Latest Articles

So Near, Yet Sonar

Deal lets Navy make limited use of sonar in exercises off Hawaii A temporary ban on Navy sonar use has been lifted, after the Navy agreed to take steps to protect whales in return for the dropping of a lawsuit by the Natural Resources Defense Council. The Navy is in the midst of the world’s […]

Cry of Newt and Woe of Frog

World’s amphibians in big trouble, experts warn The world’s amphibians could go extinct. All of them. Soon. So warned 50 amphibian experts from around the globe in the journal Science on Friday. Along with the same-old, same-old threats of habitat destruction, pollution, pesticides, UV radiation, and invasive species, amphibians are being wiped out by a […]

One Minute to Midnight

Bush plans nuke deal with Russia; G8 to spread nuclear power worldwide On the eve of next weekend’s meeting of the G8 — where developed nations will unveil an ironically named “global energy security” plan that would expand nuclear-power technology across the globe — the U.S. will announce a deal with Russia that would allow […]

EU may introduce carbon tax on airplanes

Following up on an earlier post on commercial aviation and global warming: the European Parliament voted 439 yes / 74 no / 102 abstain last week to tax jet fuel used on cross-border, intra-European flights, to allow member states to impose VAT (sales tax) on jet fuel, and to apply a cap-and-trade system to carbon dioxide emissions from aviation. (Currently, international flights, including those within the EU, pay no tax on their jet fuel.)

Airlines predictably condemned the maneuver, calling on the UN's International Civil Aviation Organization to issue a proposal that would apply globally.

Mallaby v. Samuelson

Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby smacks down his fellow pundit Robert Samuelson's defeatist column on global warming.

These days almost nobody asserts that global warming isn't happening. Instead, we are confronted with a new lie: that we can respond to climate change without taxing and regulating carbon.

Coal gasification

A story in a West Virginia newspaper slobbers over coal gasification -- almost like the reporter got all her information from the industry. In West Virginia! Lawsy me. Needless to say, carbon dioxide isn't even mentioned.

A more sober assessment can be found in several posts on Daily Kos (if you can survive all the blogofascism!). Responding to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's NYT op-ed, Jerome a Paris asks him these questions. The Governor responded here. DarkSyde had this post about Schweitzer's 60 Minutes appearance. And finally, in response to an NYT feature on synfuel, Schweitzer wrote this post.

Enough homework for you?

Schweitzer's a smart, serious guy; of course it's no secret that he's advancing Montana's interests, but he's clearly no mere shill for the coal industry. And he's explicit that gasification is not a long-term solution, but merely a bridge:

So coal-to-diesel, in my mind, is a piece of a larger national plan that 1) takes us through the next several decades to the hydrogen economy, 2) includes a heavy dose of biofuels and other renewables, 3) breaks oil dependence in the short term, and 4) provides a boost for technology that will help us combat global warming.

Having read a good bit about all this, my skepticism has not been overcome. Here are what I see as the big limitations on gasification/sequestration:

Aspen and E.O.

Excellent post over at Joel Makower's about the Aspen Ideas Festival, with specific emphasis on E.O. Wilson, whom, by the way, I'll be interviewing in October. So start thinking of questions.

The Supreme Court’s carbon-dioxide case

In October, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a case of extraordinary significance: whether or not the feds can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. While enviros (and a dozen states) have been trying to push the case to SCOTUS for a while, they are nonetheless nervous. The court has been substantially made over with the recent additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but nobody's entirely sure how exactly it's changed. Muddled decisions like the recent one on the Clean Water Act do not portend victory, or even clarity. (More on this from Carl Pope.)

Two questions are at issue. Quoting from the appeal (PDF):

1. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).
2. Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).

In other words, can the EPA regulate CO2, and if it can, is it required to. That's simple enough, but I've not seen much in-depth analysis of what the ramifications various rulings might be. In the unlikely event the court rules that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2, and must use that authority, it would be epochal. But what about various splits?

Tipping points

RealClimate has a great post up on climate "tipping points," a notion that has been used and abused with great frequency lately by laymen and journalists -- including yours truly. It goes into detail picking apart positive feedbacks, tipping points, and points of no return.

The most valuable bit for me was clarifying what James Hansen has in mind when he says that we have ten years to fundamentally change course:

U.K. conservatives and global warming

As google-using cheater tfahrner revealed below, the long excerpt in this post comes from a speech yesterday by U.K. Tory leader David Cameron. If you haven't yet, give it a read.

I couldn't believe it. If a U.S. politician gave this speech ... well, they'd be a Democrat, and the media would ignore it, and I'd probably never hear about it. But if I did, I'd faint. I can't really find a single thing to criticize. The focus on energy decentralization leaves me woozy. The refusal to give nuclear special dispensation makes me swoon. I mean, damn.

Of course, I don't know all that much about U.K. politics. Cameron could be a total gasbag for all I know. This could be an all-bark-no-bite kind of thing. And of course conservatives are out of power there and don't have the capacity to do much even if they wanted.

But the point -- as made at length by Mark Hertsgaard -- is that Britain's conservative party now recognizes concerted action on climate change is non-negotiable. Without it, the party is doomed: