Bush administration quietly acknowledges climate plan is doable

Hey, did you notice that new analysis the Environmental Protection Agency just put out? The one on the economic impacts of the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act? No? None of this ringing a bell?

That's just the way the EPA wants it. Like it was putting a scandal-ridden aide out to pasture, the administration quietly released the report on Friday afternoon and has tried to bury the important findings.

But while the release may have been stealthy and the presentation was marked by the White House's typical efforts to make everything look bleak, the results speak loudly, showing we can both tackle global warming and grow America's economy.

Ted Glick on two new books that address capitalism and the environment

I don't know if Gus Speth and Tony Mazzocchi knew each other personally. But as two fascinating books make clear, their distinct life experiences led them both to believe that the capitalist system which now dominates most of the world is the ultimate problem humanity must face up to and deal with if we are to survive.

A few thoughts for environmentalists

As the week's news can attest, the current financial system is in pretty bad shape; we're not at complete meltdown, but it's pretty scary. Here are a few thoughts for the environmental community (aside from the general concern we should all share as citizens):

State govs embrace the range of ‘alternative fuels,’ from nukes to clean coal to biofuels

The National Governors Association has linked up with “a team of Wal-Mart energy experts” to “green the capitols.” That’s fantastic...

We can’t wait for new nukes, so what do we do now?

Suppose the leaders of this country were wise enough to put a moratorium on traditional coal (the most urgent climate policy needed, as discussed here)? How will we meet our steadily growing demand for carbon-free power over the next decade? And to get on the 450 ppm path, we don't just need to stop U.S. emissions from rising -- we should return to 1990 levels (or lower) by 2020.

Nuclear

Nuclear is an obvious possibility, beloved of conservative Francophiles like McCain and Gingrich, but energy realists understand that it is very unlikely new nuclear plants could deliver many kilowatt-hours of electricity by 2018, let alone affordable kwh. Indeed, back in August, Tulsa World reported:

American Electric Power Co. isn't planning to build any new nuclear power plants because delays will push operational starts to 2020, CEO Michael Morris said Tuesday ...

Builders would also have to queue for certain parts and face "realistic" costs of about $4,000 a kilowatt, he said ...

"I'm not convinced we'll see a new nuclear station before probably the 2020 timeline," Morris said.

And that in spite of the amazing subsidies and huge loan guarantees for nuclear power in the 2005 energy bill (see here).

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...

A tasting of seven organic beers

Can’t get enough of that frothy stuff. Photo: iStockphoto Why is beer so good? The question has perplexed humanity since...

Lessons the United States can learn from the drought in Australia

The brutal drought has ended over large parts of Australia -- and consumers are obsessively reducing their demand for water -- and yet water "prices are set to double in the next five to 10 years," Water Services Association Australia executive officer Ross Young told a drought briefing in Canberra.

The focus on water conservation has never been higher:

Water is a dinner table topic. People are quite passionate about water and they are quite concerned about water in the context of climate change.

And the results are impressive:

In Arkansas, state ag officials turn to Syngenta to solve problems caused by Monsanto

In the late 1990s, farmers in the Southeast began planting Roundup Ready cotton — genetically engineered by Monsanto to withstand...