Climate Climate & Energy

In the summer heat

Global warming is going to make things hotter. Nuclear power plants need lots of cool water to operate. When it gets hot, the cool water gets used up quickly. You do the maths.

Articles about climate skeptics

Even while rejecting the authority of the most comprehensive and reviewed scientific document on any subject, namely the IPCC report, one of the most common climate delusionist tactics is the argument from authority. Whether it is Alexander Cockburn responding to George Monbiot or some anonymous person on some blog, everyone has some personal "scientist" friend who assures them the rest of the world has gone mad.

When an argument from authority is invoked it is perfectly legitimate to then examine said authority's, um ... authority, to see if there is really a good reason we should take their word over the word of ... well, just about everybody who would know.

Picking apart an argument against carbon taxes

Yesterday's L.A. Times ran an odd op-ed calling carbon taxes an ineffectual antidote to global warming. Unlike other critiques that brand carbon taxes politically unpalatable, this one argued that they're simply not up to the job of cutting carbon emissions:

Carbon taxes -- taxes on energy sources that emit carbon dioxide (CO2) -- aren't a bad idea. But they only work in some situations. Specifically, they do not work in the transportation sector, the source of a whopping 40% of California's greenhouse gas emissions (and a third of U.S. emissions).

I've known Daniel Sperling, the author of the op-ed, for decades. As the long-time director of the Institute of Transportation Studies at UC Davis, Dan probably knows as much about automotive engineering as anyone in the world. What's more, he's conscientious, tireless, and concerned.

So why do I think he's wrong about carbon taxes? Actually, Dan is part right, but his message is wrong. Let me explain.

Tell It to the Senate

Renewable-energy investments booming around the world Investment in renewable energy zoomed to record levels in 2006 and shows no sign of flagging, a United Nations report said this week. More than one-fifth of that investment went into companies or projects in developing countries. Thanks to high oil prices, desire for energy independence, government incentives, and […]

Dingell floats it; Boucher knocks it down

Hmm? What’s all this now? John Dingell is floating the possibility of a carbon tax? From CongressNow (sub. rqd.): Rep. Rick Boucher (D-Va.), who will play a key role in crafting the House version of comprehensive climate change legislation, on Wednesday night downplayed speculation that the House bill could include some form of a tax […]

Even in Canada

So, about a year ago I wrote briefly about Marc Jaccard, a Canadian economist whose book, Sustainable Fossil Fuels, has been exceedingly popular in Canadian policy-making circles. No surprise there -- any book that says we can have our cheesecake and eat it too is going to find a wide audience among politicians averse to making any tough decision, ever.

I was, you could say, less than charitable to Jaccard's ideas. But the latest news from Canada's Conservative do-nothing-about-global-warming government makes me almost feel sorry for him.

What good carbon policy should — but often doesn’t — reward

Too much of the debate on carbon-control policy starts from flawed assumptions. Take those assumptions away, and one quickly realizes that we have a lot of pretty good options.

Let's parse the carbon policy argument, and think for a moment about how to best engender the most economically beneficial carbon reduction policy.

First, let's strike any false assumptions from our logic:

1. Let's not assume that it costs money to reduce carbon emissions until proven otherwise.
2. Let's not presume that any of us know what the answer is.

Take these away, and you can pretty quickly get a good model. Picture, if you will, a 2x2 matrix of all the world's policy options. On one axis we list things that reduce or increase carbon emissions. On the other, we list things that cause GDP to grow or shrink. The middle of the plot (0,0) is the status quo. No change in emissions, no change in the economy.

Clearly, we ought to preferentially deploy resources towards those options that win on both metrics. Equally clearly, we ought not to spend any time on options that lose on both metrics. And once we've picked up all the low-hanging fruit in that win/win box, we can start getting into really hard political debates about whether win/lose beats lose/win.

And yet ... and yet.

Orange You Glad We Didn’t Say Switchgrass?

Fruit may be the latest source for biofuel madness Could your kumquat power your Kia? A team of U.S. scientists has made a low-carbon fuel from fructose, the sugar in many fruits. It could be a better bet than ethanol, with 40 percent more energy, less vulnerability to water, and more stability; since it can […]

Turns out we don’t know how much there is

Yesterday, the National Academy of Sciences released a Congressionally mandated report on coal-related R&D challenges. Coal-state senators Arlen Specter (R-Penn.) and Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) requested a report on possible impediments to future coal production, and areas that need to be researched to keep the coal coming. Given that essentially coal-positive mandate, naturally NAS introduced the […]

An entire nation of sexy beasts

There is a large amount of literature discussing the "Resource Curse" (sometimes called the Oil Curse, but established before that for silver, gold, etc.), in which countries blessed with an abundance of a desirable resource often turn into kleptocracies ruled by thugs.

Oddly, countries like Japan and Taiwan, with few (if any) local resources, often soar because their cultures build in a premium on efficiency ...

It appears that Sweden -- while not as resource poor as many others, but certainly not as resource rich as most other developed nations -- enjoys the same advantage.

As my adviser used to say as we struggled with our designs, "Uh-oh, out of money -- time to think!"