Libertarians seem oddly silent on the subject of subsidies that benefit the oil and gas industries.

Warning: This post is just as wonky and boring as the title makes it sound.

This essay by Jerry Taylor and Peter VanDoren of the Cato Institute perfectly captures a real confusion I have about libertarians.

They discuss the two versions of the energy bill -- House and Senate -- and say pretty much what you'd expect libertarians to say: Every provision that has government giving money to a market actor, taking money from a market actor, or restricting the behavior of a market actor is bad, bad, bad.

Okay, fine. But what's the motivation?

Here are the two possible versions of libertarianism:

Appeals court rules EPA doesn’t have to regulate CO2 emissions from cars

It’s a simple but powerful question: Does the U.S. EPA have the power — and the obligation — to regulate...

Get your (hybrid) motor runnin’

The New York Times reports this morning on the 2005 Honda Accord Hybrid. Two points of note:

• The Times cites Consumer Reports, which found actual on-the-road efficiency to be just 25 mpg for the Accord hybrid.

  The E.P.A. figures show a larger benefit for the hybrid, but the agency's fuel economy figures are considered by many to be inaccurate because they do not reflect the way cars are actually driven.

  The EPA figures are 29/37 mpg city/highway for an automatic transmission Accord hybrid. That's about a 15 percent jump in fuel efficiency if you drive like the EPA thinks you should. There are a number of habits many people have that needlessly hamper fuel efficiency (flooring it from light to light is an egregious example). Installing an mpg meter in your car lets you know when you are getting the best mileage and what behaviors detract from optimal fuel efficiency, rewarding the driver with flashing lights and colors, to which the human brain seems to respond.
• One hybrid owner was quoted as saying:

  I wasn't prepared to give up anything to 'go green' - not performance, amenities, or space.

  Maybe it's because I just read Suburban Nation, but this sounds similar to the concept of "induced traffic." The idea there is that building more roads or lanes on a highway, rather than easing and speeding traffic flow, leads to more traffic: Drivers will flock to the faster-moving roads until they become just as congested as before.

  In the same way, making cars more efficient, rather than leading people to buy new cars with similar performance but higher gas mileage, could lead people to buy new cars with higher performance but similar gas mileage. So the end result will be the same overall level of fuel use, but roads packed with high performance cars. If the quoted driver is indicative of public sentiment, new hybrids could have a neutral environmental impact at best.

New Mexico Sen. Jeff Bingaman chats about global warming and the heated climate around the energy bi

He may hail from an energy state out West, and he may be a soft-spoken moderate, but Jeff Bingaman, Democratic...

Car-sharing starts to take off.

Here's a bit of interesting news on car sharing companies, which, according to The New York Times, are catching on a bit in Europe. The most salient bit:

Studies suggest that one shared car replaces 4 to 10 private cars, as people sell their old vehicles...The result is a 30 to 45 percent reduction in vehicle miles traveled for each new customer.

Now, 30 to 45 percent is a pretty sizeable decline in driving. But this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise; as any economist would predict, converting a fixed cost (e.g., the cost of buying the car) to a variable cost (e.g., the cost of renting a shared car, which for Seattle Flexcars costs up to $9 per hour) makes people far more selective about how much they drive. And that probably saves car-sharers money overall: Yes, they pay more for each trip, but they make fewer trips, and also avoid much of the expense of purchasing and maintaining a car for personal use.

Sundance getaway converts mayors into climate activists

Salt Lake City played host to mayors getting up to speed on climate issues. City leaders from around the U.S....

French constitution gets a dash of green

A landmark achievement. Photo: David Roussel “vecko.” Ahhh, the French. Toujours inexplicable. They chain smoke. They drink enough espresso before...

Necessary evil, or just evil?

The other day Clark expressed some ambivalence about cost-benefit analyses in the realm of environmental policy.

It so happens Dan Phaneuf at the Environmental Economics blog has some thoughts on that very matter.

For my part, I think Phaneuf -- whose comments are generally quite sensible -- underplays the risks of CBA. He acknowledges:

Or, try a lab burger.

Several Gristmillians, myself included, believe that going veg is one of many ways to help prevent climate change. That belief is now supported by British scientist Alan Calverd, who wrote in the journal Physics World that "carbon emissions could be slashed by an incredible 21% overnight if we all stopped eating meat" (via edie news centre).

Can't kick the animal flesh habit? Then maybe you want to look into lab burgers -- that is animal tissue engineered in a laboratory:

Writing in the journal Tissue Engineering, Matheny said scientists could grow cells from the muscle tissue of cattle, pigs, poultry or fish in large flat sheets on thin membranes. These sheets of cells would be grown and stretched, then removed from the membranes and stacked to increase thickness and resemble meat.

Using another method, scientists could grow muscle cells on small three-dimensional beads that stretch with small changes in temperature. The resulting tissue could be used to make processed meat such as chicken nuggets or hamburgers.

Sounds appetizing doesn't it? I'll stick with good ol' plant-based foods thank you.