Latest Articles

Green journalists out of touch?

I’ve been thinking more about the SEJ event I wrote about here. It’s been bugging me. To be honest, while I was quite impressed with the presidential advisers, the environmental journalists were … disappointing. Right now there is so much interesting stuff happening around climate and energy — policy details being hashed out, legislation being […]

Maine becomes third state to pass tough coal law

Yesterday, Maine Gov. John E. Baldacci signed LD 2126, "An Act To Minimize Carbon Dioxide Emissions from New Coal-Powered Industrial and Electrical Generating Facilities in the State." The law, which was sponsored by Rep. W. Bruce MacDonald (D-Maine), requires the Board of Environmental Protection to develop greenhouse gas emission standards for coal facilities. It also puts a moratorium in place on building any new coal plants until the standards are developed.

Three states (Calif., Wash., and Maine) as well as New Zealand now have laws effectively blocking new coal plants that don't meet a carbon dioxide emission standard roughly equivalent to that of a combined cycle gas plant (i.e., 1,100 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour). That standard could be met with even a moderate level of sequestration, but so far no utilities have stepped to the plate. As a result of Washington state's standard, Energy Northwest's proposed Pacific Mountain Energy Center in Kalama was rejected by regulators in November because its plans for carbon capture and sequestration were judged to be merely "a plan to make a plan."

Laws such as Maine's LD 2126 are valuable in blocking plants that merely declare themselves "carbon capture ready." As NRDC's David Hawkins told Congress (PDF): "A 'carbon sequestration optimized' coal power plant is not defined and could mean almost anything, including a plant that simply leaves physical space for an unidentified black box. If that makes a power plant 'capture-ready' Mr. Chairman, then my driveway is 'Ferrari-ready.'"

Who might like the president’s bogus climate principles

One person undoubtedly taking note of the president's "principles" on climate change is Republican Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio. He is reportedly working on his own weak, coal industry-friendly climate amendment to the Lieberman-Warner bill.

Voinovich reportedly will try to couple such an amendment with related provisions to weaken the Clean Air Act.

Sound familiar?

Dingell takes his ‘hybrid tax’ off the table

The carbon tax camp lost a powerful congressional voice yesterday when Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) announced he was taking "off the table" the hybrid carbon tax proposal he floated last fall that featured a national carbon fee, supplemental increases in taxes on gasoline and aviation fuel, and a reduction in the mortgage interest deduction for super-large houses.

In a prepared statement, the Michigan lawmaker, who for much of his 54 years in Congress has chaired the House Energy & Commerce Committee, reiterated that "economists and other experts continue to inform us that a carbon tax is the most effective and efficient way at getting at the problem of global warming." Dingell also noted that his online poll query, "Do you approve of the idea of a carbon tax?," earned a "Yes" from 61 percent of the 2,900 respondents.

In his statement, which was first reported yesterday in The Hill, Dingell pointed to rising gas prices and the gathering recession, saying, "Times have changed; our economy has taken a hard downward turn and now is not the time for us to put any additional financial burden on the working families of Michigan or this nation."

The irony is that a revenue-neutral carbon tax would not act as a drag on economic activity, since the return of the tax revenues to Americans via tax-shifting or dividend rebates would fully offset the higher costs of fuels and energy.

Notable quotable

“So what can one conclude from environmentalists’ insistence that coal be removed from the country’s energy portfolio? That their focus has moved from reducing pollution to abolishing human development and prosperity.” — the Las Vegas Review-Journal editorial board, exposing the conspiracy once and for all

Snippets from the news

• United Nations urges major agricultural countries to balance feeding poor with saving the environment. • Army Corps suggests Southeast water-sharing plan that’s likely to harm threatened species. • Critics slam federal agencies for favoring dirty power in proposed energy corridors. • Nicholas Stern says he underestimated the threat posed by climate change. • Cato […]

Yes, according to a new ‘artisanal’ restaurant in Atlanta

A press release heralding a new restaurant in Atlanta crossed my email inbox recently. Everything seemed pretty standard at first: Holeman and Finch Public House, opening April 14, intends to serve “food and drink … with unrivaled quality and care.” The chef evidently revels in “whole-animal preparations” and plans to make his own “charcuterie such […]

Are you spending more money on food?

Food prices are soaring around the globe. Have you felt the pinch? Take our poll and tell us. You can vote below the fold.

And read recent Grist content on the topic:

• Why Michael Pollan and Alice Waters should quit celebrating food-price hikes
• How expensive is food, really?
• Higher food prices mean crappier cafeteria fare for kids

U.S. health agency says ubiquitous chemical may harm kiddos

A U.S. federal agency has declared that there is “some concern” that chemical bisphenol A can harm the development of children’s brains and reproductive systems. The National Toxicology Program, part of the National Institutes of Health, issued a draft report following up on an 18-month review of BPA. The agency reported more concern than was […]

The gasoline tax is regressive, but only for upper-income groups

After I argued against McCain's summer gas-tax freeze, I received an email, the basic thrust of which was, "but everybody knows a gasoline tax is regressive, so how can progressives endorse it?" Well, as we will see, everybody doesn't know a gasoline tax is regressive. In fact:

• The poor are more likely not to buy any gasoline (i.e., to not own a car at all),
• poor families own fewer cars (and much fewer of the fuel-inefficient SUVs and minivans), and
• the poor tend to walk and use mass transit more.

Maybe the best description [PDF] of the situation is from a Dec. 2003 study for the state of California: