Climate Climate & Energy

Fossil interests plow money into Congress

Rich and thin is passé. What's hot now is rich and dirty.

Why is a smart energy and climate policy so elusive for this country? In three words -- money, money, money.

The nation's energy bill is now about a trillion dollars. That means the super-rich fossil fuel companies have enormous profits they can spend on lobbying to ensure their continued dominance. How much? Jeff Goodell has the answer here:

In the first quarter of 2008, Big Coal's new front group, American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, spent a record-breaking $1.9 million in federal lobbying expenses. To put that in perspective, in the same period, the Solar Energies Industries Association spent all of $75,000 ...

Individual coal companies have been even more generous to our nation's cash-starved policymakers:

Say goodbye to the lungs of the earth

Amazon deforestation exploding. The agrofuels lobby assures us that it has nothing to do with them.

High oil prices are our lot until demand is destroyed, but no peak

Goldman Sachs analyst Arjun Murti predicted the recent spike in oil prices, so it's worth looking at his recent interview in Barron's:

Drilling in ANWR still isn’t the solution to high gas prices

George Will is at it again. His latest bit of inane demagoguery can be found here, in which he excoriates everyone who has ever opposed drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge:

Also disqualified from complaining [about oil prices] are all voters who sent to Washington senators and representatives who have voted to keep ANWR's oil in the ground and who voted to put 85 percent of America's offshore territory off-limits to drilling.

Naturally, Will ignores the flip side of the coin. What about people who have opposed investing in renewable energy, increasing fuel efficiency standards for cars, or encouraging conservation a decade ago? Those people have done far more long-term damage. If we'd begun to work on the oil problem ten years ago, we would be in much, much better shape than we are today.

But is drill, drill, drill a solution? Will writes:

There is such a thing as a free lunch

You frequently hear that “there’s no such thing as a free lunch,” particularly when it comes to climate and energy policy. It’s a mark of “seriousness” to solemnly proclaim that it’s all going to cost a lot of money and be very, very difficult. But the free-lunch canard is just another way of restating the […]

China bank offers draft plan to reduce nation’s emissions

China’s central bank has taken a first stab at a national emissions-reduction plan that could apply to various pollutants. A draft emissions-trading proposal unveiled to top officials on Friday suggests that China determine a national goal for reducing pollution, have regional authorities determine quotas for businesses, and put in place a system with controls at […]

Peer-reviewed study finds that right-wing think tanks have stymied environmental progress

To file under “academic demonstration of what we already knew,” here’s an abstract from a new paper in the journal Environmental Politics: Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed “sceptics” claim to be unbiased analysts combating “junk science.” This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. […]

Act now with clean energy or face 6 degrees C warming; cost is not high; media blows story

When the normally conservative International Energy Agency agrees with both the middle of the road IPCC and more ... progressive voices like mine, it should be time for the world to get very serious, very fast on the clean energy transition. But when the media blows the story, the public and policymakers may miss the key messages of the stunning new IEA report, "Energy Technology Perspectives, 2008" (executive summary here).

You may not have paid much attention to this new report once you saw the media's favorite headline for it: "$45 trillion needed to combat warming." That would be too bad, because the real news from the global energy agency is

1. Failing to act very quickly to transform the planet's energy system puts us on a path to catastrophic outcomes.
2. The investment required is "an average of some 1.1 percent of global GDP each year from now until 2050. This expenditure reflects a re-direction of economic activity and employment, and not necessarily a reduction of GDP." In fact, this investment partly pays for itself in reduced energy costs alone (not even counting the pollution reduction benefits)!
3. The world is on the brink of a renewables (and efficiency) revolution. Click figure to enlarge:

Five nations agree to think about ending oil subsidies

The day after markets registered the highest single-day rise in crude oil prices ever, the United States and Asia's four largest economies (Japan, China, India and South Korea), meeting in Aomori, Japan in advance of the G8 Energy Ministers summit, have formed a sort of Petro-holics non-Anonymous club, calling for an end to oil subsidies in their countries.

Consumer subsidies (subsidized fuel prices), that is, not producer subsidies.

OK, what they actually agreed upon was "the need" to remove fuel-price subsidies. Eventually.

According to a report by Agence France-Presse, the five nations announced in a joint statement:

"We recognize that, moving forward, phased and gradual withdrawal of price subsidies for conventional energies is desirable. Undistorted and market-based energy pricing" would help "enhance energy efficiency and increase investment in alternative sources of energy." They said that subsidies "should be replaced wherever possible by better targeted policies for intended beneficiaries. Such a move "could also lead to reduction in the government cost and greater integration of the domestic and global energy economies."

A carbon policy is likely to be less devastating than nature, or oil markets

Reihan responds. Let me just say a few more things. First, I described his characterization of carbon pricing as “insane” based on this: What we need is a $100 billion prize or set of prizes to the person or firm or non-profit entity that can devise a cost-effective means of scrubbing the atmosphere of carbon […]