Latest Articles

Literally

The International Rivers Network has a new study out, “Before the Deluge: Coping with Floods in a Changing Climate,” which details the failures of flood control techniques like dams and levees and presents other options for areas that may face flooding from severe weather and rising shorelines. Turns out traditional flood control measures like embankments […]

It’s weak

I really don't think we have time to waste on safety valves. That said, the new bill by Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) is worth understanding because it is garnering a lot of support -- at a cost:

But to secure labor and corporate support, the measure also places a limit on the price industry would have to pay for such permits. And to win the endorsement of Alaska's two Republican senators, the bill contains billions of dollars in new money to help their state cope with the effects of climate change on roads, bridges and coastal areas.

And even with this bribe for climate adaptation, Ted Stevens (R-AK) would not concede that the drastic effects of climate change ravaging his state are caused primarily by human emissions:

Regardless of whether these changes are caused solely by human activity, we must take steps to protect people in the Arctic.

Everything you could possibly want to know about the bill is available here. What is the bill's safety valve, which they euphemistically call the "Technology Accelerator Payment"?

Additional emissions permits could be bought at $12 per metric ton of carbon dioxide emissions in the first year, rising by 5 percent above the rate of inflation each year after that. The money from the permits would be widely spread to finance research into clean energy, mitigate the effects of global warming, compensate farmers for higher fuel costs and help low-income families pay their heating and gasoline bills.

I'm with the Sierra Club's Dan Becker:

It's too weak ... It would be better to wait until more members of Congress understand that the heat is on them to act, and that may have to wait until the next Congress and the next president.

I'm also with NWF's Symons, quoted in Greenwire (sub. req'd):

"I've not heard anything to suggest this bill is achieving what the NWF has asked for," said Jeremy Symons, executive director of the National Wildlife Federation's climate program.

Symons said he did not support the bill's expected "safety valve" provision, which would set a limit of $12 per ton of carbon dioxide in the first year for how much industry must pay for reducing their pollution. The price ceiling, Symons said, would crimp the overall integrity of the emerging U.S. carbon market and halt innovation in new energy technologies.

Here is the email that Bingaman's office sent around:

Measure, monitor, reduce, offset

Haven't had enough on offsets yet? Good. Romm's zeroth rule of carbon offsets is that you should "do everything reasonably possible to reduce your own emissions" before buying offsets. At first blush, this reads like a memo from Obviousland, a staunch statement in favor of apple pie. Pretty much every marketer of carbon offsets heavily stresses that offset purchases should go hand-in-hand with serious attempts at conservation, and I certainly agree.

So far, so good. But the rest of the post serves as a lesson in what can happen when common sense hardens into ideology. After making a bunch of points about how the worst thing you can do is actually feel good about purchasing offsets, Romm offers up Exhibit A of the wrong way to go about buying offsets: Google.

Congess extends abstinence-only funding

Perhaps I can mention this without this post devolving into a population pissing match, but FYI, on Wednesday the House approved continued funding of abstinence-only education as part of Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act. The Dems had indicated that they were going to cut the $50 million grant program, but […]

From Spice to Spin

Zigazig wha? Turns out what the newly reunited Spice Girls “really, really want” is a fleet of Lear jets. Yes, plural. Said an Aussie paper about their carbon-intensive tour, “Clearly, Girl Power does not come in green.” Clearly, the more important concern is whether Union Jack will fit the Spice rack. Photo: Eamonn McCormack / […]

Bowled Over

Mayors of 29 Great Lakes cities vow to cut water consumption What’s a Friday without some toilet talk? The mayors of 29 Canadian and U.S. cities in the Great Lakes region have agreed to cut water consumption 15 percent from 2000 levels by 2015, and one of their solutions is banning inefficient potties. “We need […]

Trees should play a bigger role

After reading the recent posts by Romm, Stein, and Roberts, I have concluded that carbon offsets are a pretty good idea if properly implemented. Once government regulations have been established (and enforced), consumers should be able to buy with greater confidence. As it stands today, you are taking a small risk that your purchase may not actually result in CO2 reductions. So, if you are going to buy them, do your homework first.

I also don't see why an individual should do everything reasonably possible to offset carbon emissions that are under their direct control before buying offsets from a third party. Individuals are just as likely to screw up as a third party. For example, putting solar panels on my house might not reduce emissions if my power comes from hydroelectric. I might have had more impact buying green power. Dumping my Prius and riding a Seattle Metro bus might actually increase my CO2 emissions (Seattle Metro buses get about 38 MPG per passenger on average last time I checked).

Not eco-related

But everything about this story is just awesome.

SRI pioneer Joan Bavaria looks ahead

To celebrate its 15th anniversary, the GreenMoney Journal asked leaders in the realms of green business and socially responsible investing to forecast 15 years into the future. How green will our economy be in 2022? GreenMoney's anniversary issue features responses from Amy Domini of Domini Social Investments, Gary Hirshberg of Stonyfield Farm, futurist Hazel Henderson, and others.

Here, reprinted with permission, is a view from Joan Bavaria, president of Trillium Asset Management Company. (Also read a perspective from Mindy Lubber of Ceres.)

What will socially responsible investing (SRI) look like in 15 years? I believe we are in a period of rapid growth with an uncertain outcome. Those of us who are involved in and support socially responsible investing, mission-related investing, corporate social responsibility, and all that involves introducing social and environmental considerations in a market economy must concentrate on what needs to happen to continue making progress, clearly visioning our desired outcomes.

Airing on the Side of Caution

Chemical dangers to air-breathing animals overlooked, researchers say A new study in Science says regulators have overlooked the effects that thousands of chemicals could have on air-breathing organisms. Such as, for instance, people. In general, regulators study how chemicals accumulate in aquatic-based food chains; they look at how toxics dissolve in water and fat, but […]