Latest Articles

We have plenty of solutions at hand beyond technology

Today the dominant view of global warming is that it's a technical problem. The burning of fossil fuels -- often regarded as the lifeblood of modern economies -- puts greenhouse gases into the air, mainly carbon dioxide, trapping more solar energy, which heats the planet and alters weather patterns. Methane and nitrous oxide also contribute. The solution is defined as reducing greenhouse gas emissions (pollution). The political, social, and moral campaign is directed at technological change, and at using our technology less.

But if everyone stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, global warming will continue for decades. We don't have an economical technology for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Limiting ourselves to technology-focused solutions doesn't give us much leverage. It gives us an agenda of "let's wreck the world slower."

There is another side to global warming, one that existing scientific panels are ill-equipped to recognize and that existing institutions are ill-equipped to act on. Global warming is not just an atmospheric pollution problem caused by fossil fuel burning. It is also the result of changes in basic biospheric processes. Let's look at some examples.

Cockatoo gets his groove on

It is, after all, the weekend:

An electrified transit advocate tries soothsaying

Maybe too optimistic, but very little untried technology in here, so it's at least a possible future.

B.C. considers a carbon tax

In 1998, shortly after Sightline (then Northwest Environment Watch) published Tax Shift (PDF), Gordon Campbell, then BC's opposition leader, invited me for a sit-down to discuss the book. He had read it and said he loved it. At the time, the New Democratic BC government was gearing up to do a pilot tax shift, inspired by the book. It was also about to be routed in provincial elections, to be replaced by Campbell's Liberals.

Campbell said, "In our first term, we're not going to shift taxes. We're going to lower them. But in our second term, we might." I didn't put much stock in his words.

Maybe I should have.

Friday's Globe and Mail reports that Campbell's Finance Minister Carole Taylor is seriously considering introducing North America's first real carbon tax, paired with reduced income taxes. She calls it a "tax shift."

Imagine that.

Bits and pieces, pieces and bits

It’s a weekend and my browser overfloweth. You know what that means. Lightning round! Over on DKos, Devilstower is writing an excellent series of posts on mountaintop-removal mining. Pay attention: However, you have an option. You can call your representative and ask them to support the Clean Water Protection Act. The act already has 103, […]

On politics, ponyshoes, and PBR

All good things must come to an end, and the Gristissippi Road Trip is one of them. Sarah and I wrapped up our enlightening week of interviews and explorations with a visit to Beale Street (fried pie, yum!) and a beer with a Gristmill fan. As we recuperate from the trip in our respective cities, […]

A global trend toward drought

A few months ago, I reported on the decade-long drought that's bedeviling Australia. In it I predicted -- with the help of experts such as Tim Flannery -- that climate skeptic John Howard would lose his seat to the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd, in this October's national elections. Rudd is running on a platform that includes $50 million for geothermal energy, $50 million for an Australian Solar Institute, and a 60 percent cut in CO₂ emissions by 2050. And according to Flannery, the election will in large part be a referendum on climate change.

Colbert: Will this eventually affect Planet America?

Snappy comebacks for the climate do-nothing set who’s using China as an excuse

On a hot day this summer, Chinese President Hu Jintao and a group of state leaders appeared at a public function wearing short-sleeved shirts, rather than their normal business suits. According to the state press, the casual attire wasn't just a new fashion statement: China's top brass were leading by example, encouraging Chinese workers to dress in light clothing in order to reduce the use of air conditioners in office buildings.

Fashions do change. Outright denial of global warming is out of vogue. Instead, the climate change do-nothing set is sporting this season's new line: "Why should we bother trying to fight climate change when China won't do anything to reduce its emissions?" (Conservative communications consultant Frank Luntz even insists that the "'international fairness' issue is an emotional home run." Emotional home run? One might ask what a win looks like in his game?)

How to counter this flawed logic? Hu Jintao's climate-fighting wardrobe choices aside, here are three ways:

Will antiquated mining law’s reform export devastation?

Update [2007-10-28 9:18:56 by Erik Hoffner]: Looks like Jason and I were on the same page when we submitted our nearly identical posts on this the other day: his is below. I'll pare mine down to just this:

In part, the law's rewrite would raise taxes and fees to clean up an estimated 500,000 abandoned mines that leak cyanide, lead, mercury, etc., into watersheds. But the big question is whether this reform can survive the inevitable challenge from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid is from the hard rock mining state of Nevada, and is the son of a gold miner, but surely he can see that we need to stop giving away our natural resources, right?

The wrinkle, though, is encapsulated here in a Casper-Tribune article on the topic: