Climate Politics

California sues Forest Service over road building, drilling plans

California sued the U.S. Forest Service this week, claiming that it violated federal environmental laws and ignored state policies prohibiting road building in roadless areas of national forests. At stake are over 500,000 acres in four national forests in the state that the Bush administration plans to open up to road building, as well as […]

VP hopeful Pawlenty fails energy/climate conservative litmus test

Just in case you thought conservatives might be warming up to climate action and clean energy with the impending nomination of John McCain, uber-conservative columnist Bob Novak explains otherwise in a column titled "How Not to Run for Vice President."

As a nonconservative, I know I can't do justice to Novak's "logic" by summarizing it, and I suspect many readers would think I was taking his argument out of context, since it seems so ... well ... judge for yourself. I'll just reprint most of it:

British PM prods retailers to reduce plastic-bag use, threatens fee

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is expected to propose rules within the next year aimed at reducing the ubiquity of single-use plastic bags in the United Kingdom. About 13 billion plastic bags are given out free to U.K. shoppers every year and many are only used once before getting thrown out; plastic bags can take […]

Hack Haynes heads for the hills

In a little-noticed story earlier this week, the Dept. of Defense announced that "General Counsel of the Department of Defense William J. Haynes II is returning to private life next month." Haynes is known for being one of the most hackish Bushistas in the DOD, author of one of the worst torture memos (PDF) of […]

U.S. forest official will not be jailed over fish-killing flame retardant

The U.S. Forest Service turned in a court-ordered environmental analysis of a fish-killing flame retardant 2 1/2 years late, and only after the agency’s top official was threatened with incarceration for contempt of court. But the USFS did ultimately conduct the environmental review of ammonium phosphate — which was dropped on an Oregon fire in […]

Two chapters from the book of coal

Chapter 1, courtesy of our friends at Greenwire ($ub req'd):

The coal industry is spending tens of millions of dollars to cement support among members of Congress and the top presidential candidates in an effort to fight critics of coal-fired power and is also appealing directly to the voters those politicians need.

Why, you ask?

Turn to Chapter 2, this time from The New York Times: "Stymied in their plans to build coal-burning power plants, American utilities are turning to natural gas to meet expected growth in demand ..."

Excepts from both are below the fold. Stay tuned for Chapter 3 ...

How smart climate policy can cut our energy costs

True confessions: I love weatherstripping. And programmable thermostats. And insulation -- all kinds. Oh, and efficient shower heads with "Navy shower" shut-off valves. And high-efficiency appliances. And waste-water heat recovery systems. You get the idea: I actually enjoy the process of making buildings more energy wise -- enjoy as in, "Yippee, it's Saturday! Where's my caulk gun?" So today's topic is especially near to my heart: the role in climate policy of low-income weatherization programs and related efficiency upgrades for working families.

A quick review: climate change is economically unfair by nature; it punishes those least to blame. Auctioned cap-and-trade can counteract this injustice. I've already written about two ways to seize this opportunity: distribute the money from the auction of carbon allowances as equal dividend checks to every citizen ("cap-and-share"), or make sure dividends get to low-income families who are hardest hit by rising energy prices ("cap-and-buffer").

A third option is to invest auction proceeds in energy efficiency in ways that specially benefit working families, by weatherizing homes, for example, or improving the efficiency of household appliances. (Let's call it "cap-and-caulk.")

Ralph Nader chooses running mate

Ralph Nader has chosen former San Francisco City Supervisor Matt Gonzalez as a running mate for his 2008 presidential bid. Gonzalez was elected as a San Francisco supervisor in 2000 — the first Green Party candidate to hold the job. In 2003, Gonzalez narrowly lost a bid for San Francisco mayor to Gavin Newsom, the […]

Suboleski withdraws; remaining Appalachian mountaintops breathe sigh of relief

A while back I noted that Bush had nominated one Stanley Suboleski for the position of assistant secretary for fossil energy at the DOE, where he would "oversee projects such as developing clean-coal technologies and carbon sequestration, and polices related to fossil fuels" — including FutureGen, which the dept. recently shitcanned. Suboleski is a long-time […]

Global warming solution studies overestimate costs, underestimate benefits

Dan Weiss, the Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, has written an excellent piece on why we can expect a series of flawed economic analyses of the Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) in the coming months:

Many of these studies will likely predict that the reductions of greenhouse gases required by the cap-and-trade system will lead to huge hikes in electric rates, reductions in jobs, and all sorts of other economic havoc.

But these studies also have one other common element: They will eventually be proven wrong once the program is underway.

These studies base their cost assumptions on existing technologies and practices, which means that they do not account for the vast potential for innovation once binding reductions and deadlines are set. The Lieberman Warner Climate Security Act anticipates the need for innovation and creates economic incentives to spur engineers and managers to devise technologies and methods to meet the greenhouse gas reduction requirements more cheaply.

This isn't the first time that pollution control studies have produced inaccurate predictions about the future. Remember what analysts predicted about acid rain controls from 1989 to 1990?

And the article continues on to review that history and then look at the important reports of McKinsey & Co and Nicholas Stern, which makes clear the cost of action is far, far lower than the cost of inaction.

If you're interested in the IPCC's take on this -- they explain why the literature is clear that action is not costly -- this post summarizes what they report.