Climate Climate & Energy
All Stories
-
High CO2 crops could be low on nutrition
One of the silver linings of climate change, some have argued, is that high carbon dioxide levels will mean increased crop yields, which will, in turn, be good for combating global hunger (the logic, I suppose, being that if we're frying fifty years from now, at least we won't be hot and hungry). But some underpublicized studies, reported this month in Nature, cast a long shadow on this sunny assertion. (Sorry! It looks like the the article is subscription only, so I'll be as descriptive as possible.)
In the 1980s, Bruce Kimball, a soil physicist with the USDA in Arizona, began conducting scientific experiments simulating a high-CO2 environment (using a system called "free air carbon dioxide enrichment," or FACE). He found that crop yields were elevated -- plants imbibing large quantities of CO2 had more starch and more sugar in their leaves than those on a normal carbon diet. But because they also took up less nitrogen from the soil, they made less protein.
-
A leak, to be precise.
The following is a guest post from Natalie Troyer, publications and volunteer coordinator at Heart of America Northwest. Read her previous posts here and here. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but on Friday, July 27, a geyser from Hades erupted at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Yep, it’s true. In the wee hours of that […]
-
We have what we need to beat global warming
One of the consequences of lazy, defeatist mainstream discussion of climate change (see: Robert J. Samuelson) is goofballery like this piece in The New York Times. Michael Fitzgerald argues that because we don’t yet have a weapon that can totally and awesomely kick global warming’s ass, we should spend billions of public dollars on giganto-technologies […]
-
Buoys
Wave power takes its first baby steps. Instantly, whinging descends from all sides.
-
In Tents
Climate camp kicks off at London’s Heathrow Airport The controversial Climate Camp at London’s Heathrow Airport kicks off today, with as many as 2,000 people expected to attend at its height. The weeklong protest is aimed at airport officials’ plans to build a new runway, and at the role of aviation in climate change. “Aviation […]
-
Putting the Yeehaw in Hubris
U.S. federal agencies, World Bank help developing countries emit more President Bush has made clear his feelings on global-warming mitigation: “We all can make major strides, and yet there won’t be a reduction until China and India are participants.” So it seems a wee bit hypocritical that the United States is actually contributing to global-warming […]
-
Shrinky-Dinky Do
Great Lakes, Arctic sea ice shrinking to record lows It could be a summer of record lows in two of the world’s iconic places: the Great Lakes and the Arctic seas. Water levels in Lakes Huron, Michigan, and Superior are well below normal, and Superior could soon hit a record low set in 1926. The […]
-
Why aren’t people doing this stuff already?
DR: If every industrial facility in the world has been throwing money on the ground, why has it taken so long for somebody to come along and pick it up? What’s the catch? TC: EPA did a study and it appears that we can generate 20 percent of our electricity with industrial energy that’s now […]
-
Correcting two misunderstandings
As we discuss "cap-and-steal" (aka "cap-and-trade"), "cap-and-sell" (aka "cap-and-auction"), and carbon taxes -- three ways of putting prices on carbon -- it is worth remembering that putting a price on greenhouse-gas emissions is not enough to bring them under control. Gristmill is full of posts showing ways to save carbon at a profit. David posted an interview on Recycled Energy today that points to something that has been known, but mostly ignored, for over thirty years.
I can, and have in the past, posted extensive theoretical musings on this. But the bottom line is that if we are ignoring available savings at current prices, it seems likely that we would continue to ignore savings at artificially higher prices.
This sometimes makes people jump to the opposite extreme; if (as I insist) we can cut emissions by 90 percent or more, at prices comparable to fossil fuel, why do we need to put a price on carbon alone?
The answer is while we can cut emissions at a total cost comparable to what we currently pay for fossil fuels, that does not mean that every component is individually cheaper. The existence of market imperfections does not mean that markets don't have a role to play in solving the problem.
Let's take green buildings as a concrete example. There are a fair number of green commercial buildings that consume 30 percent of the energy of the typical U.S. building, and pay back the costs of those savings in four years or less.
