Latest Articles

Regulatory reform of utilities could lessen the need for new power plants

Last week, the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI) announced that eight utilities "are committed to seeking regulatory reforms and approvals to increase their investment in energy efficiency by $500 million annually to about $1.5 billion annually."

The utilities -- Con Edison, Duke Energy, Edison International, Great Plains Energy, Pepco Holdings, PNM Resources, Sierra Pacific Resources, and Xcel Energy -- represent nearly 20 million customers. The extra efficiency effort would "reduce carbon dioxide emissions by about 30 million tons" and "avoid the need for 50 500-megawatt peaking power plants."

What regulatory reform? Our former President offered "to try to explain it to you in my basic English" which I reprint here:

A chat with Zenn about NEVs and EEstor

I talked to a few people at Discover Brilliant. I’ll be getting Q&As up over the coming weeks. Bill Williams is the California sales director for Zenn Motor Co., maker of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEVs). In addition to selling one of the most full-featured NEVs, Zenn has an exclusive contract with a tight-lipped and somewhat […]

Times Square New Year’s Eve ball goes green

The ball that drops in Times Square on New Year’s Eve is — say it with us now — going green. This year, the 100th anniversary of the tradition, the fifth iteration of the ball will have an aluminum skeleton and be lit by energy-efficient LED lights. With 16 times as many lights, it will […]

The energy department’s strategic unconventional fuels fantasy

The DOE's Strategic Unconventional Fuels Task Force has issued its surreal final report:

Responsible development of America's oil shale, tar sands, heavy oil, coal, and oil resources amenable to recovery by carbon dioxide injection, by private industry, supported and encouraged by government actions to reduce uncertainties and stimulate investment, could supply all of the Department of Defense's domestic fuels demand by 2016, and supply upwards of 7 million barrels [a day] of domestically produced liquid fuels to domestic markets by 2035.

Seriously.

How does the Task Force explain how one can have "responsible development" of resources to an extent that would spell certain doom for the climate?

An autumn swim at Walden, a warm robe, and a piping hot bowl of soup

Walden Pond, a hit with tourists and Transcendentalists. Photo: Sonny Morningstar It’s an odd fraternity, the group of people who continue to swim at Walden Pond well past Labor Day. Dusk comes earlier and earlier and the water begins to cool, but these autumn swims are one of the great pleasures of my life — […]

Inspired by the spinach scare, new California rules could wilt small farmers

This is a guest essay by Judith Redmond, co-owner of Northern California’s legendary Full Belly Farm and president of the Community Alliance with Family Farmers. California is on the verge of adopting a policy that would regulate all of the state’s salad greens-producing farms — including ones that sell to a local market — as […]

Senate may soon vote on U.N. Law of the Sea Treaty

The U.S. Senate may soon vote on whether or not to ratify the United Nations Law of the Sea Treaty, an agreement between some 150 countries that lays out the basic rights and responsibilities that countries have to the world’s marine resources. The treaty was signed by President Clinton in the 1990s but has never […]

How do you solve a problem like Maria China?

It occurs to me that my response to Shellenberger & Nordhaus failed to address what they call the "elephant in the environmental room": China. They say that environmentalists ignore the subject and corporatists obsess over it for the same reason — it illustrates the futility of domestic carbon regulations (in isolation). China, they say, is […]

In which I come to the defense of Shellenberger and Nordhaus — sort of, anyway

I was planning on sitting out the Nordhaus/Shellenberger debate. But then I thought: Adam, you are not the top-rated Gristmill blogger (see list at left) for nothing. People want to hear from you. So, here's my take:

The first place Nordhaus and Shellenberger go wrong is their predilection for publicity photos that resemble '80s album covers.

After that, they get it mostly right. Carbon legislation is good and helpful, sure, but it's about 30 percent thought-through, enormously complicated, and anything that has a hope of actually getting signed is unlikely in the extreme to be sufficient to the task.

Look at the list of companies that have signed up to the much-ballyhooed Climate Action Partnership. Do you think they are calling for "the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions" because they think doing so will put them in any danger of having to fundamentally change the way they do business? Their "consensus principles and recommendations" have more wiggle room than Studio 54.

Congress to move ahead on climate legislation, Dems to send delegation to U.N. climate talks

Congressional leaders in the U.S. House and Senate have said they plan to push ahead in their attempts to pass cap-and-trade-type climate legislation, despite the Bush administration’s renewed call to reduce emissions through voluntary technology partnerships instead. On Wednesday, Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.) and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair John Dingell (D-Mich.) released a […]