Latest Articles

Scary reading

Last week I wrote about a coming report on world coal reserves from the Energy Group in Germany, based on the IEA World Energy Outlook 2006. Here’s the report. The nut: This analysis reveals that global coal production may still increase over the next 10 to 15 years by about 30 percent, mainly driven by […]

Extinction of an outdated industry on the horizon?

... you ignorant ass.

You may have noticed the ads here on Grist from the International Fund for Animal Welfare calling for an end to the Canadian seal harvest. This short, simple, balanced article from MSNBC is a timely rehash of this annual controversy.

Because sustainability is ostensibly the main goal of environmentalism, it's difficult to criticize the Canadian seal harvest, because it appears to be a classic case of a sustainably harvested natural resource providing poverty reduction for those who live close to that resource.

Here are the two main reasons the IFAW wants to end the seal harvest: It is cruel and puts the harp seal species at risk.

The time to focus on policy is now

With the policy summary of the IPCC WGII report out, this is a good time to concentrate on policy. Any effort to lower emissions has to put a price on carbon and other greenhouse sources. As I think extensive discussion has shown, a carbon tax is the best way to price emissions, and to price the destruction of carbon sinks.

One advantage of carbon taxes (and auctioned permits as well -- close enough to a carbon tax for practical purposes) not often noted is that it they produce revenue that can be directed back to consumers. This is an important contrast to the Kyoto system, where large numbers of permits were given away to big polluters. As with any method of raising the price of carbon, ultimately the cost was passed on to consumers. But with the permit giveaways, the consumer did not recover any of those costs.

On a small scale, this is merely painful and unfair. But suppose this was done with a large-scale rise in emission prices -- one that increased the prices of consumer goods by 25 or 50 percent? Not only would this cause direct suffering, the odds are pretty good that reduced consumer demand would cause at least a recession, with a real risk of world-wide depression. You need to return some the costs to consumers, not only on moral grounds but on Keynesian ones -- to avoid a precipitous drop in overall demand.

I will add that when you talk about a drop in consumption for poor people, you are talking not just suffering but death. Even in the rich nations, there people poor enough that cutting their real income by a third or half will kill some of them. Cut the income of people in poor nations already living on a few dollars a day, and you are talking slaughter.

Quit talking about it already

We’re constantly getting yelled at here at Grist for not discussing population, which according to the yellers is the ultimate problem of all problems, such that addressing any other problem without addressing it first is to demonstrate one’s total subjugation to The Man and False Consciousness. The issue came up in this thread, so I […]

Due Deferens

Separate studies show chemicals, cigarettes may affect male birth rate The percentage of boys born in the U.S. and Japan each year has gradually declined over the last three decades, a new study says — and pollutants are a possible cause. “Male reproductive health is in trouble,” says lead researcher Devra Lee Davis of the […]

Psst, LNG, We Hear Florida’s Easy

Natural-gas projects denied in California, let pass in Maryland If liquefied natural gas is the beleaguered suitor, California is the popular girl who keeps turning down earnest proposals. Yet another LNG terminal, this one off the coast of Ventura County, is off to the bar to drown its sorrows after a state commission voted Monday […]

Will Johnson Stand Firm on Emissions?

EPA finalizes renewable-fuel standard, evaluates emissions ruling With much fanfare, the Bush administration has finalized a renewable-fuel standard for cars and trucks. The rule, mandated by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, requires 4.7 billion gallons of motor fuel — a little more than 4 percent of the total produced — to come from renewable […]

The biggest factor is still the bottom line

An influential group of CEOs, senior officers and trustees of institutional investors, asset managers, and corporations called for action (PDF) on climate change back on March 19. It's a good thing the rich and powerful in the U.S. are starting to recognize that action must be taken. But as should be expected, what they call for is the minimum they think they can get away with rather than what is needed.

In which Knut gets even cuter

Vanity Fair‘s second annual “green issue” hits newsstands today (though it arrived last week in “special” cities like New York, L.A., and, apparently, Seattle). And I must say, though its inside contents can’t compete with last year’s edition featuring Grist’s own Chip Giller, it does feature on its cover the equally lovable and (sorry, Chip) […]

Monbiot says what needs saying

The estimable Bart A.'s Energy Bulletin unearths yet another gem amidst the rising tide of dreck pouring out of the Series of Tubes: A must read interview with George Monbiot.