Latest Articles

Breaking news

From CNN.

Japan offers Micky D’s as reward for climate change promises

Today, in Japan: A Japanese government website crashed Wednesday as people raced to take up an offer of a half-price McDonald’s hamburger in exchange for pledging to fight global warming. … People were asked to check up to 39 boxes on a form they could download from the environment ministry’s website, each listing a way […]

A guest essay from Jan Lundberg

This is a guest essay from Jan Lundberg, who is, at press time, on the Climate Emergency Fast promoted by Mike Tidwell’s organization. It is a response to Tidwell’s recent piece in Grist, "Consider Using the N-Word Less." Jan publishes Culturechange.org and participates in campaigns to have cities ban plastic bags and water bottles. His […]

Rate of global warming predicted 35 years ago in Nature

Nature just published this remarkable letter by Neville Nicholls of Australia's Monash University:

How the congressional energy bills stack up

We've got three big hurdles before we see a new Energy Bill enacted: substantive, procedural, and presidential.

First, the substantive hurdle: the House and Senate bills differ on key points, such as fuel economy standards, a national renewable electricity standard, and energy taxes (I have reprinted a side-by-side comparison below). Merging the bills won't be easy.

Second, the procedural hurdle: both chambers must "formally be considering the same legislation," as E&E Daily ($ub. req'd) explains:

The Senate in June passed its amendment to H.R. 6, which is the energy bill the House passed during the new Democratic majority's opening 100 hour legislative blitz in January. Then the House last month passed a much more sweeping bill than its January effort and a companion $15 billion energy tax package.

"Right now we are in this interesting situation where we have two bills out there," said David Marks, a spokesman for Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.). "There is this procedural hurdle to get over first."

Third, the presidential hurdle: Bush must sign whatever passes before it becomes law. And that is not a sure thing.

Side-by-Side Comparison

This chart from E&E Daily compares the House-passed energy bill, H.R. 3221 (on the left), with the Senate-passed energy bill, H.R. 6 (on the right):

Examining John Dingell’s about-face on climate change

New York Times economics writer David Leonhardt examines a question that David and I have enjoyed disagreeing about (or at least that I've enjoyed disagreeing with David about) for a couple of months now: Is John Dingell sincere about tackling climate change, or is he pulling old tricks?

Leonhardt recounts the tale of Dingell's efforts to block fuel-economy standards introduced by former Sen. Richard Bryan a couple of decades ago by introducing a bill that would have created a nuclear waste dump in Bryan's home state of Nevada. Are we seeing that type of tactic again, albeit in slightly different form?

I still go back and forth on this. On the one hand, Dingell talks a good game to the press. On the other, what's really important is for him to whip up support among his colleagues for his carbon-tax proposal. The congressional aides I've talked to about this take stances ranging from "we don't trust him" to "we never know what he's really thinking" to "we believe he's out to axe real progress" to "it's too early to say." Time, as the kids are fond of saying, will tell.

Leonhardt writes, "If nothing else, it's also enormously useful that Mr. Dingell is no longer suggesting, as he did just eight months ago, that the scientific consensus on global warming may be a 'great error.'" It would be fascinating to figure out how Dingell came around, if he in fact has. And he certainly would like us to believe he has:

After the town hall meeting [which Dingell had called to discuss climate change] was over -- and he had listened to a couple of hours of questions about timed traffic lights, nuclear power and the possibility of impeaching President Bush -- Mr. Dingell sat down in a dark area behind the stage. I asked him whether Mr. Gore, who has been both a Dingell nemesis and ally at various times, had been right for all those years he was pointing out what was happening to the earth's climate.

"I think a cold statement on that point would be yes," Mr. Dingell replied.

And would it have been easier to solve the problem if we had started earlier?

"What's the saying? The saddest words in the English language -- 'might have been.'"

Meetings

How can there be so many?

The real deal on hybrid bike technology

Got an email yesterday from fellow hybrid bike enthusiast, Larry Blakely. He built a front-wheel drive version of my bike -- and just for kicks, a solar charger to go with it:

How green is California?

The State of California just passed a budget that, thanks to Governor Schwarzenegger and the Republicans in the Assembly, removes $1.3 billion from the public transit budget. Yes, this is the same state and governor that passed a cap-and-trade bill that seeks to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent by 2020. But so far, the only thing being cut is the one way to get cars off of the roads.

You know all of those ways we could allegedly do the equivalent of removing cars from the road, like buying compact fluorescent light bulbs? Trains and buses actually replace cars. In addition, more public transit leads to absolute and certain reduction in emissions. Even mandating greater efficiency of cars does not eliminate the possibility of greater emissions. More efficient cars might simply delay an increase in carbon emissions, since miles traveled keeps going upward -- unless there are trains or buses.

With peak oil looming, the situation is getting more critical, both for drivers who have to pay more for their gas, and might therefore prefer to take public transit if it was available, and for nonelectrified buses and trains, since their fuel costs increase. So, the logical thing to do would be to increase public transit funding. Enter the convoluted state of budgets in most states, particularly California:

One lucky sea turtle released back into the wild

Four hooks in the throat and belly, three hooks embedded in the skin, two feet of fishing line in the stomach -- one happy ending for a lucky loggerhead sea turtle.

After months of rehabilitation, rescuers in Florida finally released a female sea turtle, estimated between 40 and 50 years of age. She took off quickly, according to witnesses, hopefully never to again to be so hooked and entangled.

That's an optimistic point of view. Trouble is all the commercial fishing gear floating in our oceans creates a sort of gauntlet for sea turtles to swim through. It's one of the main factors contributing to sea turtles' endangered status. In fact, it is estimated that half of all adult loggerhead and leatherback sea turtles in the Pacific Ocean are likely to be caught on longline fishing hooks every year.

So while rescuers may never again encounter the sea turtle that affectionately became known as "Eve," chances are they will meet many more turtles. Maybe they'll name the next one Adam ... or better yet, how 'bout Andy?