Latest Articles

Random observation of the day

I read a lot of arguments about coal in a carbon-constrained world, given my, um, obsession with it, and I frequently run across these two claims, sometimes in the very same article: There’s so much coal, and renewables are so far from competitive, that it’s not realistic to think we could live without it. Coal […]

Time to kick it old school on the farm bill.

The terms of debate around the 2007 farm bill’s controversial commodity title have gotten rather narrow. On the one hand, you’ve got the House subcommittee on ag commodities, which essentially cut and pasted commodity language from the subsidy-heavy 2002 farm bill into the 2007 version now being drafted. On the other hand, you’ve got a […]

Hold the applause on the administration’s

On a new blog called Terra Rossa -- "Where Conservatives Consider a New Energy Future" -- GOP consultant Whit Ayres argues that when President Bush at the G8 summit declared his willingness to "seriously consider" carbon emission reductions over the next forty years, he took a "major step" in the direction of his environmental critics. Says Ayres:

I don't think anyone could argue that conservatives are not trying to compromise on the issue. While many conservative voters, politicians, and business leaders might prefer to take no action to limit carbon emissions, they have heard the call to action and are clearly working toward a cap they can live with.

Ayres claims the President has undergone a "sea-change" on global warming, but ignores these inconvenient facts:

• No agreement to reduce carbon emissions came out of the G8 summit, despite much pressure from Germany and Europe.
• The President talks of "long-term" [requires subscription] "aspirational" goals, but has committed to nothing but discussion.
• Shortly after taking office, a White House insider admitted [requires subscription] to Andrew Revkin of The New York Times that the Bush administration intended to do as little as possible about global warming: "There's a sense in which everybody's saying the American public doesn't have the attention span or background to pay attention to this issue," the official said. "There's still a hopeful perception around the White House that this has gone away."
• Not only did the President break a reassuring campaign promise regarding carbon emissions, but just this last year told a biographer that he was a "dissenter" on the "theory" of global warming.

So we have good reason to doubt the sincerity of the Bush administration, despite the bland assurances of progress from White House environmental chief Jim Connaughton. And in fact this past week the president himself, in his own words, has let us know exactly how high a priority he gives the issue. Four recent speeches -- to a Southern Baptist convention, to a homebuilders convention, at a political fund-raiser, and at a nuclear power plant yesterday -- were put through a word processor, and the results show what is on the president's mind, and what is not:

Getting rid of the remnants of the sell-more-power utility model

This is an important article on one of the best, simplest, and fastest ways to reduce home electric usage: make it visible.

We can have both

A new study entitled "Sipping Fuel and Saving Lives: Increasing Fuel Economy without Sacrificing Safety" notes:

The public, automakers, and policymakers have long worried about trade-offs between increased fuel economy in motor vehicles and reduced safety. The conclusion of a broad group of experts on safety and fuel economy in the auto sector is that no trade-off is required. There are a wide variety of technologies and approaches available to advance vehicle fuel economy that have no effect on vehicle safety [and vice versa].

The study by the International Council on Clean Transportation concludes that "Technologies exist today that can improve light-duty vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent ... with no impact on safety."

The study has two noteworthy figures. The first shows that higher-fuel-economy vehicles [green] are some of the safest while low-fuel-economy vehicles [red] are some of the least safe vehicles driven today -- large, heavy trucks and SUVs. Click to enlarge.

The second figure lists technologies available today that can improve fuel economy with no impact on safety and lists technologies that can improve vehicle safety with little or no effect on fuel economy. Click to enlarge.

The study is conservative in the sense that it doesn't even consider plug-in hybrids, which can significantly increase fuel economy with no impact on safety at all. It is well worth a read.

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

Friday music blogging: Midlake

I missed music blogging last week, and I don’t want to miss it again, but I gotta hurry — I need to run to my kid’s parent-teacher conference. (Yes, they have those in preschool — WTF?) This song is from one of my favorite albums of last year: The Trials of Van Occupanther, by a […]

Plans to make huge cuts in greenhouse gases

Well it would be nice to know how they plan to do all this, but these certainly are ballsy goals out of New Jersey: • Reduce greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020 (a 13 percent drop) and 80 percent below current levels by 2050. • Regulators have one year to measure current and 1990 […]

More rockin’ for the planet

Seattleites, take note:

For anyone not willing to stand on an ice floe in subzero temperatures or pony up the cash to make it out to one of the other Live Earth concerts, you have another option. Local public-radio darling KEXP is hosting a benefit concert on July 7, 2007, to raise funds for the Shoreline Solar Project. The project promotes the use of solar energy and has installed solar photovoltaic systems in a couple of local schools. Part of the show will be streamed live on the KEXP website.

What about other cities? Anybody know of other enviro-shows happening on July 7?

Quite engorged, actually

I can’t believe the world’s private investors have joined up with those silly, unrealistic anti-nuke fruitcakes! Renewable energy has moved out of the fringe and into the mainstream, with investors worldwide pouring $71 billion of new capital into the sector in 2006, up 43 percent from the previous year, and more is expected, a U.N. […]

Gov’t doesn’t want to pay for them

Looks like the public teat is closing up shop: The government will not subsidise new nuclear power plants, so if the private sector does not provide the huge investments needed, the country will have to do without, the minister responsible for energy said on Thursday. The Labour government sees nuclear power as one of the […]