Latest Articles

Clinton & Obama to be queried on CNN tonight at 8pm EST on climate

Dem hopefuls Clinton and Obama will participate live tonight in The Compassion Forum, a discussion of "pressing moral issues that bridge ideological divides" including poverty, AIDS, Darfur, human rights, torture, and ... drumroll please ... climate change.

The pair will field questions from CNN and Newsweek talking heads as well as from members of the faith community. The Rev Sally Bingham, of the very cool Interfaith Power and Light Campaign will be asking the climate questions. Go get 'em, Sally!

And for the interest of any political strategists out there, this forum is slated to be broadcast on Church Communications Network to tens of thousands of people in 1,000+ congregations nationwide on April 20, the Sunday evening before the PA primary.

Cheap clean coal now dirty, expensive

The WSJ energy blog points out that skyrocketing demand for coal in the developing world is rapidly driving up the commodity price. (And WSJ proper points out that rising prices for coal mean rising prices for steel.) Meanwhile, Reuters says “clean coal” is “elusive” and the head of one of Australia’s biggest energy companies — […]

The carbon offset market needs additionality

This post is the slightly tardy conclusion of a series (see parts one, two, and three).

Let's wrap this up by shifting gears a bit. Additionality is central and essential part of the carbon offset market. Additionality is also, in the long term, probably not relevant to the energy efficiency market. The reason hinges on the difference between carbon offsets and carbon allowances. Both are often lumped together under the term "carbon credits," but they're different in important ways that are sometimes lost in discussions of cap-and-trade systems.

Some basic definitions are in order. Carbon allowances are those things that everyone is eager to auction off these days: pollution permits for greenhouse gas emissions. Under a cap-and-trade system, the government issues a fixed number of these permits, and every year the number drops. That's the cap, and as long as it covers a sufficiently large swath of the economy, it's difficult for polluters to evade. (New Yorkers can't, for example, buy electricity from China.)

Carbon offsets, on the other hand, are pollution permits generated from specific projects that exist outside the cap. For example, no matter how big a chunk of the economy the cap covers, it probably won't cover cow manure on small dairy farms. If you can demonstrate that you took specific measures to reign in a certain number of tons of dairy farm methane, you can use those emissions reductions to satisfy your obligations under a cap.

High-end use for urban trees saves landfill space

A company in North Carolina is making some good things from urban trees which have to be cut down for one reason or another: high-end lumber from what was once considered good only for firewood or mulch. They process 15,000 to 20,000 board feet a year of local urban lumber from private land for use in homes, sheds, barns, farms, or woodworking projects.

It's estimated that 2 million board feet of lumber is wasted annually in the local landfills in the Charlotte metro area due to storms, land clearing, maintenance, or disease. I'm sure much the same can be said for other cities.

Anyone doing good things with unwanted wood in your neighborhood?

All salmon, all the time

Fishery managers voted to cancel the chinook salmon fishing season off the coast of California and most of Oregon in light of the fish population's rapid collapse. The commercial fishery is worth an estimated $30 million ...

... many fishermen considered supporting the ban on West Coast salmon fishing in light of this year's record low catch. "There's likely no fish, so what are you going to be fishing for?" said one.

... while some other fishermen went ahead with a pre-season barbeque, although it was less well attended than in past years ...

Adam Werbach calls for a new movement of a billion consumers

On April 10, Adam Werbach gave a speech in San Francisco calling for a new "blue" movement of consumers pushing for sustainability (previewed in this post). Here's the full text of the speech for your reading pleasure. (Watch video here.)

The Birth of Blue: A speech to the Commonwealth Club by Adam Werbach

In 2004 I came here to the Commonwealth Club and performed a eulogy for environmentalism. Eulogies by their nature are the last word on the subject. But I made a promise on that cold December day to come back in the spring and share a set of solutions. It took me a few more years than I thought, and the world has changed a fair bit since that time, but I'm back.

Let me quote from that speech:

A reasonable case [could] be made that environmentalism needed to package seal pups, redwoods, clean air, Yosemite, clean water, and toxic waste under the brand of "environmentalism" in order to pass a raft of environmental laws in the 1970s. But for at least 20 years and maybe longer, the basic categorical assumptions that underlie environmentalism have inhibited the environmental movement's ability to consider opportunities outside environmental boundaries.

It is at moments like these that we need to take a hard look in the mirror.

We must not trade our fear of what will come next for our affection for environmentalism.

I remember shaking as I spoke, knowing full well that the reaction would be swift and harsh. No one likes to be called dead when they perceive themselves to be alive.

Friday music blogging: Grand Archives

Long ago in a galaxy far away, there was a Seattle band called Carissa’s Wierd that played hushed, pretty, melancholic music they called “slow-core.” They had some modest local renown and then drifted away. Though they never found chart success, the band did prove extraordinarily fruitful at producing kick-ass descendants. Singer Jen Ghetto went on […]

MoJo uncovers the eco-spies

Mother Jones has a blockbuster scoop today on the private security firm that spied on green groups on behalf of corporate clients: A private security company organized and managed by former Secret Service officers spied on Greenpeace and other environmental organizations from the late 1990s through at least 2000, pilfering documents from trash bins, attempting […]

A roundup of news snippets

• Activists ask officials to halt the slaughter of Yellowstone bison. • Palazzo Las Vegas named largest green building in the world. • North Dakota and Montana may harbor up to 4.3 billion barrels of oil. • Clean diesels get ready for their closeup. • California authorities say aerial spraying against moth totally not why […]

Congress has a chance to protect sharks from finning

Two weeks ago, I wrote about the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision to throw out penalties against a fishing vessel carrying 64,695 pounds of shark fins in U.S. waters. Shipping a cargo full of shark fins without sharks is illegal in the United States, but the King Diamond II sailed through a loophole that allowed it to carry fins it had gathered from other ships.

Something good has come out of this: The decision has galvanized pressure to end the brutal practice of shark finning, which kills tens of millions of sharks annually, including many species already threatened by extinction.

Late on Wednesday, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) introduced the Shark Conservation Act of 2008, which will not only require all sharks to be landed with their fins, but also require any other sharks imported into the United States to have the same protections. It's an intermediate step in ensuring protection for sharks worldwide, but it's a vital step all the same.