Climate Climate & Energy

What the Western Climate Initiative does right — and what it could do better

Draft is here [PDF].

Just the major points. First off, the proposal is basically pretty good. We should keep in mind that what WCI is doing represents a big -- gigantic -- step in the right direction for the climate. So I'll raise a glass to everyone who's worked so hard on the WCI proposal so far.

But there's room for improvement. Below, I highlight the core areas of the proposal. These are bedrock issues that make me concerned.

On the art of setting (and hitting) emission targets

Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity generation within 10 years may seem, at first blush, to be so far out in left field as to lack any seriousness -- but it has some commonality with established regulatory policy. For example, California's global warming law (AB 32) is rooted in Governor Schwarzenegger's Executive Order S-03-05, issued on June 1, 2005, ordering that "the following greenhouse gas emission reduction targets are hereby established for California: by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels; by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels."

What is notable about both Gore's and the governor's targets is that all the numbers happen to end in zero. Gore did not call for a reduction of, say, 95 percent in 13 years; his targets are evidently ballpark numbers more-or-less picked out of a hat. "One hundred percent" can basically be interpreted to mean "a whole lot" and "10 years" translates to "ASAP."

T. Boone Pickens’ plan is overexposed and inferior to Gore’s

It's official: T. Boone is overexposed. His monotonous TV ad runs on an endless loop, he has testified in front of Congress, he is now appearing on every cable show, and everybody quotes him even though he doesn't actually agree with anybody but himself.

What specifically bugs me:

1. His ads say we can't drill our way out of this problem, but then he says we should drill everywhere -- offshore, Alaska, your backyard.
2. He keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles.
3. His plan shares a great deal in common with Al Gore's, but he still goes out of his way to diss it (inaccurately, see below): "Gore's Global Warming Plan Ignores Crippling Stranglehold Foreign Oil Has on America's Economic and National Security."
4. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I/D/R ?-Conn.) said the plan is a "classically American message of honesty, determination and can-do optimism."
5. Did I mention he keeps pushing his absurd idea of switching over to natural gas vehicles, even though Russia, Iran, and Persian Gulf states have most of world's gas reserves?

The Gore critique seems to me particularly lame, as if he can't stand to share the stage with anyone else. Why else release such a petty statement as this:

Arctic holds vast untapped oil and gas reserves

The Arctic Ocean holds up to 20 percent of the world’s undiscovered, technically recoverable oil and gas reserves, according to new research from the U.S. Geological Survey. A four-year study found that the region contains up to 90 billion barrels of oil and almost a third of the world’s undiscovered natural gas — about 1,670 […]

Investigative report details threat gas drilling poses to N.Y.’s freshwater resources

Investigative news startup ProPublica this week blew some fresh air into Albany, N.Y., with a report on state regulators’ and lawmakers’ headlong rush to open up more areas to natural-gas exploration. In partnership with WNYC, ProPublica called into question the state’s conclusion that freshwater sources in the state would not be contaminated by the expanded […]

The media’s central arguments for and against Gore’s challenge to the nation

Nearly a week after Gore unveiled his carbon-free challenge (sounds sadly kind of like a reality TV gimmick), the substantive reactions from the nation's editorial pages and blogosphere fit (for better of for worse) into two groupings: precedent versus vision.

Brushing past the naysayers (John Tierney and his "junk science" complaints) and the yes-men (Christine Pelosi and her Gorish platitudes), those in the "precedent" camp tend to disapprove of Gore's goal on the basis that United States continues to produce very little renewable energy, so these critics say ramping up to 100 percent renewable is impossible. Those in the "vision" group tend to applaud Gore's call on the basis that it offers a compelling vision for the future, even if it lacks details.

These divisions do not completely break down along political lines. It's true that those who tend not to like Al Gore tend not to like Al Gore's challenge and vice versa; yet, there are some notable exceptions.

Hurricane Dolly hits land, skirts oil and gas facilities

Hurricane Dolly hit land in Texas Wednesday as a Category 2 storm. No deaths have been reported and the storm had a minimal impact on oil and gas operations; it largely missed offshore oil and gas facilities, but did cut production 10 to 20 percent at some refineries and by 5 to 8 percent overall. […]

It’s the fossil fuel crowd that’s against American jobs

Reading around on reactions to the latest oil shale hubbub, I keep seeing conservatives saying that greens against dirty energy development are opposing "American jobs." It’s important that everyone involved in fighting oil shale — and other drill-and-burn energy policies — understand something simple: the U.S. energy sector has very low "labor intensity." That is […]

Blockbuster Teamsters announcement rejects oil drilling as an energy solution

For years, the Teamsters have supported opening the Arctic Refuge and other protected areas to oil drilling; they ran ads bashing John Kerry on it in 2004. So it is a Very Big Deal that the Teamsters have just come out and rejected drilling as a solution to the energy crisis. At an event in […]

Poll indicates Brits harbor doubts on climate change

U.S. conservatives aren't the only ones who are easily duped. When 1,039 Brits were asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree that ... Many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change," a remarkable 60 percent agreed whereas only 22 percent disagreed.

Congrats to the British deniers out there -- yes, even you TVMOB, who apparently qualifies as a scientific expert in the U.K. because he wears a Nobel prize pin made of gold recovered from a physics experiment presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York.

The poll also asked for responses to "I sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say." Some 42 percent agreed while 41 percent disagreed. I am going to (optimistically) ascribe that less to the U.K. airing of the The Great Global Warming Swindle than to the fact that this statement is true when it comes to one particular famous British person.