Latest Articles

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 […]

What Role Coal?

U.S. Rep. Edward Markey weighs in on the controversial fuel Coal is the central, vexing question facing anyone attempting to create a 21st-century energy policy. So says Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), chair of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, who drops by Grist today to lay out his thoughts on the mineral […]

Orange You Glad We Didn’t Say Switchgrass?

Fruit may be the latest source for biofuel madness Could your kumquat power your Kia? A team of U.S. scientists has made a low-carbon fuel from fructose, the sugar in many fruits. It could be a better bet than ethanol, with 40 percent more energy, less vulnerability to water, and more stability; since it can […]

Don’t blame farmers for the farm-subsidy mess

Agricultural and food products are not like other commodities. Their price is that of life, and below a certain threshold, that of death.— Marcel Mazoyer and Laurence Roudart, A History of World Agriculture from the Neolithic Age to the Current Crisis Last month, after Slow Food founder Carlo Petrini dared question the virtue of certain […]

Turns out we don’t know how much there is

Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences released a Congressionally mandated report on coal-related R&D challenges. Coal-state senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) requested a report on possible impediments to future coal production, and areas that need to be researched to keep the coal coming. Given that essentially coal-positive mandate, naturally NAS introduced the […]

The chair of the Select Committee on Global Warming weighs in

Congress is about to confront the challenge of coal, and much of what we hope to do to reduce the threat of global warming hinges on these decisions.

There's a useful test to use whenever the challenges of fossil fuel dependence and global warming come up: We must reduce the threat of global warming without worsening our dependence on foreign oil; and we must reduce the threat of oil dependence without worsening global warming.

When it comes to coal, it's that second part of the equation that brings up some sticky issues.

Coal has been a big part of our energy mix, providing the majority of our electricity since the invention of the electric light. It has been a principal source of energy since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution -- a revolution that provided the basis for our economic prosperity, but also produced exponential pollution growth that was the genesis of the global warming issues we face today.

Now is the time for a new Green Revolution. We must combine the economic reforms of a new industrial revolution based on clean energy development with the moral imperative to protect the planet.

But where does that leave coal? Can our reliance on these carbon-packed nuggets of energy survive while we try to ensure the planet survives as well?

A valedictory to Colin Fletcher

For most of us who care about ecology and the environment, there was some personal experience that brought us there. For me, it was wilderness hiking, beginning 30-plus years ago in the Grand Canyon and continuing across the American West. Two books helped instigate my journeys and those of thousands of fellow adventure-seekers and nature-lovers. The Welshman who wrote them, the intrepid and blessedly individualistic Colin Fletcher, died earlier this month, at 85.

I can't recall which I read first -- The Man Who Walked Through Time, in which Fletcher chronicled his 400-mile hike through the Grand Canyon, or his compulsively detailed guide to backpacking, The Complete Walker. That's probably because I read them both repeatedly and obsessively.