Articles by David Roberts

Speak it

"A sustainable energy future is possible, but only if we act urgently and decisively to promote, develop and deploy a full mix of energy technologies... We have the means, now we need the will," said Claude Mandil, executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA).

(via EB)

Au revoir, Greenland

Meanwhile, over at the L.A. Times, we find that the Greenland ice sheet is melting faster than climate models predicted.

Hey, I figure, more freshwater for us! Our grandkids? Eff them.

Today’s NYT

Michael Pollan says some smart things in this piece about ethics and animals.

I wonder whose arm got twisted to get this mash note to Robert Kennedy Jr.

Gosh it's hard bein' green -- so many options!

We can expect to see many more stories about strange biotic migrations and infestations.

I'm telling you, read Goodell's book. Too bad the reviewer saw fit to scoff at the notion that we change our thinking about energy -- instead, fusion gets a shout out. WTF?

This "prototype hybrid system using hydraulic fluid and a high-pressure pump instead of electrical current and a generator" sounds extremely cool, but the piece sounds like somebody's press release (barely) filtered through a reporter.

Still, not bad for one day, Gray Lady!

(And from yesterday: Coal is ravaging China too:

Fuel tax magic, part one

The following is part one of a guest essay from Charles Komanoff, an economist and environmental activist in New York City. For more on taxing carbon fuels, go to http://www.komanoff.net/fossil/.

For part two of this essay, go here.

-----

"Pam and Matt Keith spent Memorial Day weekend on a houseboat on Lake Oroville in Northern California. But because of high gasoline prices, the Keiths never even untied the boat from its mooring slightly offshore. When they ventured away from the shore, they supplied their own power -- in kayaks."

So began The New York Times take on the start of the summer driving season in an age of $3 gas: "Holiday Travelers Hit the Road, but Scrimped a Bit."

The Times' page-one piece was guaranteed to bring smiles to both economists and despisers of motorized recreation. As a member of both camps, I ate it up. I loved that the Keiths were kayaking instead of houseboating around the lake, and that another California couple, Celia and Michael Shane, had shelved their annual jet-skiing trip in Lake Mead National Recreation Area in Nevada. "To save the $70 per tank it now costs to fill up their minivan," the Times reported, "the Shanes were barbecuing instead." For guys like me who can let a single roaring jet ski ruin an entire beach day, fewer decibels mean more happiness. And after a year's drumbeat of articles insisting that higher gas prices hadn't dented Americans' "love affair with their cars," it was heartening to see the paper of record start acknowledging the No. 1 tenet of economics -- higher prices mean lower demand.

The world's thirst for petroleum breeds war, props up dictators, and imperils the climate. Known oil deposits are shrinking by the day. So no question in economics is more pressing than whether, and by how much, changes in the price of gas reduce the demand for it. I've been examining this question since May 2004, when the price first edged past two bucks. Every month I faithfully enter the latest price and consumption data into a spreadsheet. This has to be done just right. For one thing, because gas use follows seasonal patterns, monthly data must be compared over intervals of 12 months (or 24, etc.). For another, changes in price must be adjusted for general inflation. Most important is netting out the upswing in gasoline use that ordinarily accompanies expanding economic activity when the price of gas is stable. Only after taking these steps can one isolate the effect of higher pump prices on gasoline demand.