Articles by David Roberts

This little light of Pete’s

In Congressional Quarterly, via reader SCB:

Light it up, and don't fret about the electric bill. When House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., flips the switch tomorrow to light the Capitol Christmas tree, "significantly less energy will be used thanks to the first-time addition of Light Emitting Diode (LED) holiday lights." So says Senate Energy Chairman Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., whose home state not only produced this year's giant tree but also is home to Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, a leading center of research and development for LED lighting. Domenici said the bulbs use about 90 percent less electricity than traditional holiday lights and last 20,000 hours (the equivalent of more than 100 holiday seasons). Guess someone had better take them off carefully after New Year's and stuff them away for next year.

Thanks, Pete! That energy bill? Forgiven!

In other CQ news, the cover story this week is called "Getting a Grip on Carbon." Sadly, I can't read it, since I'm not a subscriber.

Charity gift certificates

All you folks worried about rampant materialism this holiday season should check out charity gift certificates. It's just what it sounds like: You buy a GC and the recipient goes to the website to choose what charity they'd like to donate to.

Here's the environment section.

Another one falls for AP6

A surprisingly non-wacky column on Tech Central Station about the developments in Montreal, by Ronald Bailey (via H&R).

It's non-wacky, but I also think it makes a mistake -- a mistake made all too often over the last five years -- namely: Believing in the Bush administration's good intentions when they say something that flatters your ideological preconceptions. (See: liberal war hawk.)

Specifically, Bailey notes that several participants in the Montreal meetings are pushing the notion that economic development and environmental protection can go hand in hand. For instance:

More!

About a week ago I did a short post on Prius/oil-related matters that seemed to irritate a few folks. I hadn't noticed until today that our occasional contributor (and pundit nonpareil) Clark Williams-Derry posted a response. He seemed to be approaching the question the same way some other people did, so I thought I'd offer a reply.

To recap:

A Wall Street Journal editorial (sub.) said this:

Petroleum not consumed by Prius owners is not "saved." It does not stay in the ground. It is consumed by someone else. Greenhouse gases are still released.

Treehugger's Lloyd Alter said (I paraphrase): What a jerk.

I said (again paraphrasing): Yes, he's a jerk, but on this narrow point, he's right.

Several commenters thought I was making a point about the futility of energy conservation generally. But I wasn't -- the point is about oil in particular.

Bart, and at greater length Clark, mentioned the "rebound effect," whereby reduced demand lowers price, which subsequently raises demand. Both of them make the point that although the rebound effect is real, demand only bounces back about 30-50%. So, while using less oil may not make the total efficiency gains you'd want, it does make some efficiency gains. It does save some oil.

To which I say: For "energy" generically, yes. For electricity, yes. For something like coal, where supply is plentiful, yes. But oil?