Articles by David Roberts

Limiting CO2 emissions: smart business

Eric beat me to it, but I wanted to point to a WaPo editorial making what should by now be an obvious point: cutting carbon dioxide emissions can be a profitable undertaking. Author Michael Northrop marshals boatloads of evidence, from business...

For example, six companies -- IBM, DuPont, BT (British Telecom), Alcan, NorskeCanada and Bayer -- have each reduced emissions by at least 60 percent since the early 1990s, collectively saving more than $4 billion in the process.

to national government...

British Prime Minister Tony Blair recently told the Economist that between 1990 and 2002 Britain trimmed emissions 15 percent, while boosting its economy 36 percent.

to cities...

Toronto has decreased greenhouse gas releases from municipal facilities by 40 percent and is saving $2.7 million annually through energy efficiency improvements. In addition, the city earns $1.5 million annually by selling electricity generated from methane gas captured at three municipal landfills.

There's more where all that came from. It's all anecdotal, of course, but at a certain point the weight of proof shifts over to the other side.

Why would we think cutting emissions costs too much? Emissions are waste. Pollution signals inefficiency. Attempts to become more efficient, to do (and make) more with less, are the very soul of capitalism. As Northrop says:

Only serious, across-the-board federal and international policies and programs will solve the problem of global warming. Unfortunately, concerted action is unlikely to occur as long as administration officials and some members of Congress continue to use worn-out arguments against limiting carbon dioxide releases, even as hundreds of multinational corporations and smaller businesses are proving them wrong. Meanwhile, these individual initiatives offer valuable insights and lessons for the path ahead.

SHINE

Yesterday I mentioned the upcoming SHINE (Solar High-Impact National Energy) initiative. It's been released, and it's a doozy. I was planning to write a big long post about it, and then I remembered: That's why God invented hyperlinks. So go, immediately, and read Joel Makower's quick roundup of the initiative, its details and its effects. Then go read the summary on Clean Edge. Then, if you're ambitious, read the report itself (PDF). This is a big deal -- Joel, along with Clean Edge and the Solar Catalyst Group, have been working on it for over a year.

Here are the three prongs of the initiative:

• Solar Utilization National Underwriting Plan (SUNUP): a federal block-grant program, providing matching funds to states to implement innovative and cost-effective solar installation programs;
• U.S. Rooftop Initiative for Solar Energy (U.S. RISE): an aggressive, long-term federal commitment to purchase solar systems for government facilities and operations; and
• American Solar Advancement Prize (ASAP): a high-stakes, high-reward competition to develop and deploy new technologies and systems that could dramatically accelerate the reduction in solar’s costs within a decade.

The next time someone tells you solar "isn't ready," send them this document. The SHINE plan would require 5 cents out of every tax dollar already invested in nuclear, coal, and natural gas. The investment would pay itself back in saved energy costs in 10 years, so it would be revenue neutral. By 2025, it would push the cost of solar PV down to 80 cents per installed watt, cost-competitive with coal and natural gas -- oh yeah, and completely clean.

Seriously, go read about it. It's a nice little picture of what positive government action would look like. Remember positive government action?

Solar Tower

I'm sure I'm the last kid on the ecoblogospheric block to point to this, but in case anyone hasn't seen it yet: The massive Solar Tower project has found a home, in the Australian outback. If it really gets built -- and it's starting to look like it might just happen -- this thing will truly be one of the wonders of the world. For one thing, at 3,280 feet, it will be nearly double as tall as the world's current tallest structure, Canada's CN Tower. At the base of the hollow cylidrical tower will be 25,000 acres of solar "skirt." The air under the skirt is heated by the sun and rises naturally through the tower, powering 32 wind turbines inside it. It will generate as much power as a small nuclear reactor -- only it will be completely safe. The scale of the thing boggles the imagination. Check out this video artist's rendering (wmv file). Wow.

Deathy death death

There's a little story in the Berkeleyan on a panel discussion of the "Death of Environmentalism." Shellenberger was there to defend it -- sounds like he got a pretty hard time:

Harte, who conducts research into the ecological impacts of climate change, objected primarily to the first half of the essay, "Environmentalism as a Special Interest." That section, in Harte's assessment, was "deficient in its logic" and "laden with what I would call postmodern gibberish" and "overly broad generalizations" about environmentalists. The authors, he added, provided "no analysis" of why Europe is moving aggressively to address global warming, while the United States is dragging its heels.

Norgaard took a dimmer view. "I didn't like Part 1 or Part 2," he said, adding that he found the entire critique "quite shallow." Norgaard, an "ecological economist," faulted the paper's authors for, among other things, bemoaning the movement's alleged failure to frame the issue in moral terms while relying heavily on polling data and focus groups in support of their arguments.

Gelobter was a bit more charitable, observing that "as a movement-building piece," at least, "the report has a lot going for it." Nonetheless, he was sharply critical of the authors' "denial" of activists who have gone before, and their refusal to build on earlier movement successes. "They are obsessed in their piece with ancestors," he said, "the better to kill them, I think."

Gelobter also took issue with the authors' methodology, which focused on interviews with some two dozen environmentalists from large, mainstream organizations. But those leaders, he said, do not reflect the full spectrum of environmental activists.

Update [2005-2-28 15:19:13 by Dave Roberts]: By the way, I take great umbrage to Grist being referred to as "the backwoods of the online." At five years and counting, I think we qualify as the old growth of the online!