Climate Climate & Energy

Climate change, deforestation, erosion take toll on African landscape

A new United Nations atlas depicts alarming changes to Africa’s landscape. On a continent that produces a mere 4 percent of the world’s greenhouse-gas emissions, significant landmarks are taking a hit from climate change: Lake Chad and Lake Victoria are shrinking each year, and Mt. Kilimanjaro could be snow-free by 2020. The deforestation rate in […]

Today’s gas consumption shows that price increases are only one part of the solution

As SUV sales plummet and gasoline use finally drops, one meme spreading around is, "Looks like people respond to price after all." The implication seems to be that any demand response other than zero proves that prices are wonderfully effective.

The problem, however, is not response is or might be zero. (I can think of few who ever claimed that.) The problem is that it takes a big price increase to produce a small response.

The current data support the conventional wisdom: 40 to 50 percent long-term elasticity, low enough to discourage us from relying on price as the main means of reducing emissions, high enough encourage us to use price as one among many means. At first glance, the raw data are even more discouraging than the conventional wisdom: Inflation adjusted gasoline prices have risen almost two-and-a-half times since 2000. Gasoline demand has dropped by slightly over 20 percent. But long-term elasticity is, by definition, a delayed response -- at least three years.

Also, if we are interested in price response as opposed to income response, we have to adjust for growth in GDP. So a rough calculation yields 45 percent long-term elasticity (with some biases that probably overstate the result). Here are two graphs, the first of raw data, the second after adjustment (click for larger versions):

Putting a price on carbon is only the first step in energy policy

There’s certainly a great deal of logic to what Ezra says here — it would be nice if an upstream price on carbon would automatically rejigger the price of everything, right down to chips and candy bars. What could be a more gratifying solution than moving the behavior of every single consumer in a rational […]

Gus Speth chats about his new book and increasingly radical green views

Gus Speth. When Gus Speth gets radical, it’s time to start digging bunkers. For more than 30 years, Speth has labored as the consummate environmental insider, having founded an environmental think tank (World Resources Institute), co-founded a major green group (Natural Resources Defense Council), advised a president (Clinton), administered a United Nations agency (U.N. Development […]

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 […]