Climate Politics

Trading efficiency for inevitability

This is the third in a series; see parts one and two. To briefly recap: Simplicity, efficiency, and political buy-in are important elements of climate policy, but if you want the first, you can only get one of the other two. Peter Barnes’ cap-and-dividend proposal gets simplicity and political buy-in; Sean Casten’s output-based standards get […]

Bush’s energy/food strategy unsurprisingly underwhelming

Bush had a press conference yesterday morning to blame Congress for soaring energy and food prices: "Unfortunately, on many of these issues, all [Americans] are getting is delay."

What does non-delayer Bush propose? Well, of course, new technology -- what else is new old? Heck, he even said the long-term answer was hydrogen. (Not!)

Oh, but he did offer some "short-term" solutions. His answer to rising electricity prices: Nukes!

America is ill equipped to handle expensive oil

The Times‘ Jad Mouawad has written a piece describing the state of the world’s oil market. It is, in a word, tight. Production volumes have been flat at best, and consumption growth has continued. Kevin Drum comments: I imagine that a global economic slowdown will flatten oil consumption a bit over the next year or […]

Nonsensical nuggets from the prez’s press conference

George W. Bush -- dark green? I kid you not. Here's what he said in his press conference today:

One thing I think that would be -- I know would be very creative policy is if we -- is if we would buy food from local farmers as a way to help deal with scarcity, but also as a way to put in place an infrastructure so that nations can be self-sustaining and self-supporting. It's a proposal I put forth that Congress hasn't responded to yet, and I sincerely hope they do.

I have no idea what he's talking about -- what proposal did he put forward to Congress about local food? But I'm sure the 100-Mile Diet folks are on the phone with the White House right now.

What's next for Bush -- composting?

The fight over coal heads to a climax in Kansas

The fight over coal in Kansas is headed to a climactic battle on Wednesday, when the legislature gathers to finish its session. Twice it has sent bills to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius that would allow two blocked dirty coal plants to move forward; twice she has vetoed. The game on Wed. is for pro-coal legislators to […]

President Bush stumps for ANWR drilling and dirty-energy expansion

In a speech Tuesday, President Bush aimed to pacify Americans’ concerns about skyrocketing fuel and food prices with the assurance that it’s all Congress’ fault. Bush advocated tackling energy prices by throwing environmental protection to the winds (in not quite those words), urging Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling and […]

Bush, Big Oil offer more of the same

Yesterday, David noted comments by an oil analyst who predicted $200 oil by 2012.

Today, that analyst was joined in his prediction by none other than the chief of OPEC, Chakib Khelil (who's also Algeria's energy minister). Mr. Khelil's comments were not date-specific, though this article leads me to believe he was thinking $200 oil could come much sooner than 2012.

Meanwhile, we saw more of the same from both President Bush and Big Oil.

EPA chemical-review process sucks, says GAO

U.S. EPA reviews of the health risks posed by ubiquitous chemicals are hampered by extensive nonscientist involvement, says a report from the Government Accountability Office. The EPA review process, rejiggered by the White House in 2004, is cloaked in secrecy, causes years of delay, and has lost credibility, the GAO says. The Defense Department, Energy […]

New Senate alternatives to L-W would take climate policy backwards — way backwards

George Voinovich. There’s an important story in yesterday’s edition of E&E (as always, $ub. req’d) about two alternatives to Lieberman-Warner that have recently been floated in the Senate. One comes from Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) and the other — not so much a bill as a “set of principles” — from a coalition of the […]

Lieberman Warner criticism, Part 3

This is the third in a five-part series exploring the details of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. See also part 1 and part 2.

Let's do a thought experiment. Imagine that tomorrow morning, you wake up, reach in your pocket, and find that you suddenly have billions of dollars of cash. Before you have a moment to celebrate, you also realize that you are lying in the middle of an interstate, and there is a big truck coming. What do you do?

(a) Issue an RFP for research, development, and deployment of technologies that will help you get off the highway;

(b) Issue an RFP for research, development, and deployment of crash-retardant pajamas;

(c) Invest in wildlife conservation measures to protect the flora and fauna on the side of the highway that are about to be covered in blood, guts, and twisted metal;

(d) Set aside money for truck driver grief counseling, or;

(e) All of the above.

If you chose (e), read no farther. You have identified yourself as a person who thinks that the Lieberman-Warner approach to greenhouse-gas reduction is perfection incarnate. If, on the other hand, you think that there was a fairly important idea not even listed amongst the options above (hint: it has to do with getting your butt off the highway and/or stopping the truck), then you understand the flaws innate to the Lieberman-Warner approach.

(And if you chose a, b, c, or d ... you're one odd duck. But at least you've signaled your self-interest in high-tech solutions to simple problems!)