very likely

A friend of mine from college emailed me the other day and expressed some skepticism about the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. It occurred to me that it would make a good topic for my next post.

So here is the reasoning that has led me to conclude that business-as-usual carbon dioxide emissions will lead to temperature increases over the next century of around 3 degrees C.

First, it has been known for over 150 years that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet. In fact, the very small number of credible skeptics out there, such as Dick Lindzen and Pat Michaels, are on record agreeing that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. What they argue is that the warming will be very small. More on that later.

The conclusion that emitting greenhouse gases will result in warming does not rest on the output of climate models, but is a simple physical argument that predates the invention of the computer. And if you don't believe in physics, take a look at Venus. That planet features a thick carbon dioxide atmosphere and consequently a surface temperature hot enough to melt lead.

So we know that adding carbon dioxide is going to warm the planet. This leads us to the real question: How much warming are we going to get?

How green will the economic stimulus package be?

Attention in Washington is focused on an economic stimulus plan, which will be the first major agenda item for the new Congress that convenes tomorrow, and for the new president when he's sworn in on Jan. 20. But how green will the stimulus package be?

In his radio/YouTube address on Saturday, Obama said his proposal -- dubbed the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan" -- would create 3 million new jobs, 80 percent of them in the private sector, including jobs in the renewable-energy and efficiency industries. "To put people back to work today and reduce our dependence on foreign oil tomorrow, we will double renewable-energy production and renovate public buildings to make them more energy efficient," he said.

While Obama mentioned that a portion of the stimulus funding would go to repairing roads and bridges, he did not mention funding for public transportation, which many environmental groups and transit advocates are hoping will receive a substantial investment.

On Sunday, Obama's advisers said his plan will include $300 billion in tax cuts for workers and businesses, a move to appease conservatives who are concerned about government spending. The tax cuts would account for approximately 40 percent of the total package, which is likely to total between $675 billion and $775 billion over two years.

On Monday, President-elect Barack Obama met with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and other leaders from both parties on the Hill about his plan. "The reason we are here today is because the people can't wait. We have an extraordinary economic challenge ahead of us," he said.

Two gray eminences of the food movement lay down the law on farm policy

There's an idea out there that reforming U.S. food policy simply can not be a priority for the Obama administration. We're enmeshed in two wars (three, if you count what our dear Israeli friends are up to in the Gaza Strip), the economy is crumbling, and climate change is accelerating.

Under these conditions, how can Obama possibly busy himself with something as trivial as food? The president-elect himself seems to buy into this line of reasoning. By nominating a corn-belt pol with a history of playing footsie with agribiz as his USDA chief, Obama signaled that status quo, not reform, will mark his food agenda, at least early in his presidency.

I think the food-reform-can-wait logic is wrong on several counts. As I'll argue later this week in Victual Reality, investing in a new food system could make for an excellent piece of a stimulus package. And on practical grounds, food-system reform is urgent. Anyone who doubts that should read the powerful, concise op-ed in today's New York Times by Wendell Berry and Wes Jackson.

The sustainable food movement's most revered elders make the case with characteristic bluntness:

Conservative icons take to The NYT to tout the magic of a revenue-neutral carbon tax

In last weekend's New York Times, conservatives Rep. Bob Inglis (R-S.C.) and Arthur Laffer had an op-ed claiming that a revenue-neutral "tax shift" would make conservatives "the new administration's best allies on climate change."

Color me skeptical. Laffer, of course, is a conservative legend, an economist whose curve has given a great many mendacious right-wing legislators intellectual cover in the war on taxes. Inglis is best known for telling Mitt Romney that Mormons aren't Christians.

It's notable when prominent conservatives don't try to deny or downplay climate change. But that's a mighty low bar to clear these days.

There is a crucial bit of weasel wording here: "If the bill's authors had instead proposed a simple carbon tax coupled with an equal, offsetting reduction in income taxes or payroll taxes, a dynamic new energy security policy could have taken root."

It matters a great deal whether a carbon tax reduces "income taxes or payroll taxes." Energy taxes are generally regressive unless offset. Reducing payroll taxes would provide some progressivity; reducing income taxes would provide additional regressivity. (Many workers pay no income tax at all.) You can bet conservatives would love that. "The good news is that both Democrats and Republicans could support a carbon tax offset by a payroll or income tax cut," they say. Everything's in that "or."

As with many carbon tax fans these days, Inglis wildly overstates the effects of a modest price on carbon:

McKibben wonders if U.S. is mature enough to confront climate change.

Check out Bill McKibben’s essay in the latest Foreign Policy magazine. It’s full of straight talk about the reality of climate change, debunking plenty of the skeptics’ arguments along the way. For McKibben (a Grist board member, BTW), the real question is whether there’s sufficient will in the international community to take on the very […]

Natural gas utility to spend $6.6 million on conservation and efficiency efforts

This is cool news:

December 23, 2008 -- The Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC) today approved the Virginia Natural Gas (VNG) proposed conservation and ratemaking efficiency plan.

The plan calls for new energy conservation programs, coupled with a revenue adjustment mechanism, designed to assist customers in managing their energy costs.

As part of the plan, VNG will provide $6.6 million over three years in new conservation initiatives. VNG projects that customers who participate in these new programs, set to begin rolling out in early 2009, can significantly reduce their monthly natural gas usage.

This is via NRDC, who shares this very cool map of decoupling programs across the nation:

Umbra on resolutions for 2009

Dearest Readers, A Happy New Year to you all. I hope that you look back fondly on 2008, and have big happy plans for 2009. I do. You and I may have similar happy plans, in fact. I plan to feel happy about my federal government. This column has always been written in the shadow […]

Two questions for James Hansen

Following are two questions for James Hansen and Grist readers, relating to Dr. Hansen's tax-and-dividend proposal in his recent policy recommendations to Obama:

1. Would it not be advantageous to use dividends to give consumers an equity stake and interest in decarbonization?

This could be achieved by investing carbon tax revenue in renewable energy and clean technologies in exchange for equity, and distributing equity shares to the public on an equitable per-capita basis. The shares would yield dividends that increase -- not decrease -- as carbon is phased out.

2. Is tax-and-dividend fundamentally incompatible with cap-and-trade?

Many of the ills of cap-and-trade ("special interests, lobbyists, ...") are associated with free allocation, but allowance auctioning (which Obama favors) would be similar to a tax in terms of revenue generation and potential for consumer dividends. Moreover, an auction with a price floor would be equivalent to a carbon tax as long as there are sufficiently many allowances to satisfy market demand at the price threshold. (The price would only increase if the tax incentive is insufficient to achieve the cap.) A recognition of the commonality between carbon taxes and cap-and-trade could help overcome political barriers to action on climate change.

Battery makers come begging to Congress

American lithium-ion battery makers, including giants like 3M, are banding together to try to extract a few billion dollars from Congress so they can build a shiny battery manufacturing plant that, for whatever reason, they aren't willing to spend their own money on. This latest handout request is a fairly dubious idea that is nevertheless likely to appeal to a lot of people on grounds of both economic nationalism and a vague aura of environmental goodness.

Whatever you think of the request, though, let's at least all agree not to put up with this:

"We don't want to go from being dependent on Middle East oil to Asian batteries."

- Jeff Depew, chief executive of Imara, a start-up that makes lithium-ion batteries

Oil is a viscous substance, finite in quantity, concentrated in hard-to-reach pockets in certain corners of the globe. These properties allow a relatively small handful of countries to exert some imperfect control over its supply. Batteries differ from oil in just about every important way.*

Depew has an obvious interest in promoting American battery manufacturers. But surely savvy outsiders understand that a competitive, low-cost industry, whether centered in Asia or anywhere else, is good for everyone who needs batteries?

Recently, Andrew Grove, former chairman of Intel Corp., began urging the chip maker to explore whether it could play a role in battery manufacturing. Mr. Grove and others say U.S. companies must step up efforts to produce advanced batteries for the country's car industry or America will end up trading its dependence on foreign petroleum for dependence on foreign-made batteries.

Oh, well. The industry consortium is organized by Jim Greenberger, a lawyer specializing in clean tech. In case you're not scared enough yet of the Asian battery menace, Greenberger spells it out:

N.J. enviros deeply divided over record of Obama’s EPA nominee

Lisa Jackson. Depending on who you ask, Lisa Jackson is either the best or worst thing that ever happened to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, which she led from February 2006 to November 2008. For the most part, New Jersey’s biggest environmental groups praise her work on climate change and celebrate her nomination […]