Latest Articles

Dirty Financing

Dirty-energy tax breaks total over $8.5 billion in energy bill Highly profitable dirty-power industries may be treated to even fatter bottom lines thanks to the energy bill that emerged this week from congressional conference committee. It would dedicate more than $8.5 billion in tax breaks over the next 10 years to oil, natural gas, coal, […]

Gas-Muzzler

EPA holds back negative report on U.S. auto fuel efficiency According to a report not released Wednesday by the U.S. EPA, loopholes in U.S. fuel-economy standards let automakers produce cars and trucks much less fuel-efficient than models 20 years ago. On Tuesday, the same day the long-debated energy bill emerged from congressional negotiations, EPA opted […]

Energy bill is (surprise!) also a budget hole

The CBO sent this letter [PDF] to Joe Barton, Chairman of the Energy Committee, to let him know that yes, indeed, the energy bill will be putting a hole in the budget. The CBO estimates that the bill will reduce revenues by over $2 billion a year in 2008 and by a total of $12 billion over the period from 2005-2015.

However, I don't know that the CBO included this lovely addition from one Tom Delay. That story isn't really getting too much press this morning -- the Boston Globe is probably the most widely circulated paper running a story.

A debate over environmental priorities never gets at the real point

J.H. Adler points us to a debate in the pages of Foreign Policy between Bjørn Lomborg and Carl Pope. Since I read the whole thing, here's the highlight reel, so you don't have to:

Pope: "The global environmental dilemma teems with both risks and opportunities."

Lomborg: "Yes, we have problems. But we have solved many more. Yes, we can solve those that remain, but not all at once. We need priorities."

P: "True, we need priorities. ... Having priorities doesn't always mean Sophie's choice."

L: "I'm glad you agree that we need priorities. But I worry that your commitment is rhetorical."

P: "No, Bjørn, Sophie's choice is avoidable."

L: "... You insist that there are no real trade-offs between the environment and prosperity. ... It is not that environmental projects are not worthwhile. ... Often, there are other, better projects that must come first."

P: "... You keep posing artificial choices... It is simply not the case that the world -- or the United States -- does only one thing at a time."

L: "Advocacy groups understandably want to focus on headline-grabbing issues ... But when we emphasize some problems, we get less focus on others."

P: "Bjørn, you ignorant slut ... "

Okay, that last one was an embellishment.

CAFTA at midnight

Speaking of DeLay scumbaggery, it looks like the Republicans are going to hold a vote on CAFTA between midnight and 2am tonight. They're hoping that some of the moderate Republicans who oppose this legislative turd will stay home and that DeLay and his posse can bully the rest into supporting it.

You think this is how a majority behaves when it's proud of its legislation?

Jeff has a nice round-up of sources on why CAFTA is no good for the environment. It's also no good for free trade, or anything else really. The substantive stakes are not huge, but it's a great example of the bankrupt process by which the Republican majority passes legislation these days.

Update [2005-7-27 22:34:9 by Dave Roberts]: It just passed -- never mind arm-twisting moderate Republicans. Fifteen Democrats voted for this hunk of junk, and that put it over the top. The D.C. rot is bipartisan.

(See also Ezra.)

Delay sneaks $1.5 billion in direct subsidies to oil and gas companies in energy bill, after confere

Rep. Tom DeLay just inserted a $1.5 billion chunk of pork into the energy bill. For what, you ask? The oil and gas industry.

Worse, he snuck it in after the bill had left conference committee, so committee members had no chance to consider (or reject) it.

An enormous direct subsidy from taxpayers to one of the most profitable industries in the world, implemented in total contravention of the democratic process, by a Representative whose district stands directly to benefit. The mind really does boggle.

Rep. Henry Waxman just sent a letter (PDF) of complaint to Rep. Dennis Hastert. Some excerpts:

Coaxing residents to urban cores

The flight from the inner city (it may not be happening after all, but there are definitely new incentives for it now) has left urban planners looking for ways to coax residents back to urban cores. Free municipal wi-fi could be just what they need.

While its effect might not be as direct as some city planners might like, municipal wireless, as proposed in Philadelphia, is worth a shot. It also presents some interesting questions about free goods.

Somewhat tangential economic discussion below the fold.

Umbra on car disposal

Dear Umbra, My wife and I are making plans to purchase our first hybrid vehicle and need to properly dispose of our current car — a 1989 Buick LeSabre. My question is, what is the best way to get rid of it? It is old and has a lot of miles on it. I suppose […]

Their dependence on gaz guzzlers makes them highly vulnerable, says a new study

Ah, now we're talking. Earlier this week I was a bit snarky about this article, which flung broad statements about with very little empirical support (understandable, I guess, for a breezy op-ed).

But a new study that just came across my desk puts some teeth in the argument that going green is smart business strategy for automakers.

Jointly published by the U. of Michigan and NRDC, the study analyzes what would happen to the Big Three U.S. automakers in the event of an oil-price spike.

As I've mentioned before, the possibility of such a spike is not remote. With supply and demand in such tight and tenuous balance, anything -- domestic politics, terrorist attacks, accidents, you name it -- could cause major disruptions in the oil market. How would American companies weather such a storm? From the NRDC press release:

Another voice from the global South criticizes the tone deafness of Western aid orgs

Forgive me for highlighting a piece that does not explicitly tackle environmental issues. But this Washington Post op-ed on foreign assistance, by former Eritrean finance minister Gebreselassie Yosief Tesfamichael, contains lessons for conservationists, if we choose to hear them.