Articles by David Roberts

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:

Oprah to save Appalachia with her mighty army of suburban moms?

If Oprah does a segment on mountaintop removal mining, Big Coal is f**ked.

Is consensus on 'energy gap' enough to get past disagreement over climate change?

As you've likely noticed, comments are turned off here at Grist, as we transfer to our shiny new site. If you have thoughts on this post or anything else, email them to me at droberts at grist dot org.

I think Andy Revkin gets something importantly wrong in this post on DotEarth -- which gets back to one more point I wanted to make about the Eco:nomics conference.

Andy's post is about how the cranks at the ongoing Heritage climate "skeptic" conference agree with climate realists that there's an "energy gap" and a need for substantial energy innovation. So we can all move forward together!

Now, I think on a broad level this is true. You don't have to take climate change seriously to see the need for big changes in our energy situation -- you could be concerned about national security (quite common), concerned about dwindling fossil fuel reserves (less common), or concerned about stagflation brought about by high energy prices (weirdly rare). John McCain, back in his Reasonable Conservative phase, used to make the same point: even if we're wrong about climate change, we should do this stuff anyway.

But how far does this agreement get you? Far enough for a shared political or economic agenda?

In the interest of fairness and balance, a shout-out for what the WSJ is doing right

The other day, I had some not very complimentary things to say about the Wall Street Journal Eco:nomics conference. (Summary: no booze.) And earlier today I had some even less complimentary things to say about a WSJ editorial. (Summary: propagandistic lies.)

So I want to take this opportunity to point out something at WSJ that most decidedly doesn't suck: the WSJ Environmental Capital blog.

It's not written with the same, um, opinionated flair (hey, you wanna call it some thing else, get your own blog) as this blog, but I don't know of a blog going that is more comprehensive and information-rich on the subjects of energy and the environment. I've come to take it for granted, but really it's somewhat odd that a mainstream paper like WSJ -- especially with its rightward leaning editorial stance -- supports writers like Keith Johnson and Jeffrey Ball who really get into the details of green finance, technology, and policy, and do so with accuracy and understanding (rare enough on any blog!).

When you think about it, it would be much easier for WSJ, and probably get them more traffic, to do something gimmicky and vapid like National Review's Planet Gore. Instead they've created something that's a real value-add for policymakers and other opinion leaders in this space.

So kudos, WSJ! Now don't screw it up.