Climate Climate & Energy

He rules their world

On the Drudge Report homepage right now: Gotta love those scare quotes.

BBC program on Kyoto offsets

The idea behind offsets is that you pay someone else to reduce emissions on your behalf when they can make the reductions more cheaply than you can. The leading offset method use to fight climate chaos is the Clean Development Mechanism. This is an extremely controversial topic, with many (including me) contending it does not work. The BBC has an excellent radio broadcast covering both sides of the controversy. The broadcaster concludes that offsets don't make sense. But he gives leading intelligent pro-CDM experts plenty of time to make their case. It is an example of a program that is, while not the least bit objective, still being fair.

Mere $45 trillion needed to tackle climate change, says IEA

A G8-backed goal to halve greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050 would take a global clean-technology investment of merely $45 trillion, the International Energy Agency said in a report Friday. That’s about 1.1 percent of the world’s average annual gross domestic product through 2050; more overwhelmingly, it’s also about three times the size of the current U.S. […]

Climber scales New York Times building with climate message

For World Environment Day on Thursday, a French climber scaled the New York Times building in Manhattan to protest climate change. Wearing a T-shirt bearing the words “The Solution Is Simple.Org” — the web address of a one-page site calling for meaningful climate action — Alain Robert climbed to the top of the 52-story building […]

Still more reasons to eat local and lay off the beef

Increasingly, consumers are trying to reduce the environmental impacts of the foods they eat. But it's not so easy to know what to do, in part because of the bewildering array of food choices the market offers, but also because it's hard to know what food choices carry the biggest impact.

This nifty study tries to clear away some of the murk by tackling a fairly straightforward question: If you care about the climate, which is more important, what kind of food you eat, or where that food is grown?

To summarize the findings: All else being equal, locally grown food is friendlier to the climate than food grown half a continent away. But if you're looking for a single food choice that will help curb your climate impact, your best bet is to stay away from cows!

A final entry on the cap-and-trade debate

The ongoing economic discussion concerning the differences between cap-and-trade and carbon taxes has attracted a number of eminent participants. Not only Mark Thoma, but Brad DeLong now (with an assist from Megan McArdle), offers some excellent commentary on the issues involved.

Q&A with Van Jones about the Climate Security Act and green jobs

Van Jones. What does the green jobs and justice community think about the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act? To get one perspective, Grist caught up with Van Jones, the founder of Green For All, a group that promotes green-jobs policies and environmental justice. Jones, a civil-rights lawyer and the founder and former executive director of the […]

America’s 21st century can’t-do spirit

“It’s frankly not doable for us.” — chief U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson, on the G8’s proposal to reduce industrial countries’ emissions 25-40 percent from 1990 levels by 2020

Cause and effect

Here’s a sentence from a new story in the WSJ: The second-poorest state in the nation based on household income, West Virginia counts on coal to support its economy. May I suggest a rewrite? West Virginia counts on coal to support its economy; as a consequence, it is the second-poorest state in the nation based […]

Opening ANWR cuts gas prices $0.02 in 2025

In the climate and energy debate, conservatives continue to argue that the only solution to high gasoline prices is drill, drill, drill, especially in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. This argument is false, false, false.

The Administration's own Energy Information Administration found differently in a 2004 Congressionally-requested "Analysis of Oil and Gas Production in ANWR" (see "Note to Bush, media: Opening ANWR cuts gas prices one cent in 2025"). I pointed out then that the 2004 analysis was based on low oil prices, and that higher oil prices would raise the savings.

A May 2008 re-analysis [PDF] by EIA, "Analysis of Crude Oil Production in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge," in fact found this: