Latest Articles

In Black

Hey, L.A.-area folk — if you’re around this weekend, head to the Jazz Bakery in Culver City at 4:00 p.m. on Sunday, June 24, to watch talented teenage jazz musicians In Black. (Here’s their MySpace, with songs for your listening pleasure.) The Culver City stop is part of the group’s climate-focused Solutions Tour, and you […]

Salt Lake City might jump in for another term

It’s no secret that we have something of a organization-wide crush on crusading Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson. As he mentioned in our interview, his plan has been to leave politics and move into advocacy behind environmental and human rights causes. But it looks like he might be reconsidering. You see, the slate of […]

It’s about more than money

It's official. China is now the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases.

Having spent much of this spring reporting in China, I'd like to second just about everything David said yesterday on the topic. But I have one ginormous point to add.

It's not just money that's needed. Yes, it'd be a good thing if Hill folks stopped bashing technology-exchange programs as lending an "unfair competitive advantage." And yes, let's stop painting China as the international bad guy. It ain't helpful, especially when the Chinese can rightly point out that Americans and Europeans are still, per capita, the world's energy hogs.

But the really troubling thing is that, even when Beijing is trying to do the right thing -- and they have some surprisingly progressive energy targets on the books -- the government often can't enforce its own edicts. Wonks call this a "rule of law" problem. By Beijing's own estimates, one-fifth of power plants operate illegally, dodging the government's own environmental regulations and best intentions.

I don't mean to sound hopeless. I'm actually hopeful about some of the broader changes underway in China that might make solutions more workable. (Sorry to be elliptical; I write about this in an upcoming Washington Monthly article, but, jiminycrickets, I don't have an online link yet.)

In the meantime, yep, the West should take some responsibility for helping China, India, and Africa avoid the worst of the worst on global warming. If not for their sake, then for ours.

Even in Canada

So, about a year ago I wrote briefly about Marc Jaccard, a Canadian economist whose book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels, has been exceedingly popular in Canadian policy-making circles. No surprise there -- any book that says we can have our cheesecake and eat it too is going to find a wide audience among politicians averse to making any tough decision, ever.

I was, you could say, less than charitable to Jaccard's ideas. But the latest news from Canada's Conservative do-nothing-about-global-warming government makes me almost feel sorry for him.

A good time was had by all

It’s been over a week ago now, but memories of Grist’s D.C. reader party linger on like the stain on my boss Chip’s shirt from where I knocked his "causemo" all over him at the very beginning of the night, in front of several members of our board of directors. (See: How to Get Ahead […]

Dirty energy lobbyists are out in force

Argh: Senate Democrats yesterday were scrambling to prevent the sweeping energy overhaul bill, a top domestic priority, from crumbling amid growing regional divisions within their party and Republican concerns. “The moment of truth on this energy bill is coming very shortly,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said. Also, argh: Three powerful lobbying forces — automakers, electric […]

What good carbon policy should — but often doesn’t — reward

Too much of the debate on carbon-control policy starts from flawed assumptions. Take those assumptions away, and one quickly realizes that we have a lot of pretty good options.

Let's parse the carbon policy argument, and think for a moment about how to best engender the most economically beneficial carbon reduction policy.

First, let's strike any false assumptions from our logic:

1. Let's not assume that it costs money to reduce carbon emissions until proven otherwise.
2. Let's not presume that any of us know what the answer is.

Take these away, and you can pretty quickly get a good model. Picture, if you will, a 2x2 matrix of all the world's policy options. On one axis we list things that reduce or increase carbon emissions. On the other, we list things that cause GDP to grow or shrink. The middle of the plot (0,0) is the status quo. No change in emissions, no change in the economy.

Clearly, we ought to preferentially deploy resources towards those options that win on both metrics. Equally clearly, we ought not to spend any time on options that lose on both metrics. And once we've picked up all the low-hanging fruit in that win/win box, we can start getting into really hard political debates about whether win/lose beats lose/win.

And yet ... and yet.

Are You a Working Assets Customer?

Grist made the list — now we need your votes Can you earn money for Grist with the click of a button? You betcha. Customers of phone-service and credit-card provider Working Assets can go to the company’s voting page and assign maximum points to Grist (we’re in the Education & Freedom of Expression section) — […]

Scent From Above

Professional noses sniff out pollutants in China Got a sensitive schnoz? Your services may be needed in southern China, where air-pollution experts at an environmental monitoring station are training the sharp-nosed to sniff out chemicals in the air. “We have honed our smelling skills from various sources of pollution. It will help in the detection […]

Well, There’s One Thing They Can Agree On

National party conventions aim to go green You’ve maybe noticed that green is the Hot New Thing these days — and the U.S. political arena is no exception. The 2008 Democratic and Republican national conventions both plan to get hip to the greenness. Denver, Colo., site of the Democratic potlatch, is primed to beat eco-friendly […]