Climate Politics

A new int’l org works toward a global carbon market, leaves U.S. federal gov’t out

Interesting. Across the transom comes news of a new treaty, the International Carbon Action Partnership, signed today by a collection of countries and U.S. states that have implemented carbon cap-and-trade systems. The idea is to share knowledge and work to standardize best practices in order to facilitate the growth of a global carbon market. From […]

Snappy comebacks for the climate do-nothing set who’s using China as an excuse

On a hot day this summer, Chinese President Hu Jintao and a group of state leaders appeared at a public function wearing short-sleeved shirts, rather than their normal business suits. According to the state press, the casual attire wasn't just a new fashion statement: China's top brass were leading by example, encouraging Chinese workers to dress in light clothing in order to reduce the use of air conditioners in office buildings.

Fashions do change. Outright denial of global warming is out of vogue. Instead, the climate change do-nothing set is sporting this season's new line: "Why should we bother trying to fight climate change when China won't do anything to reduce its emissions?" (Conservative communications consultant Frank Luntz even insists that the "'international fairness' issue is an emotional home run." Emotional home run? One might ask what a win looks like in his game?)

How to counter this flawed logic? Hu Jintao's climate-fighting wardrobe choices aside, here are three ways:

Will antiquated mining law’s reform export devastation?

Update [2007-10-28 9:18:56 by Erik Hoffner]: Looks like Jason and I were on the same page when we submitted our nearly identical posts on this the other day: his is below. I'll pare mine down to just this:

In part, the law's rewrite would raise taxes and fees to clean up an estimated 500,000 abandoned mines that leak cyanide, lead, mercury, etc., into watersheds. But the big question is whether this reform can survive the inevitable challenge from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid is from the hard rock mining state of Nevada, and is the son of a gold miner, but surely he can see that we need to stop giving away our natural resources, right?

The wrinkle, though, is encapsulated here in a Casper-Tribune article on the topic:

Edwards calls for moratorium on new industrial ag feedlots

I was going to ask why this didn’t get more play, but then I remembered I had forgotten to post on it for a week, so I guess I’m part of the problem. Anyway, Edwards apparently called for moratorium on new or expanded CAFOs. Is this not a big deal? As far as I know, […]

Major mining reform proposed

This editorial in Friday's NYT highlights some major new reforms being proposed that could finally begin to make U.S. mining policy more rational and in line with environmental goals. It is the first truly excellent piece of environmental legislation that this Congress has considered passing. While sponsored by a key Democratic senator, it may actually suffer defeat because of a Democrat, Harry Reid, majority leader, whose home state of Nevada is closely tied to the mining industry. This is one of those times when a call to your own senators and Mr. Reid himself (202-224-3542) would be worth the effort. Opportunities like this don't come around too often; in fact, this archaic law has been wreaking havoc since 1872.

One last rant from the Senate’s loopy streetcorner anti-prophet

Sen. James Inhofe has become something of an epic figure, worthy of contemplation by historians, playwrights, or perhaps psychoanalysts. The zeitgeist, which once seemed to rise up around him like a thundercloud, has now moved on, leaving him dripping and bedraggled, resorting to ever more unhinged grand gestures to try to recapture some of the […]

The Senate Ag Committee’s Farm Bill

No jaded observer will be surprised: The Senate Agriculture Committee yesterday released its version of the 2007 Farm Bill, leaving the subsidy mechanisms in the 2002 bill pretty well intact. I’m still trying to chase down details of the proposal, but here are a couple of tidbits. The big news is that the version contains […]

BP settles three federal investigations

Oil giant BP settled three federal investigations yesterday. Drumroll please … In regards to the 2005 Texas refinery explosion that killed 15 workers, BP will admit it is Beyond Guilty to felony charges of violating the Clean Air Act and not enforcing safety standards, and will pay a $50 million fine. In regards to last […]

Gore, partisanship, and climate change

A Gore conservatives could love? Photo: Eric Neitzel/WireImage. One of the stranger things I sometimes read about Al Gore is that because he is so partisan, because he turns off a certain bloc of the U.S. public, he is flawed as a leader on climate change. Surely the issue deserves a prophet that’s not so […]

U.S. blocks consensus at international global warming conference … 17 years ago

Does it seem to you like nothing ever changes in the world? Well, you're right, and now I have hard evidence. I was searching through the archive of Bob Park's What's New newsletter when I ran across this snippet, right above an update about the miracle of cold fusion:

At the World Climate Conference in Geneva this week, the United States blocked consensus on specific goals for reduction of carbon dioxide emission. As What's New predicted a month ago, the US sided with such backward nations as China and the Soviet Union, and oil producers like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Our traditional allies, Western European nations, Canada Japan, New Zealand and Australia, said they could cut emissions through energy efficiency measures at no net cost. A German study even concludes they can make money -- selling energy-saving technologies to backward countries like the US. John Knauss, the head of NOAA who led the US delegation, contended the revised Clean Air Act would lead to significant CO2 reductions, but a recent estimate from EPA put the reduction at only about 2%.

The date of the newsletter: November 9, 1990. Seems like it could have been yesterday. Or tomorrow.

P.S. You should subscribe to Bob's newsletter. It's required reading for those who are interested in the politics of science.