Climate Politics

Offshore drilling likely to raise some voter ire in Florida

John McCain’s call this week for an end to the moratorium on offshore drilling isn’t faring well with environmentalists across the country. In one key state, however, it might really come back to bite him come November. Florida — yes, land of dangling chads and nearly-won elections — may well prove to be the place […]

Nature publishes my climate analysis and solution

Here is perhaps my most succinct and citable explanation of why "Both national and global climate policy (PDF) must redirect its focus from setting a price on carbon to promoting the rapid deployment of clean technologies" (online here).

True, I didn't think I would appear in Nature again. But Nature online asked me for my critique of the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner Bill bill, and they were open to a big-picture commentary based on the latest climate science. They even ran with a modified version of my proposed wedges solution (see below, longer version here). The central conclusion of the paper is the major theme of my work:

The latest science suggests that national and global climate policy is seriously misdirected. We must aim at achieving average annual carbon dioxide emissions of less than 5 GtC [5 billion metric tons of carbon] this century or risk the catastrophe of reaching atmospheric concentrations of 1,000 p.p.m. A carbon price set by a cap-and-trade system is a useful component of a longer-term climate strategy. Implementing such a system, however, is secondary to adopting a national and global strategy to stop building new traditional coal-fired plants while starting to deploy existing and near-term low-carbon technologies as fast as is humanly possible.

What are the "series of aggressive strategies for technology deployment" we need?

... tax credits, loan guarantees or other incentives for low-carbon technology, demonstration projects of technologies such as carbon capture and storage, a standard for electricity generation involving renewable or low-carbon options, a low-carbon fuel standard, tougher standards for fuel economy and appliances, and utility regulations that create a profit for investments in efficiency. These are all features of the climate plan of the Democratic presidential nominee, Barack Obama (PDF), but are not part of the announced climate strategy of Republican presidential nominee John McCain, whose plan starts by allowing unlimited offsets.

I am especially delighted that they created a figure for me of the wedges (click for larger version):

Conservative arguments to the contrary are intellectually bankrupt

Originally posted at the NDN blog.

Of the various false solutions being proposed to the current oil shock perhaps none is more disingenous than the idea that it can be solved by drilling in the Alaskan wilderness and along the Outer Continental Shelf. This is the idea that the right wing media, recently John McCain, and now President Bush have been pushing as a cure-all for soaring oil prices. Since many Democrats oppose this drilling, the next false logical step is to say Democrats are to blame. This was the thrust of President Bush's energy proposal yesterday, one that only highlights the intellectual dishonesty and partisanship of this failed administration.

Is more drilling the answer? No, for three reasons.

Rasmussen poll biased on offshore drilling

Rasmussen Reports did a poll that they tout as showing "67 percent Support Offshore Drilling."

Given the biased way they did the poll (details here), I'm surprised the number was so low.

The first question they asked: "How concerned are you about rising gas and energy prices?"

Pretty much everybody is concerned. Duh. But in a flawed poll, almost a push poll, the point of the first question is to get people thinking about about the pain of gasoline prices, rather than, say, the coastal environment or global warming.

Second question: "In order to reduce the price of gas, should drilling be allowed in offshore oil wells off the coasts of California, Florida, and other states?"

I kid you not. That was the question. And Rasmussen is supposedly a serious polling firm. I'm just surprised that only 67 percent answered that loaded question "yes."

McCain says he’s willing to ‘examine’ his stance against drilling in ANWR

The News-Leader in Springfield, Mo. has more on McCain’s energy policy roundtable yesterday. Seems he also indicated that he’s open to reconsidering his stance on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, which he has consistently opposed in the past. “I would be more than happy to examine it again,” McCain told the crowd. Guess […]

Conservative heads increasingly buried in sand

Andrew Sullivan reads this Jim Manzi post (Conservatives are going to win on climate change! By doing nothing!) and says he’s on board. He then proceeds to blow my freaking mind: The key will be private and public innovation of non-carbon energy, and possibly carbon capture technology. Frankly, however painful it is for many, the […]

Major news network exposes McCain’s energy contradictions

Does not compute: Only thing is, they keep saying, “this shows how tricky it is for McCain.” What it also shows, one might think, is that McCain is willing to lie and change his positions willy nilly. They used to call Democrats people “flip-floppers” and “serial exaggerators” for that sort of thing. With McCain, it’s […]

The 350ppm challenge to U.S. environmental organizations and the importance of McKibben’s 350.org

Bill McKibben spoke about 350.org recently at the Jamaica Plain Forum. Coming on the heels of recent talks by Ross Gelbspan, also at the JP Forum, and Jim Hansen, in Lexington, Mass., Bill's talk completed a trifecta of area appearances by climate action patriots.

My friend Andrée, who attended all three events, said: "Hansen has the reserve of a scientist, and the certainty of someone who knows he is right. McKibben is just like his writing -- philosophical, wry and funny, and Gelbspan ..." she paused ... "Gelbspan is a mensch."

Like McKibben himself, 350.org may be tagged as too expansive, missing a sharp political point. I agree with Lorna Salzman's concerns, but I do not think 350.org can or should try to be all things.

McKibben and the Step It Up crew have set out a tremendous undertaking, trying to do in very short order what U.S. environmental organizations and funders -- with thousands of staff, millions of members, a billion+ in assets, and decades of lead time -- never attempted. Those who believe it is high time we turn our institution to the purpose for which is was created have a great deal of heavy lifting to do, and those efforts will be strengthened by 350.org, for these reasons:

Draft copy of EPA rulemaking on fuel efficiency suggests higher standards are possible

Earlier this week, the Wall Street Journal teased that they’d gotten ahold of an advance draft of the EPA’s regulatory proposals for automobile fuel efficiency. According to the WSJ, EPA staffers found that cars and trucks could be even more fuel-efficient by 2020 than the 35 miles per gallon required by the latest update to […]

Ontario enacts province-wide pesticide ban; fine print upsets greens

The Canadian province of Ontario has just passed a pesticide ban that by next spring would prohibit the use of more than 80 ingredients and 300 pesticide products across the province. However, many greens and public-health advocates have decried the just-passed legislation, saying it could ultimately end up damaging public health. The major problem with […]