Climate Climate & Energy

This week’s coal-sucks update

I just realized it’s been almost a week since I’ve published a coal-bashing post! This cannot stand. I’ll have to dig back a bit … ah, here we go: a new study from the Carnegie Mellon Electricity Industry Center (CEIC) concludes that investing in plug-in hybrids would be much more sensible, in terms of both […]

BS green

Given the surge of interest in climate and energy, it’s no surprise that a lot of BS — rainforest-screwing biodiesel, everyone-screwing liquid coal, etc. — is getting passed off as "green" and bellying up to the public trough. Glenn Hurowitz calls out some of the more egregious offenders.

A new report with numbers and stuff

Our discussion of carbon offsets has been rather hand-wavey — lots of intuitions and moral judgments and gut feelings flying around. This obviously offended the gods of wonkitude, who have now seen fit to deliver unto us a report on the voluntary carbon credit market, containing some sweet, sweet numbers and graphs. The report was […]

Here’s wishing you plentiful petroleum

I give you Trilby Lundberg, publisher of the Lundberg Survey of gas prices: I’m hoping that consumers will see through the rhetoric about consuming less, demanding less, as faulty. It is not a given that consuming less will be good for our economy or for our personal freedom. It is not even established for our […]

Deader Than Ever

Biofuels could contribute to historically big Gulf of Mexico dead zone Still think corn-based biofuels will save the world? Here’s another piece of the no-they-won’t puzzle: Researchers say more intensive farming of more land in the Midwestern U.S. — in part a result of the push for more corn production — could contribute to the […]

What global warming could do to national parks

The National Parks Conservation Association released a new report last week, “Unnatural Disaster” (PDF), which explores the impact of global warming on national parks, and as you’d expect, the news is pretty grim. From the intro: The gradual, accelerated warming of our planet will have disastrous consequences for America’s national parks. Glaciers in the national […]

A shock absorber for the grid to enhance efficiency, reliability, and security

In their July 16th piece on solar energy technology in The New York Times, Andrew Revkin and Matthew Wald wrote that, "With more research, the solar thermal method might allow for storing energy. Currently, all solar power is hampered by a lack of storage capability." They are certainly right. In fact, a lack of storage capacity hampers a lot of things.

While there's been a lot of talk about coupling energy storage to solar (and wind) power, there are additional reasons for addressing our lack of storage capability. In fact, storage technologies can act as a "shock absorber" for the whole grid and can help address some of the key challenges facing the industry, including efficiency, reliability, and security. Simply put, energy storage is good for the grid.

An interview with Tom Kiernan of the National Parks Conservation Association

A moment of reflection at Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve. Photo: Richard and Robin via flickr Every year, millions of Americans pack up their families and head out to visit one of America’s national parks. My family was no different: I vividly recall the patchwork of reds, oranges, and yellows blanketing the […]

The winners? ED, NRDC, The Pew Center for Climate Change, and other familiar faces

The first round of grants (PDF) from the $100 million climate fund established last year by the Doris Duke Foundation were announced last week. Funding priorities and grant recipients were identified in an exhaustive 18-month process of extensive literature reviews and interviews with more than 75 distinguished scientists, economists, environmental leaders, investors, energy industry representatives, and public policy experts.

The result?

A total of $3.6 million will be distributed to five environmental organizations -- ED and NRDC ($500K), Pew Center on Global Climate Change ($395K), World Resources Institute ($750K), and Resources for the Future ($750K) -- and two universities -- Harvard ($750K) and MIT ($500K). Three climate action strategies will be pursued:

1. devise "optimal domestic and international pricing policies for carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases";
2. develop policies "that bring available technologies to market more quickly"; and,
3. "identify adjustments" to reduce climate-change impacts.

That the $100 million Duke Foundation fund will be expended on a decades-old strategy that has not worked is no surprise, as no coherent alternative to our present approach is available. However, the Duke Foundation announcement may portend change in two important respects.

Replacing Oil With, Uh, More Oil

National Petroleum Council pictures life after conventional crude There’s a new voice in the crowd shrieking about waning oil supplies: the National Petroleum Council. OK, they’re not actually shrieking. But in a draft report released this week, the group — headed by former Exxon CEO Lee Raymond — confirms that conventional crude oil supplies won’t […]