Latest Articles

Friday music blogging: Coconut Records

I’ve missed a few Fridays, what with vacation, but don’t worry, our long national nightmare is over: FMB is back. Today comes a song that was stuck in my head the entire time I was gone: “West Coast,” by Coconut Records. Coconut Records is Jason Schwartzman, who’s an actor (Rushmore; I Heart Huckabees) and used […]

Edwardsian rhetoric

In this interview, John Edwards uses a line I’ve heard him use three or four times now, so it must be a stock part of his speeches: Our generation must be the one that says, "We must halt global warming." Um, no. Our generation must be the one that says, "Our generation must be the […]

All 21 of them, from Worldchanging

A while back, Worldchanging did a great series of posts on the core principles of a bright green future. I kept meaning to link to it. Now I finally am! Here they are: Principle 1: The Backstory Principle 2: Ecological Footprints and One Planet Thinking Principle 3: Cradle to Cradle and Closing the Loop Principle […]

Japan experiments with seaweed as biofuel

As birthplace of the Kyoto Protocol, Japan is one of the pioneering countries in climate change policy and research. In 1990, Japan pledged to reduce carbon emissions by 6 percent by 2012. One of their proposed stratagems for meeting this goal is to replace the 132 million gallons of gasoline that Japan car drivers use with a biofuel option.

Turns his ineffectual media criticism toward the greens

Slate media critic Jack Shafer weighs in with a blistering critique of Fox News, saying it … … tends to appeal to our emotions, exploit our fears, and pander to our vanity. It places a political agenda in front of the quest for journalistic truth and in its most demagogic forms tolerates no criticism, branding […]

It’s as bad as we thought

Don't miss this tidbit from Former Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona's Tuesday testimony before Congress:

He described attending a meeting of top officials in which the subject of global warming was discussed. The officials concluded that global warming was a liberal cause and dismissed it, he said.

"And I said to myself, 'I realize why I've been invited. They want me to discuss the science because they obviously don't understand the science,'" he said. "I was never invited back."

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Takes potshots at Markey

In the much-discussed Dingell interview, he said a few other things that were, at least from an inside-baseball perspective, just as interesting as the carbon tax stuff. Especially notable was his scathing comments toward Rep. Markey’s climate change committee. Get a load of this: HITT: The speaker created, or moved to create, at the beginning […]

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.