Climate Climate & Energy

Busted: Majority of emissions cuts can come from public spending

A common rap by environmental economists is "any means of cutting emissions raises prices." Though it is used in defense of a valid point (in the long run we will have to institute either a carbon tax or a permit system), it is simply not true.

The vast majority of emissions cuts can come via public spending that won't raise prices. We can subsidize efficiency improvements to buildings, fund a conversion of most long-haul trucking to rail, and in the long run electrify all transit and decarbonize electricity generation.

But doesn't the money for these subsidies have to come from somewhere? Yup, but a lot these are areas where the private (as opposed to social) gains exceed the subsidy -- meaning even if the people receiving the subsidy end up paying for most of it from taxes, they come out ahead. However, there is no reason the people receiving the subsidies have to pay for most of them. Most of our military budget is devoted to aggression rather than protecting us. We have had enormous tax cuts for the rich from Jimmy Carter forward. We have wasteful existing subsidies for fossil fuel and various unsustainable practices. There is an old liberal-mocking slogan I'd like to turn around and adapt: "Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the fellow behind that tree."

Has EDF spun out of environmentalism?

Tony Kreindler reiterates EDF's position that the short-term targets in Lieberman/Warner are strong, that its essential framework is sound, and that we have 40 years to strengthen its weak areas ... but don't expect to do so anytime soon. In his recent Grist series, Kreindler wrote, "the political landscape in 2009 will be much like today's as far as climate change legislation goes."

This is an astonishing admission about the state of U.S. environmentalism. The hard work of decades, over a billion in assets dedicated to climate action, the certain election of a pro-cap-and-trade policy president, a Northwest Passage ice free for the first time in human history, and methane bubbling so furiously in Siberian bogs that melt water does not freeze ... will have no significant impact on political conditions, in EDF's view.

It's much worse than that, of course. Kreindler's appraisal was made months before gasoline broke $4.00 a gallon and our supposed majority support vanished as quickly as spilled gasoline hitting hot pavement.

Voluntary programs not so effective, says gov’t watchdog

Shocker: Voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gases don’t work so well, the U.S. EPA Inspector General’s Office said Thursday. Despite the Bush administration’s adoration of the word “voluntary,” such programs have “limited potential” to actually address pollution and climate-change concerns, said the report. Too often, industries decline to spend money to participate in such programs; […]

Energy efficiency is the core climate solution, part 1

Energy efficiency is the most important climate solution for several reasons:

1. It is by far the biggest resource.
2. It is by far the cheapest, far cheaper than the current cost of unsustainable energy, so cheap that it helps pay for the other solutions.
3. It is by far the fastest to deploy.
4. It is "renewable" -- the efficiency potential never runs out.

This post focuses on number one -- the tremendous size of the resource.

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.