Subsidize this!

In a recent post on the four shifts in public policy that would have the greatest positive impact on the environment, number one was the elimination of natural resource subsidies. Every year, when I cover these subsidies in my environmental economics class, it amazes me that societies around the world continue to tolerate such vast abuses and wastes of money. They do so primarily because most people don't know about them (to educate yourself check here [PDF] and here), which is why I have decided to begin a campaign to lobby for their elimination.

Talking point: Global warming and economic growth

Many people in positions of power -- and not just global warming skeptics -- believe the following two things:

1. Economic growth is an engine driven by fossil fuels. Remove all restrictions on fossil fuel use, growth surges. Restrict fossil fuel use, growth slows.
2. "Doing something about global warming" means restricting or capping carbon dioxide emissions, which means restricting fossil fuel use.

The inevitable conclusion is that the only way to fight global warming is to slow down and possibly cripple the economy. Thus you get calls for "certainty" about exactly how much damage global warming will do, so it can be weighed against the damage of mitigating global warming.

This picture of the situation is grossly distorted. Here's why, in a nutshell:

Picking the right horse

Michael G. Richard goes through the relevant chapter of Tim Flannery's The Weather Makers and pulls out a series of points and arguments that add up to this: carbon sequestration is unlikely to play a major role in our fight against global warming. (I basically agree -- see this post.) Give it a read.

I have just one quibble. Richard says:

As a society civilization species, we must back the right horse and stop being misled by the coal industry's delaying tactics. There's a big opportunity cost in time and resources to going down the wrong path.

I would question the notion that we need to "pick the right horse."

Good idea

Making biodiesel from used restaurant grease and other waste products is a good idea. This article shows us how a large city is managing to turn waste into useful energy. They have convinced about 130 restaurants to donate their grease to the cause:

Restaurant owner Mike Dormont says that he could earn a few dollars per month selling the grease to recyclers for uses other than biodiesel fuel, but that he would rather do something that benefits the area.

Gregg Small, director of the Washington Toxics Coalition, answers questions

Gregg Small. What’s your job title? Executive director of the Washington Toxics Coalition. What does your organization do? WTC works...

Beanies and the jets

Get out your propeller beanies, folks. I'm going into full-on geek mode.

On Monday I mentioned that -- despite my family's best efforts to cut back on our CO2 emissions by reducing how much we fly -- the world has conspired to defeat us. Sure, we're flying less, but the rest of our extended family is flying more as a consequence.

One commenter asked if I shouldn't forget all the personal sacrifice folderol, and just work to convince Boeing to build more efficient planes.

Oh, if only it were so easy ...

Orrin H. Pilkey, shoreline expert, answers questions

Orrin Pilkey. What work do you do? I am a retired professor in the Nicholas School of the Environment at...

Is Monsanto playing fast and loose with Roundup Ready Soybeans in Argentina?

Crying not for Argentina but for lost patent fees, Monsanto’s legal hacks are in European courts suing to block millions...

So much for the greening

One of the principle claims of the Greening Earth Society -- an astroturf organization fronting for the Western Fuels Association, which is itself fronting for Big Coal -- is that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is going to increase global agricultural yields (thus the "greening"). A new study in Science casts serious doubt on this notion:

Long told SciDev.Net that the new results suggest that "the damaging effects of rising temperature and decreased soil moisture will not be offset by the fertilisation effect of rising CO2".