Latest Articles

Karma Duke

Supremes say upgrading coal plants without reducing pollution a no-no We love the Supreme Court this week. In a unanimous decision yesterday, Big Justice overturned a lower court ruling and declared that Duke Energy did indeed violate the Clean Air Act when it modernized coal plants without paying for pollution-reduction equipment. Duke had claimed it […]

Some signs point to yes

I never thought it would happen, but it looks like a carbon tax might actually become a viable policy option in the U.S. In the Washington Post, Juliet Eilperin and Steven Mufson discuss growing support for a tax over a cap-and-trade system. If you read between the lines, it basically breaks down like this: economists […]

We’re inside it

We all know buildings are part of the global warming problem, but many people don't recognize how central they are to the solution. A recent UNEP report -- "Buildings and Climate Change: Status, Challenges and Opportunities" -- shines light on how relevant and accessible building-related climate change solutions are. Achim Steiner, UN Under-Secretary General and UNEP Executive Director, said:

By some conservative estimates, the building sector world-wide could deliver emission reductions of 1.8 billion tonnes of C02. A more aggressive energy efficiency policy might deliver over two billion tonnes or close to three times the amount scheduled to be reduced under the Kyoto Protocol.

The International Energy Agency estimates that a total global switch to compact fluorescent bulbs would in 2010 deliver C02 savings of 470 million tonnes or slightly over half of the Kyoto reductions. We have to ask what the hurdles are -- if any -- to achieving such positive low cost change and set about decisively and swiftly to overcome them, if they exist at all.

I realize Kyoto is not our final goal, but the point here is the potential for harvesting carbon reductions from buildings is immense, and most of solutions are 1) with us already and 2) relatively low-cost to deploy. The challenge is largely changing practices. But as Achim notes, the hurdles in the building sector, unlike some other sectors, may not be very substantial.

Finally recognizing environmental threats to national security

Building on Dave's link yesterday: Last week, the Senate's number two Democrat Dick Durbin and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel proposed a bill calling for a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) to assess the threat of climate to the United States and abroad.

Refreshingly, the bill requires a 30-year time horizon. Climate scientists will still find this window painfully small, but security analysts (and the rest of government, frankly) will recognize this as progress in comparison to the normal Washington policy timelines (a few years, or until the next election).

More on Supreme Court decision

In November, the issue of EPA's refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions went before the Supreme Court. Yesterday, the decision (PDF) was announced -- 5-4 in favor of Massachusetts, meaning that the EPA does have the authority and responsibility to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In short, the time to act is now!

In the chutzpah department, EPA actually tried to argue that 1) "any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emission" was a "piecemeal approach to climate change that would conflict with the President's comprehensive [!] approach" -- comprehensive, I suppose, in the sense that he refuses to take any substantive action in every sector, and 2) such regulation "might hamper the President's ability to persuade key developing nations to reduce emissions" -- a particularly amazing argument, since the president has been working hard behind the scenes to persuade key developing nations not to reduce emissions. Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, made short work of those absurd arguments.

Makin’ eyes at each other

Al Gore recently gave his talk on global warming in Norway, to an audience that included one Ole Danbolt Mjoes. Mjoes, as you may know, is the head of the Nobel Peace Prize Committee — though he insisted he was attending as a private citizen. He said Gore’s message is "very important," and took part […]

So much BS in so few words!

Here’s a bit on the Supreme Court case from a White House briefing today. Marvel, if you will, at the sheer amount of dishonesty and misdirection packed into these few short paragraphs. Virtually every sentence, every word, needs unpacking. It’s always been a talent of this White House to use a kind of shock-and-awe bullshitting […]

Like, totally geo-green

Interesting: Senators of both parties are pushing for U.S. intelligence agencies to assess the danger to the nation’s security posed by global warming. Sens. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., and Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., Wednesday introduced legislation that would “require a National Intelligence Estimate to assess the security challenges presented by the world’s changing climate,” according to a […]

New climate report chock full of bad news, and more

Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: Supreme Slapdown Chaos and Effect Alternative School Sacks Education The Hill’s Not Alive With the Sound of Music Read the articles mentioned at the end of the podcast: For a Moment By Hook and By Book Standing on Ceremony Mrs. Sippy

So to speak

No, as far as I know, no baby-food maker ever used rat poison as an ingredient. The point is that we don't have to worry about it; if you have an infant switching off milk, you can shop the baby food counter confident that none of the choices will contain rat poison.

However, as a consumer, buying "green" is not quite so easy. Hastening the end of our civilization is a routine ingredient in most of the things we buy. By spending a little extra time and money, we can sometimes find alternatives that don't contribute to our society's destruction -- though often not.

If baby food routinely contained micro doses of arsenic, of course you would go out of your way to buy uncontaminated versions for your child. But you would also recognize that we should not allow baby food to include anything so toxic in the first place.