Latest Articles

Climate science doesn’t rely on a consensus of opinion

Salon liked my post "How do we really know humans are causing global warming?" but wanted something more in-depth and ... serious. The result is "The cold truth about climate change: Deniers say there's no consensus about global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations [that are much more worrisome]."

James Hansen read the first draft and wrote me back, "Very important for the public to understand this -- why has nobody articulated this already?" I don't know the answer. All I can say is that while I was writing the article, the central point dawned on me:

National parks chock full o’ chemicals, says study

Our prized natural places are hardly pristine, according to a six-year federal study. Researchers looked at the air, water, soil, lichen, conifer needles, and fish in 20 national parks and monuments. They found a total of some 70 contaminants, from near as well as far, local pesticide residue mingling with mercury wafted in from overseas. […]

Global warming solution studies overestimate costs, underestimate benefits

Dan Weiss, the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, has written an excellent piece on why we can expect a series of flawed economic analyses of the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) in the coming months:

Many of these studies will likely predict that the reductions of greenhouse gases required by the cap-and-trade system will lead to huge hikes in electric rates, reductions in jobs, and all sorts of other economic havoc.

But these studies also have one other common element: They will eventually be proven wrong once the program is underway.

These studies base their cost assumptions on existing technologies and practices, which means that they do not account for the vast potential for innovation once binding reductions and deadlines are set. The Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act anticipates the need for innovation and creates economic incentives to spur engineers and managers to devise technologies and methods to meet the greenhouse gas reduction requirements more cheaply.

This isn't the first time that pollution control studies have produced inaccurate predictions about the future. Remember what analysts predicted about acid rain controls from 1989 to 1990?

And the article continues on to review that history and then look at the important reports of McKinsey & Co and Nicholas Stern, which makes clear the cost of action is far, far lower than the cost of inaction.

If you're interested in the IPCC's take on this -- they explain why the literature is clear that action is not costly -- this post summarizes what they report.

Chinese bosses could see salary cuts for water pollution

China is considering a law that would cut a head honcho’s income by up to half if his or her company was found to be “directly responsible for causing severe water pollution incidents.”

Personal miscellany break

Dear people who have sent me email in the last month or so, to whom I honestly meant to reply — even marked the email "important" — but still haven’t yet, I’m sorry. I lost a week to a snowboarding vacation, another week to being distracted by the thought that I wanted to drop out […]

Renewable-energy bill passes House, likely to be short-lived

By a vote of 236-182, the House of Representatives has approved legislation that would boost renewable-energy tax incentives by repealing $18 billion in tax breaks currently enjoyed by oil and gas companies. Take a moment to enjoy that small victory, because the bill faces steep odds in the Senate, and President Bush has promised to […]

Radiohead frontman leads climate campaign

Radiohead frontman Thom Yorke is once again leading Friends of the Earth’s Big Ask Campaign. (Hey, he likes Big Ask and he cannot lie.) The campaign calls on 17 countries and the European Union to sign on to legally binding, yearly greenhouse-gas emissions targets. More specifically, FoE is asking the E.U. to adopt a target […]

New Canadian budget supports dirty energy industries, disses renewables

More than a year ago, I wrote about Stephane Dion's election as Liberal leader, and was guardedly optimistic about what it meant for Canadian environmentalists. Let's just say that the last year has been pretty disappointing.

The latest came yesterday, after the Conservative government announced a budget that shovelled hundreds of millions of dollars toward fossil fuels and nuclear power. Dion has said his party will support the budget and not trigger an election.

How bad is this budget?

Well, probably the best indication is normally mild-mannered Tyler Hamilton's reaction:

New subsidies for the coal, oil and nuclear industries and new handouts to major automakers. No mention of climate change. No extension of incentives for renewables. The cancelling of incentives for buying energy efficient vehicles. Dismissal, once again, of a carbon tax.

I think I'm going to throw up. We're screwed.

Sustainable, carbon-neutral community built in Oregon

Last week the Center for American Progress began a series called "It's Easy Being Green," meant to recognize the steps communities, individuals, and organizations are taking to transform our country's energy use. Last week's column featured a new kind of neighborhood:

House tax package

The House just passed the tax package that was voted down late last year as part of the energy bill. It contains tax incentives for renewables, paid for by removing some of the Big Oil subsidies from the 2005 Energy Bill. It also closes a fuel efficiency loophole for SUVs. More later.