Articles by David Roberts

Economics malpractice, climate and poverty, oil sands nightmares, and more WSJ dipshittery

• Max Schulz demonstrates how economics is typically used in the energy debate: "There's an unavoidable problem with renewable-energy technologies: From an economic standpoint, they're big losers." As though the "economic standpoint" is some static, univocal thing. Douchebag.

• A nice report from Brookings on a woefully under discussed topic: Double Jeopardy: What the Climate Crisis Means for the Poor.

• National Geographic has an in-depth examination of the horror that is Alberta's oil sands program. Excellent journalism, albeit the stuff of nightmares.

• Shockingly, the oil and gas industry opposes the Obama administration plan to eliminate some taxpayers subsidies for the oil and gas industry.

• A while back, Holman Jenkins, a Wall Street Journal columnist and member of the editorial board, characterized Obama's concern over climate change as a "soppy indulgence," and said of climate science: "We don't really have the slightest idea how an increase in the atmosphere's component of CO2 is impacting our climate, though the most plausible indication is that the impact is too small to untangle from natural variability." Stuart Gaffin, an actual climate scientist at Columbia University, responded in a blog post, pointing to actual science. In turn, Jenkins retrenched in a blog post of his own, with a bunch of absurd harumphing and misdirection. Gaffin responded again, decimating the smoldering remains of Jenkins argument with a torrent of scientific citations.

This is typical of many other exchanges between ideologues and scientists about climate. The galling thing, with this one as with most of them, is that the scientists are correct, by any reasonable assessment, and yet the ideologues can just go on saying whatever they want, in widely read editorials. There simply is no winning here. It's really hard to see what the scientists should do.

Jim Rogers' chutzpah, geothermal's promise, Larson's carbon tax, and efficiency's returns

• Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy and prominent member of USCAP, says that it's a bad idea to refund carbon auction money back to taxpayers. Instead, the vast bulk of the money should be given to public utility regulators. Really, he said that.

• According to a new report from Credit Suisse, geothermal power now has a lower cost-per-kilowatt-hour than coal. ScientificAmerican takes a look at the report and finds that it contains several important caveats (it presumes reasonable interest rate financing, doesn't include explorations costs, etc.). Even with the caveats, though, this is heartening stuff.

• Shell Oil now has a climate change blog. So far, it's surprisingly good and substantive.

• Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) has introduced a carbon tax bill to the House (updating and improving a similar bill from 2007). It would start with a $15/ton tax, which would rise $10 per year, and it would refund all revenue to taxpayers through payroll tax rebates. $10 billion a year in tax credits are also made available to cleantech R&D and investments. The guys at the Carbon Tax Center love it. They say one of the prospective losers is "cynics who said the U.S. could never enact a meaningful carbon tax." But the U.S. won't enact this one either, so ...

• The Berkeley National Laboratory has an interesting report out: "Financial Analysis of Incentive Mechanisms to Promote Energy Efficiency: Case Study of a Prototypical Southwest Utility (PDF)." (I know, sounds fascinating, right?) It runs through scenarios whereby a utility aggressively pursues energy efficiency, based on various policies (decoupling, performance standards, etc.). What does it do to rates? Equity? Shareholder returns? Here are the key conclusions:

Free beer

Now Republicans are framing their total-deregulation, fossil-happy, drill-and-burn energy policies as "no cost stimulus."

Sometimes my powers of snark just fail me.

Feed-in tariffs, Chu off-message, MPG v. GPM, and the prospects for solar PV

I have about three months worth of unattended tabs open in my browser -- over 100, at last count. Ridiculous, I know. I figure now that comments are turned off on our site (it's weirdly quiet in here!), I'm going to do some speed blogging to get them all cleared away in anticipation of the torrent of news coming down the pike.

• In Florida, an odd-couple pair of legislators -- Rep. Keith Fitzgerald (D-Sarasota) and Rep. Paige Kreegel (R-Punta Gorda) -- are collaborating on a bill that would push Gainesville's innovative feed-in tariff program statewide. Fitzgerald wrote the bill; Kreegel is chair of the state's House Energy & Utilities Policy Committee. They view feed-in tariffs as an economic stimulus and jobs program. Naturally utilities oppose them.

• I know Chu Worship is the order of the day in green circles, but I'm sorry to say that most of what I've seen of our new Energy Secretary's communication with the public has been, IMHO, counterproductive. Like this. Does the Obama administration really want to be encouraging the myth that progress on climate is dependent on scientific and technological breakthroughs? Or this. Does the administration really want to be encouraging the notion that a recession is a bad time to pass a price on carbon?

• What's the deal with the MPG Illusion? The arguments for shifting to GPM (gallons-per-mile) seem compelling, but this doesn't seem to have taken off or spread at all.

• Climate change is threatening some of the world's most valuable archeological sites.

• Researchers at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have produced a fascinating report on the installed costs of solar voltaics (PDF). Here are the main conclusions: