Climate Politics

Self-proclaimed conservatives often simply just like different outcomes

Michigan has an important case up before a state Supreme Court known for two things: Making radical revisions to laws the Republican majority dislikes, and proclaiming its strict textualism in interpreting the law.

In the case before the Supreme Court, attorneys for Nestle Waters North America have argued in opposition to citizens' rights under [the Michigan Environmental Protection Act], saying that citizens must be "directly affected" by an environmental action to go to court over it. That means only people who can show pollution, impairment or destruction of natural resources on their own property could take action under MEPA. Nestle, which wants to continue pumping water from a large Michigan wetland for bottling and sale, mostly outside the state, is being challenged under MEPA by a group called Michigan Citizens for Water Conservation.

The House of Reps leads the way to a greener capitol

The Hill’s alive with the sound of greening. Or at least, it should be, as soon as our representatives start following through with their “Green the Capitol” initiative, the final report on which was released yesterday in Washington, D.C. The report is the result of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s call for an energy […]

Johnson Stiffens Smog Rules

Current U.S. ground-level ozone standard deemed insufficient Smoggy air could get cleaner if a new U.S. EPA standard passes muster. Agency head Stephen Johnson has proposed lowering the allowable amount of ground-level ozone from 80 to 84 parts per billion to 70 to 75 ppb, since “the current standard is insufficient to protect public health.” […]

Be Still Our Beating Hearts

Senate-approved energy bill calls for fuel-economy increase First, the good news: the U.S. Senate has passed an energy bill containing the first significant fuel-economy increase in years. The bill requires cars and light trucks to get an average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, up from the current 22.2 mpg for light trucks and […]

One small step forward, one step, uh, sideways

You may have heard that today the Senate reached a compromise on CAFE: they will keep the 35mpg-by-2020 requirement, but drop the 4%-every-year-thereafter requirement. The loophole for SUVs will be closed. (Bizarrely, newly minted environmentalist Ted Stevens [R-Alaska] was instrumental in keeping the amendment alive.) This is good news, in a symbolic sort of way […]

Salt Lake City might jump in for another term

It’s no secret that we have something of a organization-wide crush on crusading Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson. As he mentioned in our interview, his plan has been to leave politics and move into advocacy behind environmental and human rights causes. But it looks like he might be reconsidering. You see, the slate of […]

It’s about more than money

It's official. China is now the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases.

Having spent much of this spring reporting in China, I'd like to second just about everything David said yesterday on the topic. But I have one ginormous point to add.

It's not just money that's needed. Yes, it'd be a good thing if Hill folks stopped bashing technology-exchange programs as lending an "unfair competitive advantage." And yes, let's stop painting China as the international bad guy. It ain't helpful, especially when the Chinese can rightly point out that Americans and Europeans are still, per capita, the world's energy hogs.

But the really troubling thing is that, even when Beijing is trying to do the right thing -- and they have some surprisingly progressive energy targets on the books -- the government often can't enforce its own edicts. Wonks call this a "rule of law" problem. By Beijing's own estimates, one-fifth of power plants operate illegally, dodging the government's own environmental regulations and best intentions.

I don't mean to sound hopeless. I'm actually hopeful about some of the broader changes underway in China that might make solutions more workable. (Sorry to be elliptical; I write about this in an upcoming Washington Monthly article, but, jiminycrickets, I don't have an online link yet.)

In the meantime, yep, the West should take some responsibility for helping China, India, and Africa avoid the worst of the worst on global warming. If not for their sake, then for ours.

Dirty energy lobbyists are out in force

Argh: Senate Democrats yesterday were scrambling to prevent the sweeping energy overhaul bill, a top domestic priority, from crumbling amid growing regional divisions within their party and Republican concerns. “The moment of truth on this energy bill is coming very shortly,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said. Also, argh: Three powerful lobbying forces — automakers, electric […]

The chair of the Select Committee on Global Warming weighs in

Congress is about to confront the challenge of coal, and much of what we hope to do to reduce the threat of global warming hinges on these decisions.

There's a useful test to use whenever the challenges of fossil fuel dependence and global warming come up: We must reduce the threat of global warming without worsening our dependence on foreign oil; and we must reduce the threat of oil dependence without worsening global warming.

When it comes to coal, it's that second part of the equation that brings up some sticky issues.

Coal has been a big part of our energy mix, providing the majority of our electricity since the invention of the electric light. It has been a principal source of energy since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution -- a revolution that provided the basis for our economic prosperity, but also produced exponential pollution growth that was the genesis of the global warming issues we face today.

Now is the time for a new Green Revolution. We must combine the economic reforms of a new industrial revolution based on clean energy development with the moral imperative to protect the planet.

But where does that leave coal? Can our reliance on these carbon-packed nuggets of energy survive while we try to ensure the planet survives as well?

Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge … must … jump …

The most powerful force in nature isn't the nuclear force, or anything wimpy like that; it's the force of a bad idea whose moment has arrived.

Whenever I wanted to do something stupid and argued that my friends had done it, Mom would always say, "If Johnny jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge, would you do that too?"

From The Oregonian: