Latest Articles

Expensive coal + hydrogen = ?

As follow-up to my post yesterday: There is now a bidding war emerging for the FutureGen clean coal plant, targeted to cost $6500/kW. Texas and Illinois are fighting to win this fantastic prize. If they get it, they'll ensure they can keep burning coal, but will do it in a plant that is absurdly expensive.

As a fringe benefit, they'll generate hydrogen (aka, a fuel that no one is presently demanding for their vehicles), on the off chance that if a market arises they can sell it. Goodness knows they'll need it if the coal plant is ever going to pencil out.

Presumably, this is a better idea than investing in more cost-effective renewable/cogen/efficiency projects that would actually produce a product people want.

See an article from Restructuring Today, "Illinois works hard to win FutureGen clean coal/hydrogen plant" ($ub req'd), below the fold:

Umbra on green hotels

Dear Umbra, My husband and I are Americans who own a small budget hotel in Rome, Italy. We try to be as eco-friendly as possible: our cafe is local, organic, and vegetarian, we use compact fluorescent bulbs where we can (although cannot find an alternative for the halogen lighting systems we have), we use eco-friendly […]

Cyclone Sidr

There’s a category 4 storm headed toward a low-lying area Bangladesh. It’s still gaining strength, and could hit land within 24 hours. People in the know say this very well could turn into a worst case scenario. See Chris Mooney for more.

A response to my critics

Last week’s Victual Reality column startled a lot of sustainable-food advocates, particularly folks not immersed in the details of U.S. farm policy. Subsidies, I argued, do not cause the ravages of industrial agriculture; rather, subsidies are a symptom of a food policy gone wrong. Moreover, I continued, gutting subsidies won’t end the ubiquity of cheap […]

Big Auto unveils efficient cars, continues to fight against strict efficiency standards

When the L.A. auto show opens to the public on Friday, automakers will flaunt hydrogen cars, super-efficient engines, electric vehicles, and hybrid SUVs — leading some to wonder at the disconnect between car manufacturers’ public-facing “green” ambitions and their vocal opposition to a significant increase in federal fuel-economy standards. “They’re definitely saying one thing to […]

Leave suggestions in comments

Below you saw the details of Grist’s upcoming presidential forum with Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich. Each candidate will come out, speak for about 10 minutes about the challenge of climate change, and then answer questions from me and Mary Nichols (of CARB). Naturally I have some questions in mind, but I’d love […]

Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history

If you look up the word "Orwellian" on Wikipedia -- "An attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past" -- there should be a picture of Newt Gingrich's new book, A Contract with the Earth.

Instead of wasting time reading a whole book of disinformation, you can just read this interview in Salon, "Give Newt a chance" -- it is definitely all the Newt that is fit to print.

To cut to the chase, readers of this blog will not be surprised that a conservative pretending to care about the environment adopts the anti-regulation, pro-technology approach suggested by GOP strategist, Frank Luntz, and popularized by his protege, George Bush.

You may be surprised that Newt calls himself an environmentalist, given that he co-authored and then worked to enact the anti-environmental Contract with America. Oh, but Newt now claims:

I don't think that the environment was a central focus of the Contract With America. I don't think that it was bad for the environment. I don't know of a single thing in the Contract that was bad for the environment.

I think Salon had to pause in the interview at that point to allow Newt to douse the flames that began engulfing his trousers.

Navy must adopt safeguards for whales in 2008, says court

Update on the seemingly endless saga of whether the U.S. Navy should restrict underwater sonar use in the interest of whale health: A federal appeals court has ruled that while the Navy may continue its current training exercises in southern California as is, exercises that begin in January must operate under better safeguards for marine […]

The Lieberman-Warner bill is not strong enough to do the job

As a member of both the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee it is my view that the time is long overdue for Congress to go beyond deal making and "politics as usual" in addressing the crisis of global warming. The droughts, floods and severe weather disturbances our planet is already experiencing will only get worse, potentially impacting billions of people, if we do not take bold and decisive action in the very near future.

While the Lieberman-Warner cap and trade bill is a step forward, it goes nowhere near far enough in creating the policies that the scientific community says must be developed if we are to avert a planetary catastrophe. It is also lacking in paving the way for the transformation of our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy technologies. Here are some of my concerns with the Lieberman-Warner bill:

• First, virtually all of the scientific evidence tells us that, at the least, we must reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050 if we stand a chance to reverse global warming. Lieberman-Warner, under the very best projections, provides a 66 percent reduction.
• Second, this legislation allows major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases for free until 2036. In fact, old-fashioned dirty coal burning plants could still be built during this period. That's wrong. The "right to pollute" should not be given away for up to 24 years. Further, in calculating emission reductions, the bill relies much too heavily on "offsets," a process which is difficult to verify and which could significantly undermine the actual emissions caps.
• Third, this bill provides a massive amount of corporate welfare to industries which have been major emitters of greenhouse gasses while requiring minimal performance standards and accountability. According to a report by Friends of the Earth, the auction and allocation processes of the bill could generate up to $3.6 trillion dollars over a 38 year period. While a large fund exists in the bill for "low carbon technology," there is no guaranteed allocation for such important technologies as wind, solar, geo-thermal, hydrogen or for energy efficiency. But, there is a guaranteed allotment of $324 billion for the coal industry through an "Advanced Coal and Sequestration program" and $232 billion for the auto industry for "Advanced Technology Vehicles."

The time is late, and if Congress is serious about preventing irreversible damage to our planet because of global warming we need to get moving in a bold and focused manner. And we can do it.

Another study shows organic ag outpacing conventional

Apologists for industrial food production often level what they see as a devastating charge against organic agriculture: that it could never "feed the world.&quot The claim goes like this: industrial ag produces higher yields, and as global population grows, we’re going to have to squeeze as much food as possible out of the earth, by […]