Latest Articles

Google.org funds V2G demonstration projects

Sweet mama! Google.org is going to give vehicle-to-grid technology a much-needed boost, to the tune of $10 million. The company is going to modify six cars, a mix of Toyota Priuses and Ford Escape hybrids, with batteries that can draw juice from the grid and feed juice back in. The promise of this technology is […]

Worst music video ever

Oh. My. God. Question: is this better or worse than “Bush Was Right”? (via Hugg)

The paper, like everybody else who doesn’t stand to benefit, doesn’t like it

The lead editorial in the Washington Post today beats liquid coal about the head and shoulders, using all the familiar arguments. Here’s a challenge: somebody out there send me a thoughtful defense of liquid coal that doesn’t issue from the coal industry, a paid shill of the coal industry, or a legislator from a state […]

Discount rates: Boring but important

This post will address two questions. What exactly is the discount rate? Did Sir Nicholas Stern, a former chief economist with the World Bank, use the wrong discount rate in his landmark 2006 report, the Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change?

These may seem like abstruse economic questions, but for analyzing the cost-benefit analysis of climate action -- whether we must act urgently or at leisure -- the discount rate is probably the single most important factor. The discount rate basically represents the so-called time value of money, how much more $100 is worth to us today than next year.

A high discount rate means we would much rather have money today than in the future. The issue is complicated by the fact that society should have a lower discount rate than individuals, since a high "social" discount rate essentially means that we don't value future generations much.

I must confess that even though I minored in economics and have followed the discount rate issue closely for years, after reading various recent blogs by economists, I realized I didn't really understand it, particularly as it applies to climate change. I was not alone -- The New York Times completely misunderstood Stern's choice of discount rate.

Since discount rates are probably as important to the climate debate as feedbacks, I would very much commend the work of Australian economist John Quiggin. He explains why Stern's choice of a low discount rate is fully justified -- and why most critics are either wrong or confused or both -- in an essay, "Stern and the critics on discounting" (PDF) and a lengthy blog post, "Discounting the Future yet Again." The blog post has a fascinating quote from an Environmental Science & Policy article, "Discounting and the social cost of carbon" on the PTRP (Pure Time Rate of Preference):

Antonio Diaz, environmental-justice advocate, answers questions

Antonio Diaz. With what environmental organization are you affiliated? I work with a San Francisco-based grassroots environmental-justice organization called PODER: People Organizing to Demand Environmental and Economic Rights. I’m the organization’s director. What does your organization do? PODER works with Latino immigrant families in San Francisco to organize on environmental- and economic-justice issues affecting them, […]

Chalk up a win for Pelosi

Well hey, look at that! No sooner do I write a post on the horrible legislative proposal out of Dingell’s Energy Committee than I find out that Pelosi has more or less beat it back. A memo Dingell sent to the committee today (PDF) says that he and Boucher are removing most of the controversial […]

Wherein I chat with House types

Hi! I’m back. And — if you’ll indulge me in a little whining — I’m sick as a dog, woefully behind on the news, buried under work, and just generally frazzled and bedraggled and haggard. And what’s with time zones? They’re stupid. Woe is me, I tell you. I wanted to do a quick post […]

WHO says dirty air and water kill 13 million people a year, and more

Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: OK, We’re Moving to Iceland Don’t Count Your Hatchery Salmon Before They Hatch, or Even After Buffalo and Behold How Much CO2 Does a Kegger Emit? Johnson Pussyfoots Yellow Jersey Optional Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: The Talk of the […]

Comedian Dave Attell wants your number

Comedian Dave Attell wants your number. No, really! The star of Comedy Central’s Insomniac was at Bonnaroo this year working the air-conditioned comic tent. At a press conference Sunday afternoon, Attell said he’s really here for the hippie girls, and that he likes a vegan girl who can keep him up all night talking about […]

Always keep the bait dangling just out of reach

The July/August 2007 issue of World Watch magazine (produced by the Worldwatch Institute) includes a concise demolition of carbon geosequestration in the form of a letter to the editor by one Luc Gagnon, "a senior advisor on climate change for Hydro-Quebec."

I'd quote the letter but the Worldwatch site doesn't have it online yet. So I went searching for more by Gagnon and found this short, powerful PDF making essentially the same point (in almost the same language). An interesting table indeed, of "energy payback ratio of electricity generation options based on life-cycle assessments":

Short summary: No matter how much they dangle the subsidy-bait of carbon geosequestration back and forth like a gold watch in front of our eyes, trying to hypnotize us into the belief that the chimera called "clean coal" actually exists, there are a few key points to remember:

1. coal is the enemy of the human race, and
2. coal isn't all that hot as an energy source to start with, once you factor in all the other energy costs.

Even if we were to stipulate that perfect geological storage of CO2 (from a leakage perspective) was attainable, the cost in energy makes it a killer for coal.

And the punch line is quoted below: