Climate Climate & Energy

Rebranding “global warming”

As reported in the most recent Daily Grist, a New York-based marketing firm announced that it will help with the rebranding of global warming. As we're all armchair marketers from time-to-time, how would you rebrand "global warming"?

Share your thoughts in comments and we'll send them to the experts.

Oiling for a Flight

The top 10 best places to live during an oil crisis Pack yer bags, kids — there’s an oil crisis coming and we’re moving to the Big Apple! Eco-website SustainLane has come up with a list of the 10 U.S. cities best able to weather an oil crisis, and New Yawk is number one. The […]

The Biggest Loser

Feds to lose at least $20 billion in oil-company royalties, report finds Remember that outrageous story about how oil companies are going to gank U.S. taxpayers out of some $7 billion in royalties for drilling in the Gulf of Mexico? Well, time to crank up the outrage-o-meter: Turns out, based on a new report from […]

Labor Rattling

Britain will likely miss target for slashing greenhouse-gas emissions For years, Tony Blair and his Labor Party have waved the climate-change flag, proclaiming danger and pledging to reduce Britain’s greenhouse-gas emissions 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2010. All very inspiring, except for the whole not-actually-doing-it thing. Yesterday, after an 18-month climate-change policy review, Environment […]

Oil in the Grand Canyon

A Russian company called Dosko pushing to drill for oil in the Grand Canyon? Find out the details.

Peak oil, coal, and bizarre optimism

So last week Salon ran a big story on peak oil by Katharine Mieszkowski. It was decent, though focused a bit too much on the loony fringes. I guess the temptation to do that is irresistible when trying to make a long story about the Hubbert Curve and Venezuelan oil reserves compelling.

In response, John Quiggen (at the usually excellent Crooked Timber group blog) wrote a response I can only characterize as bizarre. But the comments under the post don't treat it as bizarre. And Ezra Klein linked to it as though it proved something, and then ladled more bizarritude on top. So either these guys -- who I regard as considerably smarter than yours truly -- are missing something, or I am. Let's take a tour.

Quiggen's point, briefly, is this: Peak oilers falsely exaggerate the problem by conflating oil with fossil fuels generally, implying that running out of the former means running out of the latter. But there's actually tons and tons of coal left, and it wouldn't be too hard to do what we do with oil with coal instead. So, you know, global warming's a problem, but running out of oil isn't.

I think that's a fair summary. And I think it's nuts.

What’s really disturbing about the new coal-fired ethanol plants.

David's post about ethanol and coal inspired me to do a bit of research on just how much coal goes into producing G.W. Bush's favorite "renewable," "clean-burning" fuel source.

What I found is ... disturbing.

Bait and Switchgrass

New coal-powered ethanol plant a sign of things to come Greens leery about jumping on the biofuels bandwagon have new reason for trepidation: An ethanol plant that opened last December in Iowa is burning 300 tons of coal a day to transform corn into ethanol … in order to beat global warming. Mmm, taste the […]

Umbra on measuring ocean temperatures

Dear Umbra, I’ve been hearing about rising ocean temperatures more and more. My question is, what are the criteria for measuring the temperature of the ocean? Wouldn’t probe location, probe depth, water depth, prevailing current, time of day, and ambient temperature all potentially affect the result? Have the criteria remained constant for the recorded history? […]

TIME cover story on global warming

The cover story of this week's TIME magazine is on global warming. The title: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." I agree with Chris that this is a huge deal, and further evidence that the issue of global warming is nearing a tipping point in public consciousness. The Battle of the Skeptics is over. They lost. Now talk will turn in earnest to what we can do about it.

Unfortunately, I can't read the whole story because I'm not a TIME subscriber. (Any intrepid Gristmill reader out there want to send me a copy?) It's also at the top of CNN.com right now, though, and they've got a short summary.

There's also a TIME/ABC poll on attitudes toward global warming, which reveals the same old grab bag of muddled opinions. Take this:

Almost half (49%) say the issue of global warming is "extremely important" or "very important" to them personally, up from 31% in 1998. When asked about the causes of rise in the world’s temperatures, 31% feel it is caused by the things people do, 19% feel it is due mostly to natural causes, and 49% feel it is a combination of the two. Almost seven-in-ten (68%) Americans think the government should do more to address global warming, according to the poll; however, 64% think scientists disagree with one another about global warming.

As I said here, what these kinds of polls reveal more than anything is that public opinion on this subject is amorphous and fluid. It is open to persuasion, ready to be shaped by strong leadership. More than anything, that's what this country is crying out for right now: strong national leadership.