Latest Articles

Conventional wisdom declares all candidates equally green

The Wall Street Journal blogs from the ongoing ECO:nomics conference:

The conventional wisdom among the boys on the bus -- including us -- has been that there's essentially no difference among the three presidential contenders on climate-change policy.

Really? I know I live in a bubble, but ... really?

Since there are some rather obvious climate policy differences between the candidates, I'm taking this to mean one of several things:

1. Conventional wisdom relegates the apparent differences between the candidates to the level of rhetoric, not policy. McCain says nice things about nuclear; Obama hearts ethanol; Clinton wants utilities to behave. All of this is just, in the WSJ's words, so much "hot air."
2. Or maybe conventional wisdom holds that the policy differences are so hopelessly wonky as to be irrelevant. Broadly speaking, all three candidates want cap-and-trade, and that's what counts. Airy details around allowance allocations are of concern only to environmentalists and congresscritters.
3. Or maybe the conventional wisdom truly doesn't understand that the candidates differ in any meaningful way on climate policy.

None of these interpretations is particularly heartening, although at least there's a logic to No. 1 and 2. No. 3 is just depressing. In any case, bear in mind that the WSJ reporting on energy issues is generally quite good, so when these reporters casually toss off the opinion that the candidates are indistinguishable, you start to gain some insight into why this issue gets so little play.

(As an aside: I'm a fan of the recent trend in blogs by journalists for just this sort of thing. These sorts of offhand, loosely structured observations would rarely make it into a feature story, and they're damned interesting.)

An interview with the founders of Method green home-care products

After spending a few minutes with Adam Lowry and Eric Ryan, I began to wonder if they weren’t part of a modern-day adaptation of The Odd Couple. The 30-something founders of the Method line of home-care products, friends since high school, are about as different as two business partners could be. Eric Ryan and Adam […]

EPA announces tough air-pollution standards for shipping industry

The U.S. EPA Friday announced tough new diesel pollution standards for the shipping industry (perhaps to distract us from Wednesday’s announcement of not-so-tough ozone standards.) The new standards for diesel trains and ships will begin to be phased in in 2015; when in full effect, they’ll require a 90 percent reduction in soot emissions and […]

Green building may be quickest path to decreased emissions

Reuters has the skinny on a new report on green building. The report concluded that building green would reduce greenhouse emissions more quickly than any other approach.

According to the article:

North America's buildings release more than 2,200 megatonnes, or about 35 percent of the continent's total, of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. If the construction market quickly adopted current and emerging energy-saving technologies, that number could be cut by 1,700 megatonnes by 2030, the report said.

Alas, there are "obstacles" preventing the rapid adoption of green building techniques:

One is the so-called split incentive policy, where those who construct environmentally-friendly buildings do not necessarily reap the benefits of using them.

Also, governments and other institutions separate capital and operating budgets instead of budgeting for the lifetime of a construction project, creating a disincentive to build "green," the report found.

Oh well, I guess I'll have to make do with a nice cozy place on the Street of Dreams until green building catches on. Uh, scratch that.

Shifting military spending to fund green infrastructure

Last Saturday, I spoke at the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference. I argued that diverting military spending to green infrastructure is not only good policy but good politics as well. This is a Google presentation version of the PowerPoint slide show I gave.

I gave a second short PowerPoint comparing emissions trading to rule-based regulation, also now a Google presentation.

Please note that, though web-based, Google presentations are not standard web pages. They need as much screen real estate as you can give -- usually including zooming your browser to full-screen mode.

Some ‘green’ products test positive for nasty chemical

Nearly half of 100 consumer products claiming to be “natural” or “organic” tested positive for a carcinogenic petrochemical manufacturing byproduct, according to the Organic Consumers Association. The products tainted with scary-sounding 1,4-dioxane came from various well-known brands, including Alba, Jasön, Kiss My Face, Method, Nature’s Gate, and Seventh Generation. Some of the companies said they […]

Following the path of contaminants from your bathroom to the birds

This is a story about sludge, worms, and songbirds, and it starts in your bathroom cabinet.

When we treat our wastewater to remove "biosolids" -- a polite term for our human waste -- all sorts of other things end up in the leftover sludge, including the drugs we take and the "personal care products" like lotion, shampoo, makeup, and cologne that we slather on our bodies, which have been absorbed through our skin and then excreted in our waste. The treated wastewater is usually discharged into the local river, and the sludge that's been removed from it frequently becomes fertilizer for agricultural production.

Researchers at the U.S. Geological Survey have found that the hungry earthworms who feed on this sludge in farm fields contain concentrated levels of our drugs and personal care products in their bodies. In fact, a USGS study published in February found that the compounds bioaccumulate in earthworms, meaning that the worms bear higher levels of these pollutants than the surrounding soil does. The USGS researchers note that worms could become monitoring species to help us determine the relative pollution levels in soil, but state that the pollution in these worms have "unknown effects" for wildlife (read the story in Science News).

"Unknown" maybe in that particular study, but researchers in the U.K. published a disturbing study about a week later that provides some insight into what happens to the polluted worms: Birds eat them.

Why this is the last election, and another look at McCain

This is the last U.S. election. Have we taken stock of the implications? There is no room for incremental thinking. The storm will fall on whomever we elect president (and isn't there a case for McCain?). Among the startling implications of breaching the 350 ppm limit is the likelihood that this is the last U.S. presidential election during which there remains a slim opportunity to take decisive global climate action.

All the ordinary rules and habits of elections and campaigning have been summarily and unexpectedly tossed out the window. Building party power, advancing political careers, and addressing climate incrementally are no longer plausible strategies. We must now concern ourselves with electing leaders of character who will rise to the challenge as the crisis begins to unfold and political systems are stressed.

Comparing campaign climate policies, in this context, is not the best measure of candidates. The differences between Clinton, McCain, and Obama on climate are minuscule compared to the gulf between the state of U.S. civic debate and the scale of response required to avert cataclysm. Furthermore, a simple head-to-head comparison of policy takes no account and gives no credit for the key indicators of political grit and integrity: context and history.

John McCain may espouse the weakest platform of the three, but he adopted his position early and at high potential political cost. Both Clinton, who logged more dinner time with Al Gore then almost anyone, and Obama, a N.Y. PIRG college intern who credits LCV with his surprise victory in his first Senate race, were positioned to be strong climate action advocates but did not do so.

President Bush interfered to weaken U.S. ozone standards

President Bush interfered at the last minute to weaken the recently announced U.S. ozone standards, according to EPA documents. On Wednesday, the EPA set both the “public health” standard (how much ozone is in one place at one time) and the “public welfare” standard (consideration of the long-term effect of ozone) at the same level. […]

You feisty devils, you

Check out this National Geographic video about Tasmanian devils (via The Slog):