Climate Climate & Energy

Why I don’t agree with James Kunstler about peak oil and the ‘end of suburbia’

The remarkably low fueling cost of the best current hybrids (like the Toyota Prius) and future plug-in hybrids are major reasons I don't worry as much about peak oil as some do.

James Kunstler, for instance, argues in his 2005 book The Long Emergency (see Rolling Stone excerpt here) that after oil production peaks, suburbia "will become untenable" and "we will have to say farewell to easy motoring." In Rolling Stone, Kunstler writes, "Suburbia will come to be regarded as the greatest misallocation of resources in the history of the world." (No -- that distinction probably belongs to China's torrid love-affair with coal power.)

But suppose Kunstler is right about peak oil. Suppose oil hits $160 a barrel and gasoline goes to $5 dollars a gallon in, say, 2015. That price would still be lower than many Europeans pay today. You could just go out and buy the best hybrid and cut your fuel bill in half, back to current levels. Hardly the end of suburbia.

Umbra on solar holiday lights

Dear Umbra, As the holiday season approaches, I’m trying to figure out how to spread good cheer in home decorations while being sensitive to the environment. Years ago, my husband and I purchased strings of lights that we wrapped around the trunks of palm trees in our front yard. Now the wiser, I’d like to […]

We need a grid as smart as our bombs

So much talk about new energy supplies ignores the wisdom we supposedly learned in the '70s about "negawatts" being the most efficient, effective, and environmentally friendly source of power around.

It's good to see that we might finally make some progress in this direction, learning to shave demand peaks and save a bundle (and open the way for integrating more renewables into the grid):

It’s not whether we’re responsible, but whether we’re prepared that counts

I’ve been meaning to write something about the questions prompted by the California wildfires. The Mustache helped me this weekend by picking out what is, in my view, exactly the wrong question: "Did we do that?" Most news stories and blog posts that tried to connect the wildfires with climate change were constructed around that […]

Nobody fights for change unless they see there’s a problem

Ugh. So my local paper decided to print its own local blend of Nordhaus-Shellenberger drivel. Did you know that "it's time to stop blaring dire warnings about the perils of climate change and, instead, start enthusiastically proclaiming solutions"? I sure didn't. It's not as if people like Amory Lovins, Paul Hawken, Bill McKibben, or I dunno, Gar Lipow have spent years talking about exactly that. It's not like the central message adopted by successful climate change activists for the last decade has been "hey, this will be easy and make you money!"

See, I thought I'd read Lovins' Natural Capitalism, all about solutions, when the paperback was put out in 2000. But apparently not!

Boy, if it weren't for the timely warnings of Nordhaus or Shellenberger, the environmental movement might not have embraced their positive brand of technological fixes and business-friendly activism ... ten years ago.

European Parliament votes to require car ads include warnings on CO2 emissions

The European Parliament recently voted that car ads must include warnings on vehicle CO2 emissions. If the rule successfully negotiates the rest of the European Union legislative process, 20 percent of a car ad would have to warn or educate consumers about the CO2 emitted from the vehicles advertised, as well as their fuel consumption. […]

We have plenty of solutions at hand beyond technology

Today the dominant view of global warming is that it's a technical problem. The burning of fossil fuels -- often regarded as the lifeblood of modern economies -- puts greenhouse gases into the air, mainly carbon dioxide, trapping more solar energy, which heats the planet and alters weather patterns. Methane and nitrous oxide also contribute. The solution is defined as reducing greenhouse gas emissions (pollution). The political, social, and moral campaign is directed at technological change, and at using our technology less.

But if everyone stopped burning fossil fuels tomorrow, global warming will continue for decades. We don't have an economical technology for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Limiting ourselves to technology-focused solutions doesn't give us much leverage. It gives us an agenda of "let's wreck the world slower."

There is another side to global warming, one that existing scientific panels are ill-equipped to recognize and that existing institutions are ill-equipped to act on. Global warming is not just an atmospheric pollution problem caused by fossil fuel burning. It is also the result of changes in basic biospheric processes. Let's look at some examples.

Bits and pieces, pieces and bits

It’s a weekend and my browser overfloweth. You know what that means. Lightning round! Over on DKos, Devilstower is writing an excellent series of posts on mountaintop-removal mining. Pay attention: However, you have an option. You can call your representative and ask them to support the Clean Water Protection Act. The act already has 103, […]

A global trend toward drought

A few months ago, I reported on the decade-long drought that's bedeviling Australia. In it I predicted -- with the help of experts such as Tim Flannery -- that climate skeptic John Howard would lose his seat to the Labor Party leader, Kevin Rudd, in this October's national elections. Rudd is running on a platform that includes $50 million for geothermal energy, $50 million for an Australian Solar Institute, and a 60 percent cut in CO₂ emissions by 2050. And according to Flannery, the election will in large part be a referendum on climate change.

Colbert: Will this eventually affect Planet America?