Author: Grist – the Latest from Grist

  • U.S. government to cut greenhouse emissions by 28 percent

    by Agence France-Presse

    WASHINGTON—The White House announced Friday that President Obama would order the federal government to reduce its greenhouse-gas pollution by 28 percent by 2020.

    “As the largest energy consumer in the United States, we have a responsibility to American citizens to reduce our energy use and become more efficient,” Obama said in a statement. “Our goal is to lower costs, reduce pollution, and shift federal energy expenses away from oil and toward local, clean energy.”

    Government departments and agencies will achieve greenhouse-gas pollution cuts by measuring current energy and fuel use, becoming more energy efficient, and shifting to clean energy sources like solar, wind, and geothermal.

    The U.S. government is the most energy-thirsty component of the U.S. economy and spent more than $24.5 billion on electricity and fuel in 2008 alone, the White House said.

    The new pollution targets will cut government energy use by the equivalent of 646 trillion BTUs, equal to 205 million barrels of oil or taking 17 million cars off the road for a year. This is also equivalent to a cumulative total of 8 to 11 billion in avoided energy costs through 2020, according to the White House.

    Obama issued an executive order in October requiring agencies to set 2020 targets and to increase energy efficiency, cut gasoline consumption by official vehicles, and to save water and reduce waste, in moves which he said would save money and help cleanse the environment.

    He has argued that cutting greenhouse-gas emissions and framing a sustainable green economy is vital not just to protect the planet, but also to future U.S. economic prosperity.

    Several pieces of legislation backed by his administration—including the mammoth $787 billion economic stimulus package—provide incentives for governments and private firms to build a green economy.

    Related Links:

    Obama talks about ‘clean coal’ and solar during YouTube Q&A

    Climate accord gets boost, but key elements still missing

    Digging into Obama’s 2011 budget on energy and the environment






  • Ask Umbra’s pearls of wisdom on apartment dwelling

    by Umbra Fisk

    Dearest readers,

    Sometimes when I’m down in the stacks researching answers to
    your latest dilemmas, I enjoy taking a stroll down Ask Umbra archives lane. Here
    are some shiny tidbits I culled from my past advice on making the most of
    renting a small urban abode. Have any of your own sustainable apartment living tips
    or stories? Let me know in the comments section below or shoot me an email.

    Go with
    the low-flow.

    Even if your landlord isn’t up for
    investing in low-flow toilets, you can still adapt your toilet to reduce the
    amount of water used when flushing by putting a device in the tank to displace
    some of the water (something as simple as a milk jug filled with pebbles) or
    investing a few bucks in a toilet
    fill cycle diverter
    or an adaptor like the Frugal
    Flush Flapper
    . Get the full
    Ask Umbra answer
    .

    Veg out
    at home.

    No need for a yard—shrink your food’s
    carbon footprint by growing some of your own in a small window garden (you can make one yourself with items from a local
    hardware store). Peppers, parsley, cherry tomatoes, and basil, for example, can
    all flourish in the confines of an indoor garden. Get
    the full Ask Umbra answer
    .

    Compost
    with the most.

    Put some red wigglers to work on your food
    scraps with a worm bin, a good option for composting in a snug, yard-free
    living situation. You can buy ready-made bins, or if you’re feeling in the mood
    for some DIY, check out Seattle Tilth’s Worm
    Bin Plans
    . Get
    the full Ask Umbra answer
    .

    Run low
    on energy.

    As a renter, you don’t get to make the
    long-term, expensive investments toward better energy efficiency, but some
    simple modifications can reduce your bill. Run your dishwasher only when full,
    and skip the “heated dry” option. And opt for an ample comforter on your bed,
    so the thermostat can be turned down as low as possible at night. Get the full Ask Umbra
    answer
    .

    Get pests
    to bug off naturally.

    Take a pesticide-free approach to unwelcome
    cockroaches with catnip, a natural repellent, or a simple trap with beer or
    bread as bait in a wide-mouth glass jar. If you’re not opposed to offing the
    roaches, boric acid and silica gel are two nontoxic solutions. Get the full Ask Umbra answer.

    Rentally,
    Umbra

    Related Links:

    Ask Umbra’s video advice on making your own club soda

    Turning down the heat caused by meat with Peter Singer

    Ask Umbra on toilet paper, dryer balls, and Twitter






  • Green celebs bring sexy back to Senate politics

    by Ashley Braun

    The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) is taking a page out of David Roberts’ book by railing on the U.S. Senate to pass the clean energy jobs bill in this celebri-full video. It formally launches a new video advocacy campaign called This is Our Moment, which is banking on the pure pop-sexiness of stars like Chace Crawford to push the populace toward climate politickin’. They even get Chace to gossip to girls and guys about the senators saying “there’s still time to sit on our ass and wait.” At the same time, Jason Bateman scolds senators for the arrested development of the bill: “If our senators stand up (use a cane if you need to, sir).”

    That’s nothing to say of the titanic encouragement from Leonardo DiCaprio, the desperate-for-change call from Felicity Huffman, the clean-energy-Macking of Justin Long, and the hulking green efforts of Ed Norton, among others, in this video.

    The stellar call to action asks viewers to create and upload their own video—right this red-hot minute—as well as email their senators directly from the video player in favor of a clean and independent energy economy.

    Related Links:

    Michael Pollan sets Food Rules on Oprah

    Climate groups grapple for a path forward from Copenhagen

    Upping the ante on climate






  • The Climate Post: The documents … they are … Alive! Alive!

    by Eric Roston

    First things first: With the electorate
    angry and frustrated, President Obama delivered a State of the Union
    address last night that articulated his goals for, among other things,
    modernizing the U.S. energy system and infrastructure, and addressing
    climate change. The president called for “a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will
    finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America,”
    including nuclear power. New Va. Gov. Bob McDonnell gave the Republican response,
    imploring the nation that, “Advances in technology can unleash more
    natural gas, nuclear, wind, coal, and alternative energy to lower your
    utility bills.”

    The speech punctuated a week where everything in the
    climate-and-energy space appeared to be in motion. The troika of Sens.
    John Kerry (D-Mass.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), and Joe Lieberman
    (I-Conn.) pressed ahead developing their legislation. Kerry shouted
    down the New York Times for an article suggesting the legislators had scaled back their goals. Graham told the Clean Energy, Jobs and Security Forum that “There will never be 60 votes for climate change legislation as it
    exists today. And it would be a shame if that is the end of the story.”
    Todd Wooten, director of the Nicholas Institute’s Southeast Climate
    Resources Center, spoke on a climate, security, and agriculture panel
    with Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) and Roger Johnson, president of the
    National Farmers Union.

    The BASIC countries—Brazil, South Africa, India, and China—met this week in advance of the Jan. 31 Copenhagen Accord soft deadline for
    submitting descriptions of their greenhouse gas mitigation actions to
    the UNFCC. They also called on developed nations to distribute their
    $10 billion in pledged adaptation aid to poor countries.

    Business as usual?: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) will issue interpretive guidance to help companies evaluate in disclosure documents the risks and
    opportunities they face from climate legislation, treaties, and other
    developments—including potential global change itself. The move comes
    the same week that the CEOs of 83 companies sent a letter to Obama
    asking him to push for major legislation.

    The five commissioners voted along party lines. Their statements
    provide an interesting snapshot of competing thought on how our
    venerable institutions are responding to climate risk (Schapiro; Casey; Walter; Paredes; Aguilar).
    Chairman Mary Schapiro emphasized that the guidance is neither
    commentary on the vast topic “climate change” nor a set of new rules
    for businesses to follow. Rather, the rules should help bring
    consistency to reporting on an emerging public concern. Dissenting
    commissioners (Casey and Paredes) questioned assigning SEC resources to
    the fruits of social and environmental advocacy when investors and
    markets require so much attention elsewhere.

    These competing views encapsulate Washington’s two minds on the
    issues: One view, going forward and in the long term, the U.S. can not
    assume without risk that the relative climate stability it has enjoyed
    for 233 years will continue for, say, another 233 years; and a second
    view, that existing regulations cover what’s needed for climate
    disclosure, and the SEC should attend to immediate matters. (The actual
    guidance has not yet been published.)

    Global uncertainty: The SEC refrained from
    comment on climate change itself, or came close. Commissioner Kathleen
    Casey added this sentence to her critique of the interpretive guidance: “This guidance is premature at best, as the science surrounding global warming remains far from settled.” [Emphasis added.] Certainly, that’s an easy conclusion to come to, looking at headlines. A new poll shows that Americans concern about climate change has dropped 14
    points, to 57 percent, since 2008. It also shows that people trust
    their local weather forecasters more than traditional reporting outlets
    (although weather forecasters disproportionately resist global warming). Casey isn’t alone. Some legislators vocalized
    discomfort with Obama’s mention of climate science in his address.
    China’s top climate negotiator said he is unready to attribute observed warming to human activity.

    IPCC Chair Rajendra Pachauri has come under fire for the body’s
    mistaken prediction that the Himalayan glaciers will melt by 2035, and
    for potential business conflicts with his IPCC work. The
    highest-profile all for his resignation came from the German
    newsmagazine Spiegel, where Richard Tol, Roger Pielke Jr, and Hans von Storch write, “Astoundingly, it appears that Pachauri has not broken any rules for
    the simple reason that there is no code of conduct governing conflicts
    of interest for IPCC participants and leaders.” Pachauri has defended
    himself and vowed to stay put. The IPCC has responded aggressively to [pdf] a Sunday Times (U.K.) article about climate change and extreme weather events.

    Don’t forget to check your work: Last
    week, a reader wrote in for more information about which 2007 IPCC
    predictions have proven to be too modest. One of the sources I
    suggested as reference was the UNEP’s Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, a review of the professional literature for policymakers in
    advance of the Copenhagen meeting. The next day, thinking about the
    recently exposed IPCC error, I started checking through the footnotes.
    In the opening few pages of my hard copy, there’s a reproduction of the
    famous “hockey stick
    graph, showing proxy evidence for temperature and CO2 over the last
    1,000 years or so. I saw the reference, to “Hanno 2009,” and looked it
    up in the bibliography, but it wasn’t there. Another boneheaded
    fact-checking mistake, I thought. It’s actually worse than that. “Hanno
    2009” isn’t a peer-reviewed journal article at all but a Wikipedia
    entry (!). Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit.org had found it last
    September and written about it here.

    The Himalayan 2035 error returned to the conversation the phrase “gray literature”—science writing that has not been peer-reviewed and
    published in professional journals. But I was surprised and dismayed to
    see the UNEP rely on a source that wouldn’t pass muster in a descent
    high school composition class—and then not share the source.

    The UNEP in October deleted the “Hanno 2009” graph and replaced it with a graph from this peer-reviewed paper, and a note that says, in part, “UNEP welcomes
    further constructive comments so that the report evolves as a living
    document containing the latest peer-reviewed science.” Would I
    recommend the report again? Probably, keeping in mind that everything
    said on the topic is one or another kind of “living document.” If
    something else smells fishy, follow the notes. The ultimate value in
    these review reports isn’t the actual assembled narrative but in the
    bibliography of primary research papers. You just have to have time and
    patience to fall down the rabbit hole, which few people have. And
    there’s always plenty of other interesting material around to consider. Here’s the Wikipedia page with a history of Hanno 2009, clearly written by someone angry about the matter.

    So, is the science unsettled? There are a lot of things we’d like to know better (Nature,
    sub. req.). But when it comes down to atmospheric physics, it sure
    seems like a lot of smart people have been working hard and coming up
    with the same answers for quite some time now. What to do about it is
    currently up to the Senate, in part. If you have any thoughts feel free
    to contribute to the comments section or email since Climate Post is a living document.

    About the Future …: There’s a tendency
    among probably all the interest-group silos in Washington, whichever
    one you choose, to think that policymakers, by not doing specifically
    what it is advocates want, are ruining the future. There’s also a
    tendency to lose track of other policy issues given the focus on one’s
    own. With that in mind, consider David Broder’s Washington Post op-ed this morning about the U.S.‘s fiscal health, upon which so many of these silo’ed policy discussions depend on for resolution.

    Related Links:

    In State of the Union, Obama panders to conservatives on ‘clean energy’

    The climate and energy section of Obama’s State of the Union speech

    State of the Union: Inefficient






  • Smart meters save energy, water, and dollars

    by Todd Woody

    Flickr via Pink Sherbet PhotographyThe other day I came home to find a colorful flyer on my
    front door proclaiming, “Your meter just got smarter.”

    While I was out and about in Berkeley, a worker from my
    utility, PG&E, slipped in the side gate and gave my old gas and electric
    meter a digital upgrade. So-called smart meters allow the two-way transmission
    of electricity data and will eventually let me monitor and alter my energy
    consumption in near real-time. I’ll be able to fire up an app on my iPhone and
    see, for instance, a spike in watts because my son has left the lights on in
    his room and a laptop plugged in.

    Now I only learn of my electricity use when I get my monthly
    utility bill, long after all that carbon has escaped into the atmosphere. The
    situation is even worse when it comes to water consumption; my bill and details
    of my water use arrive every other month.

    “When you tell people what total bucket of water they used
    in the past 60 days, the barn door is open and the animals are long gone,” says
    Richard Harris, water conservation manager for the East Bay Municipal Utility
    District, my local water agency.

    EBMUD is currently testing smart water meters in 30
    households and plans to expand the pilot program to 4,000 homes and businesses later
    this year.

    “It’ll give us better knowledge of where our water is
    going,” says Harris. “We also thought if we’re going to ask people to use water
    more efficiently, especially when we’re coming out of a drought and have
    imposed water restrictions, customers need to have an idea of what their
    current use is.”

    EBMUD’s smart meters take readings every hour and
    participants in the pilot program will be able to go online to check their
    consumption and set up an email alert if their water use rises above a certain
    level. The agency also plans to offer a social networking feature to allow
    people to compare their water consumption with other households in the area.
    Nothing like a little peer pressure to get you to turn off the tap.

    Given that many states expect to face water shortages in the
    coming years, one would think we’d be seeing a roll out of smart
    water meters
    akin to the national effort being made to smarten up the power
    grid.

    The payoff could be enormous. Water agencies and consumers
    would be able to detect leaking pipes and toilets in real-time and fix the
    problem before the water literally goes down the drain.

    Imagine a video screen in your shower that displays how many
    gallons that long hot shower is consuming. Smart water meters would also open
    the door to financial incentives to get people to use less water and penalize
    water hogs. (That said, politically
    powerful agribusiness remains by far the biggest water user.)

    “You don’t need to send someone out to read the meter or
    roll a truck to connect or disconnect a meter,” says Guerry Waters, vice
    president for industry strategy at Oracle Utilities, a division of the Silicon
    Valley software giant. “Smart water meters can help you manage assets and detect
    leaks. There’s a staggering amount of water lost to leaks.”

    Yet, according to a
    recent report by Oracle, while 68 percent of 300 American and Canadian water managers
    surveyed said they believe that smart water meters are crucial, 64 percent of
    them have no plans to install them.

    Why? Money.

    Nearly all water providers are public agencies, which means
    they’re strapped for cash and already facing a long list of capital improvement
    projects. The electric utility industry, on the other hand, is largely private
    and can either make the capital investments necessary for, say, a smart meter
    roll out, or can obtain regulators’ approval to raise rates to cover the costs.

    In fact, 75 percent of the water managers surveyed said the
    capital costs of smart water meters was their main roadblock to rolling out
    such a program.

    That presents a conundrum to companies like Oracle, which
    already sells software and services to water districts, hoping to tap a
    potentially vast smart water meter market.

    IBM, meanwhile, has developed sensor
    networks and software
    it hopes to market to water districts to give them
    real-time data on water quality and to help manage their pipelines and
    infrastructure.

    “Water districts don’t have the funding and have to find a
    way to pay for these systems,” Drew Clark, director of strategy for IBM’s
    Venture Capital Group, told me last year. “There’s this whole issue of how do
    we put this intelligence in water systems in a way that’s affordable for the
    ratepayers.”

    One solution would be to devote some stimulus money or other
    federal largesse to underwrite a rollout of smart meters.

    But Tom Blaisdel, a venture
    capitalist with DCM in Silicon Valley, thinks markets are the answer. “The
    problem in water is usually not a lack of technology but a lack of economic
    drivers to get people to adopt the technology,” he says. “Until you have market
    pricing you won’t have innovation and investment.”

    Putting aside agricultural use—which in California is a
    political minefield—residential water pricing tends to be driven by drought
    and conservation mandates. As California’s drought dragged on, EBMUD and other water
    agencies imposed a tiered pricing structure that bumped up rates for water
    hogs.

    For Harris, the future of water conservation lies more in
    providing data to customers rather than such things as rebates for
    water-efficient toilets.

    “It’s all about giving customers a smart water toolbox,” he says.

    Related Links:

    State of the Union: Inefficient

    How innovative financing is changing energy in America

    Supreme Court ruling increases importance of local energy






  • Climate groups grapple for a path forward from Copenhagen

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Activists gather in Copenhagen on the final night of last month’s climate talks.Photo courtesy 350.orgOn the final night of the Copenhagen climate talks, several hundred activists assembled across town for a torchlight vigil, protesting against world leaders for settling on an insufficient climate accord and protesting against the U.N. for locking them out in the cold. None of them expected the work toward an effective global climate plan to end in Copenhagen, but that night it became brutally clear how much farther there was still to go.

    In the month since then, I’ve been trying to find out how the outcome at Copenhagen changed the U.S. climate movement.  Whether advocates thought it was a complete failure or just a disappointingly small step, surely it marked a turning point. So what are the big goals now?  How will strategy be different from here on out? What are the next moves? I put these questions to leaders of both established green groups and youthful grassroots organizations. Alas, they largely seem stuck in time at the vigil—resolute, passionate, but removed from the seats of power and not at all sure what to do next. Six leaders I reached all offered thoughts on what must happen next, but they were the same sorts of plans they were offering last fall. It’s not yet clear what the movement has learned from Copenhagen.

    From big environmental groups, the consistent message was “bring the fight back to Congress,” which is where the main focus was for all of 2009. Getting Congress to establish a cap on carbon emissions and a impose a price for emitting them would unleash a wave of action from other major countries and a flood of clean-energy innovation from businesses, said David Doniger, climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

    “If that happens, we get on a virtuous cycle where actions and promises by one country lead to and make possible actions and promises by another country,” he said. That hope was echoed by Michael Brune, the Sierra Club’s incoming executive director, and Steve Cochran, Environmental Defense Fund’s national climate campaign director.

    Any bill that could pass through Congress would very likely be weakened by concessions to the coal industry and other powerful interests, as was the Waxman-Markey bill that passed the House last summer. But getting started, even with an imperfect plan, is the important thing, the three said.

    “We’ve got to push the legislative process to produce as much as it possibly can, knowing that it’s not going to be as much as we need,” Cochran said.

    “No serious environmental problem, no serious social problem was ever fully solved in one go,” said Doniger. “In order to be effective you have to stick with it. You have to be willing to live with disappointment, and come back at it, rather than getting discouraged.”

    The grassroots groups are still focused on galvanizing the public, which they see as a prerequisite to meaningful action in Congress. 

    Jessy Tolkan, who worked as executive director of the Energy Action Coalition until she assumed a new post this month as political director at Green for All, said the movement should focus on diversifying its ranks—a perennial goal of environmentalists—but also on making sure leaders notice that diversity.

    “We absolutely have to ensure that every member of the United States Senate, whether they’re Republican or Democrat, is hearing from people across the spectrum—from veterans, business owners, and young people, from low-income folks, middle-income folks, and wealthy folks—that this is a top-tier priority,” she said.

    350.org cofounder Bill McKibben made a similar point: the focus on Congress is premature. “One of the reasons why it’s so hard in Congress is because they don’t feel any particular pressure,” he said. “There are lots and lots and lots of groups lobbying Congress. But Congress members are good at telling whether there’s anything behind that lobbying or not. I think we have to figure out how to put some pressure behind that lobbying. And the easiest way to do that is movement building.”

    “Movement building” has always been 350.org’s goal—and something it’s been remarkably successful at in its two-year history. It organized last October’s International Day of Climate Action, which CNN called “the most widespread day of action in the planet’s history” (a line McKibben is fond of repeating).

    But even that unprecedented surge of on-the-ground activism didn’t seem to penetrate many world leaders’ minds.  In a post-Copenhagen reflection in Mother Jones, McKibben wrote, “The failure might be defined this way: The world came together and looked climate change fairly straight in the eye, and then its most powerful nations blinked.”

    So what’s the new plan?

    “I don’t know,” he said. “We threw up a Hail Mary pass and nobody caught it.”

     “I don’t know” was probably the most candid response I heard, and perhaps the most wise.  Taking time to reflect may be more productive than falling back into the same old habits or rushing ahead without a plan. Next month, 350.org’s core team will gather in Vermont for a strategic retreat. The grassroots group Avaaz is doing the same, according to Executive Director Ricken Patel. Avoiding burnout after the intensity of Copenhagen may be the first imperative.

    Is there another way?

    Meanwhile, outsider green thinkers continue to push their own ideas for refocusing and invigorating the climate movement. 

    The Breakthrough Institute’s Michael Shellenberger, who coauthored the controversial essay “The Death of Environmentalism” in 2004, argues that activists should stop focusing on a carbon cap and instead push for more R&D funding for cleaner energy technologies, which the public is much more inclined to support. 

    The main barriers to a low-carbon future, he contends, are “a set of very specific technological problems that we just have to solve”: more efficient solar panels, better batteries, non-destructive biofuels, and smaller, cheaper nuclear power plants.

    “We’ve spent 20 years under the fantasy that we can increase the price of coal and other fossil fuels enough to make clean energy cost-competitive,” he said. “We’ve wasted 20 years when we could have been taking measures to solve the technological problems we’ve known about for a long time.”

    Alex Steffen, editor of Worldchanging and an evangelist for what he calls bright green urbanism, offers a different diagnosis. “The COP [Conference of the Parties, or U.N. treaty] process is at best stalled for a few years,” he said. “Given what’s just happened with the U.S. Senate, and the Supreme Court basically allowing open bribery, I see zero chance of a meaningful climate bill coming from the Senate. I think there will be something, but it will be at a level of watered-down-ness that it just won’t matter.”

    While he’s pessimistic about the national and international efforts, Steffen sees great hope and potential on the local level. He points to a growing number of people who are clued-in on sustainability but who don’t consider themselves activists or environmentalists—people working and volunteering in architecture, design, planning, community development, housing, building, local energy, local food, and alternative transportation.

    Such citizens are “reconverging on the city as the appropriate battleground for action,” Steffen said. “I think we’re going to see cities emerge as the fulcrum point for change. If we can change cities profoundly, we may have a shot at tackling climate change.”

    He continued, “Neither of the two main paths that the environmental movement has been going down”—pushing for national and international carbon caps—“are going to lead to results that we need. I think that ought to have every person who cares about climate action completely rethinking their entire strategy. But I don’t hear a lot of evidence that the professional end of the movement is in fact rethinking its entire strategy.”

    Related Links:

    Cities vs. suburbs: The next big green battle?

    Green celebs bring sexy back to Senate politics

    National Day of Action Against Coal Ash






  • Ben Nelson’s logically incoherent stance on cap-and-trade

    by Brad Johnson

    Cross-posted from The Wonk Room.

    There seems to be something about climate policy that encourages senators to take positions that are logically impossible.
    In the latest instance, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) has now managed to
    simultaneously oppose and support a carbon command-and-control regime.
    Nelson is one of three Democrats to co-sponsor Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R-Ark.) resolution overturning the EPA’s greenhouse gas endangerment finding, supposedly because “EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control regime:”

    I am very concerned about the impact on Nebraska if EPA

    moves to regulate carbon emissions. Many Nebraska agricultural,

    industrial, and energy-related businesses and organizations have warned

    about the costs they would have to shoulder from EPA regulations. Because

    EPA regulations would be a government-directed command-and-control

    regime, they would raise the price of energy in Nebraska, add greatly

    to administrative costs, and create new layers of bureaucracy. The burden would fall squarely on Nebraska families, farmers, and businesses.

    The EPA’s rules will function as a soft cap on large emitters of
    global warming pollution, most of whom are already covered by Clean Air
    Act permits for traditional pollution. No new layers of bureaucracy
    will be created. However, the cost of fossil-based energy would slowly
    rise. Because it would be legally difficult for the EPA to establish an
    emissions trading system, companies could not use market means to
    mitigate those costs.

    The ability of trading markets to reduce compliance costs for
    pollution reduction is the key selling point of a congressionally
    established cap-and-trade market as opposed to a command-and-control
    regime. However, Nelson has also indicated he opposes a cap-and-trade system:

    Nelson said he has not had detailed conversations yet with Kerry, Graham, and Lieberman. But he said he is open to negotiations on setting a limit on greenhouse gas emissions. “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap-and-trade, the trade part of it. So if it’s cap-and-trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”

    A cap without “trade” is by definition a
    command-and-control regime—which Nelson has said he opposes on
    economic grounds. But he claims to oppose a cap with “trade” on populist grounds.
    In short, he’s using logically inconsistent excuses to block both
    executive branch and legislative branch action on global warming.

    Nelson may be trying to pander to polls, which show that the phrase “cap-and-trade” is unpopular by comparison to Americans’ desire for the government to regulate
    polluters and support clean energy investment. Or maybe he’s pandering
    to his corporate polluter donors, who need senators like Nelson to
    maintain the Bush-Cheney status quo.

    Related Links:

    Digging into Obama’s 2011 budget on energy and the environment

    Cap-and-trade death knell, revisited and revised

    The death knell for comprehensive cap-and-trade






  • In 3-2 vote, SEC requires companies to disclose climate risks to investors

    by Brad Johnson

    Cross-posted from The Wonk Room.

    In a 3-to-2 vote, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission determined today that companies “must consider the effects of global warming and efforts to curb climate change when disclosing business risks to investors.”

    Guidelines approved today require companies to weigh the impact of climate-change laws and regulations when assessing what information to disclose, the commission said. The SEC is responding to investors who said companies aren’t providing enough data on the potential risks to their profits and operations from environmental- protection laws. In the 3-to-2 vote, the commission said companies in the U.S. should also consider international accords, indirect effects such as lower demand for goods that produce greenhouse gases, and physical impacts such as the potential for increased insurance claims in coastal regions as a result of rising sea levels.

    Ceres, a network of investors and climate activists, hailed the action as “the first economy-wide climate risk disclosure requirement in the world.” More than a dozen investors managing over $1 trillion in assets, plus Ceres and the Environmental Defense Fund, requested formal guidance in a petition filed with the Commission in 2007, and supported by supplemental petitions filed in 2008 and 2009.

    For too long, the reality of climate change has been ignored by American business, exemplified by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s denial of global warming. This willful ignorance has left American business—from agriculture to the financial sector—unprepared for the increasing damages of climate change, such as sea level rise, drought and wildfires. Furthermore, these blinders have kept American business behind international competitors, who have leapt ahead by investing in the coming low-carbon economy.

    The SEC has posted its summary:

    Specifically, the SEC’s interpretative guidance highlights the following areas as examples of where climate change may trigger disclosure requirements:

    Impact of Legislation and Regulation: When assessing potential disclosure obligations, a company should consider whether the impact of certain existing laws and regulations regarding climate change is material. In certain circumstances, a company should also evaluate the potential impact of pending legislation and regulation related to this topic.

    Impact of International Accords: A company should consider, and disclose when material, the risks or effects on its business of international accords and treaties relating to climate change.

    Indirect Consequences of Regulation or Business Trends: Legal, technological, political and scientific developments regarding climate change may create new opportunities or risks for companies. For instance, a company may face decreased demand for goods that produce significant greenhouse gas emissions or increased demand for goods that result in lower emissions than competing products. As such, a company should consider, for disclosure purposes, the actual or potential indirect consequences it may face due to climate change related regulatory or business trends.

    Physical Impacts of Climate Change: Companies should also evaluate for disclosure purposes the actual and potential material impacts of environmental matters on their business.

    Related Links:

    One step ahead of the carbon cops

    The Climate Post: The only good strategy is a dead strategy

    Why should policymakers, investors, and businesspeople care about youth in Copenhagen?






  • Obama and Kerry continue to push for climate bill

    by Agence France-Presse

    WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama and his congressional allies Wednesday insisted they would move ahead on fighting climate change despite a toughening political climate.

    Obama appealed for action in his first State of the Union address to the two chambers of Congress—the House, which approved landmark climate legislation last year, and the Senate, where a similar bill has been delayed.

    Obama urged the Senate to “advance” work on climate change, while acknowledging deep disagreements with many Republicans. “Even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future,” Obama said to a mixed reception from lawmakers.

    “The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation,” he said.

    The House last year narrowly approved a bill to set up the first-ever nationwide cap-and-trade system, which would restrict carbon emissions blamed for global warming and offer an economic incentive by letting companies trade credits.

    In his speech, Obama did not use the term “cap-and-trade,” but he did voice support for nuclear power and offshore drilling for oil and gas.  Such ideas are unpopular with many environmentalists but were proposed as part of a compromise Senate package last year that brought aboard one prominent Republican, Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

    But the Democrats last week lost one vote in the Senate when Scott Brown, who has criticized cap-and-trade legislation, pulled off an upset to win the seat of late Democratic icon Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.

    John Kerry, the other senator from Massachusetts and a key force behind climate change legislation, hailed Obama’s speech as a sign of continued momentum and vowed: “We can surprise a lot of people.”

    “The inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom that this issue has stalled is dead wrong,” Kerry said.

    Kerry and Obama argue that investment to fight climate change will fuel a new green economy, bringing much-needed jobs.

    “Comprehensive legislation will not only speed economic recovery but will also put our country on the path to sustainable long-term economic growth,” Kerry said.

    But Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, who delivered the Republicans’ response, sharply criticized Obama’s climate policies and accused him of “seeking to impose job-killing cap-and-trade energy taxes.”

    Strobe Talbott, president of the Brookings Institution and a senior official under Democratic president Bill Clinton, said that prospects for a bill were hurt by general opposition to Obama’s agenda. “My sense is that the White House and other advocates of action on climate haven’t given up. It’s just that the degree of difficulty has gotten more severe,” he said.

    Ben Lieberman, an analyst at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said that some observers had expected Obama to skirt around any mention of climate legislation. “He did mention it. But how much this moves the needle—I think there is still a lot of reluctance in the Senate to move forward with climate legislation,” he said. “I don’t see the State of the Union address changing that, but he has made it clear that this is still a priority with him.”

    The address comes days before a deadline set by last month’s Copenhagen summit for nations to submit outlines of how they will fight climate change—part of efforts to draft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol whose obligations run out in 2012.

    The Copenhagen summit saw sharp disagreements, with developing nations pushing for historic polluters such as the United States to do more on climate change.

    Daniel J. Weiss, a senior fellow at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said it was less important for the Senate to move on a cap-and-trade system than to take any action that leads to emission reductions. “The most important thing is that it meets the 17 percent reduction [by 2020 off 2005 levels] that president Obama talked about in Copenhagen,” he said.

    Related Links:

    Digging into Obama’s 2011 budget on energy and the environment

    Why senators don’t see the clean energy boom

    Lindsey Graham: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China






  • Cap-and-trade death knell, revisited and revised

    by David Roberts

    I have been scolded by several progressive green friends for my post on Sen. Lindsey Graham’s comments on cap-and-trade. I should admit up front that “death knell” was a bit dramatic on my part; generally speaking, it’s better never to draw big conclusions from the kind of lazy reporting done by the likes of The New York Times’ John Broder. It’s clear that Graham’s comments were taken out of context and he did not intend to shut the door on cap-and-trade entirely.

    Still, I think many of these selfsame friends are being rather too optimistic in their gloss on Graham’s comments, and on the prospects for legislation generally. Let’s dig into this a bit more.

    Is there anything new?

    It’s true that the NYT’s Broder and Kraus made more of Graham’s comments than they warranted. It’s not new for Graham to decry the bills that passed the House and the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. His whole shtick is positioning himself as the guy who’s going to ride in and make those infernal liberal bills more “business-friendly.”

    It does, however, seem notable to me that he went beyond bashing the previous bills to saying that any “massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs” is dead. It’s hard for me to imagine an economy-wide cap-and-trade system that doesn’t fit that description, at least in the mind of a Republican. (After all, a price on carbon, um, puts a price on carbon. Which, you know, raises its price. That’s kind of the point.)

    And remember: it’s not just Graham. He’s at the bleeding edge here (God help us). Collins, Snowe, Lugar, Voinovich, Murkowski, McCain—all their votes will be needed. They’ll all have to be persuaded that whatever’s in the final bill isn’t a “massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs,” after being told for months by their base and corporate think tanks like Heritage that any price on carbon will cripple the economy. That’s a lot of walking back for them.

    What did he mean?

    With all of DC in a tizzy over the NYT story, Graham tried to clarify his comments. First, there was this statement:

    The energy legislation that was passed by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee is not strong enough to lead us to energy independence. The climate change legislation passed by the House of Representatives and Senate Environment and Public Works Committee is too onerous on business and does not enjoy bipartisan support.

    My goal is to continue working with Senators Kerry, Lieberman and my Senate colleagues to create a new pathway forward that focuses on a more robust energy security package and a more business-friendly climate legislation.

    Later, to E&E reporter Darren Samuelsohn ($ub), Graham reaffirmed that he wants a cap:

    To jump-start nuclear power, wind and solar and the green economy, you’ve got to price carbon. How you do it is subject to discussion and open debate. But the idea of not pricing carbon, in my view, means you’re not serious about energy independence. The odd thing is you’ll never have energy independence until you clean up the air, and you’ll never clean up the air until you price carbon.

    My insidery friends tell me that Graham’s earlier cap-and-trade bashing was just a bit of framing for his conservative friends, setting whatever he comes up with in contrast to those other liberal cap-and-trade bills.

    And maybe it will work! Other unusual suspects have expressed openness to a cap lately. Here’s Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.):

    “I am for a legislative solution, not a rulemaking, not an unaccountable rulemaking process,” said Landrieu, one of three Senate Democrats who co-sponsored a resolution that would strip EPA of [CO2 regulating] authority. “I’m for an accountable legislative process to achieve that, and I’d be open to some modification of cap and trade that really recognizes the importance of the refining industry here. Because we’re going to have a supply shortage of oil and refined products. We need to do it all. We need to be producing more and particularly more natural gas.”

    And here’s Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.):

    “I want to see what the legislation does,” he said. “I said I can support cap. I have trouble with cap and trade, the trade part of it. So if it’s cap and trade, watered down, and it’s only the trade watered down, that won’t satisfy me.”

    The comments of Graham, Landrieu, and Nelson all have something in common: they don’t make any damn sense. They betray middling intellects working with, to put it charitably, incomplete understandings of the policy mechanisms at issue here.

    Optics

    But that’s the U.S. Senate. So the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman process will be entirely about putting something together that has the right optics—something conservatives can sign on to as a herd, protected by numbers from right-wing attacks. “Would my colleague George Voinovich support a socialist blah blah? Why I think not!”

    My question is: what does that policy look like? And here I return to where I started: I don’t see any way that an economy-wide cap-and-trade system can satisfy those optics. I mean, how would you make the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade system more “business friendly”? Even lower targets? Even more offsets? It’s already not much more than a mild improvement on business as usual through 2020—how much further down can it come?

    What could satisfy those optics is a sector-specific cap-and-trade program that covers only electric utilities, and that’s definitely on the table:

    “You ask about the power sector, to do that alone wouldn’t be my first choice, but if it’s all we can do in the end, I’d consider it, sure,” Lieberman said yesterday.

    “Some people have mentioned different sectoral approaches, we’re looking at that,” Kerry said. “We’re looking at everything. What we want to do is make sure that we get the job done. And we’re not wedded to any one way of trying to do that, so we’re looking at options.”

    Perhaps the sectoral system could be set up along the lines of the Cantwell-Collins cap-and-dividend bill, so as to satisfy the “doesn’t raise prices” stricture.

    Could cap-and-trade start sector-specific and then expand out over time to cover the entire economy? I suppose so. Could it start sector-specific and then be expanded out when it reaches conference committee, where it’s blended with the House bill? Unlikely, but possible.

    Anything’s possible, but in the end, I just don’t see how you start from Graham-style hostility toward what is in effect an incredibly mild and watered-down cap-and-trade system and end up at a place where you’ve still got any kind of economy-wide system in place. It’s too far a reach.

    Then again, maybe the Senate will pleasantly surprise me. There’s a first time for everything.

    Related Links:

    Lindsey Graham: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China

    Ben Nelson’s logically incoherent stance on cap-and-trade

    Obama and Kerry continue to push for climate bill






  • In State of the Union, Obama panders to conservatives on ‘clean energy’

    by David Roberts

    I’m never sure how to write these reaction pieces to the State of the Union. I’m far past the point when my reactions bear any relation to Normal People’s. By all indications, Normal People loved Obama’s speech—instapolls showed positive reactions. Reviews from the punditocracy seem generally positive as well. Hell, Chris Matthews forgot he was black! So I suppose on objective grounds, you’d have to call the speech a resounding success.

    That said, I thought it was weak—good for Obama, maybe, but not good for progressive governance. Over and over he adopted bankrupt conservative frames and policies, from hype about tax cuts and tax credits to spending freezes, deficit commissions, and PAYGO. He even analogized the federal budget to a family budget, a false and utterly toxic comparison that encourages the public’s lamentable ignorance on fiscal policy. (In a downturn, the feds should spend more, not less!) If the bully pulpit is useful for anything, it’s for speaking to the American people the way you want to speak, not in the pinched, circumscribed language acceptable to the DC Village.

    Conservative energy

    The capitulation to conservative narratives was particularly glaring on the subjects of climate and energy. He began well, introducing the eminently sensible notion that the U.S. needs to get cracking on creating clean energy jobs lest we have our lunch eaten by China, Germany, and India. “I do not accept second place for the United States of America,” he thundered.

    Well good then! What does that mean? This was the opportunity. There are thousands of stories he could have told: about the burgeoning interest in energy efficiency and building retrofits,  the cheapest and most labor-intensive way to reduce emissions;  the astoundingly fast spread of distributed energy, driven by innovative financing models; the rapid growth and falling costs of wind and solar thermal power; the spread of bright green, low-carbon, walkable cities, where people benefit by living more sustainable lives. There are so many fascinating, inspiring, untold stories around energy right now. This was a real chance to open the public’s eyes to the amazing revolution happening around them—a revolution that can benefit them, employ them, and inspire them.

    Instead “what it means” was, in order: nukes, offshore oil and gas drilling, biofuels, “clean coal,” and … well, that’s it. That’s right, in listing what “clean energy” means the president did not mention renewable energy. That’s just stunning. It’s 2010 and renewable energy isn’t even an afterthought? Seriously?

    I suppose it was done to flatter conservative Senators that will have to vote for the bill Kerry, Lieberman, and Graham are working on. But the SOTU is not a policy negotiation. It’s a bully pulpit, a chance to shape rather than respond to existing narratives. Kerry says he needs the grassroots to get angry, get excited, get active:

    “I want you to go out there and start knocking on doors and telling people this has to happen,” Kerry said during a conference hosted by labor, farming, military veteran and environmental groups. “You know if the Tea Party folks can go out there and get angry because they think their taxes are too high, for God’s sake, a lot of citizens ought to get angry about the fact that they’re being killed and our planet is being injured by what’s happening on a daily basis by the way we provide our power and our fuel and the old practices we have. That’s something worth getting angry about.”

    Well, what’s going to fire up the grassroots? It ain’t nukes and coal. MoveOn had its members providing continuous dial feedback during the speech and the single biggest dip in approval came during the nukes ‘n’ oil section (around 9:35). This stuff insults and demoralizes the very people Kerry wants to fire up. And for what? It’s horrible substance and horrible politics.

    Short shrift for caulkers

    The infrastructure stuff was great, particularly the call-out for high-speed rail (which he’ll talk about more in Tampa tomorrow). But that’s all one-off stimulus money being spent. At no point did Obama say that the country needs large and sustained level of infrastructure investment—it was just about creating a few jobs to get through this downturn.

    And remember how the program to retrofit residential buildings—so-called Cash for Caulkers—was going to be a major plank in Obama’s jobs program? Here’s what he said about it:

    We should put more Americans to work building clean energy facilities—and give rebates to Americans who make their homes more energy-efficient, which supports clean energy jobs.

    That’s it. Could it be any more bloodless and cursory, more like an item on a checklist? I don’t even know WTF “clean energy facilities” are.

    The bright side

    Lest you be overwhelmed by my cynicism (which is at unusually high levels lately), there were a few bright moments. First, the focus on clean energy jobs and 21st century competition is good, even if filled it out with 19th century energy sources that don’t actually create many jobs. It’s good that Obama is opening up an ideological space for non-greens to get excited about clean energy: “the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.” Perfect line.

    It’s great, of course, that he called on Congress to pass a comprehensive climate/energy bill. (One of what seemed about a half-dozen times when he said, “The House has acted, now the Senate needs to. A-freaking-hem!”) It would have been nice, though, if he’d at least gestured at what a good bill would look like. Here’s what he said about financial reform: “if the bill that ends up on my desk does not meet the test of real reform, I will send it back until we get it right.” That’s called a veto threat, and it’s something a president does when he’s serious about the substance of a policy. He could equally have said, “if a climate bill reaches my desk that does not contain a cap on carbon pollution, I will send it back.” But he didn’t even mention the cap, aside from the oblique use of “comprehensive.” He gave the Senate basically no direction and no bottom lines. The message was: “Just pass something.”

    Oh, wait, I was being positive.

    It’s telling that the speech really caught fire toward the end, when he left behind substance and started talking process. I loved that he called out Republicans: “Neither party should delay or obstruct every single bill just because they can.” I loved that he called out Democrats: “we still have the largest majority in decades, and the people expect us to solve problems, not run for the hills.”

    I love the rhetoric of leadership, of seizing history, of tackling big problems and accomplishing big things. I love the idea of it. It has kept me going through a grinding year in energy politics, in which greens have had to eat one sh*t sandwich after another. The idea still gives me the stomach butterflies when I let it.

    But man can not live on ideas alone, and Obama can not lead on vague uplift alone. Sooner or later the abstract ambition has to translate to serious, sustained commitment to bold and specific policies. He’s got to put some cards on the table, get in the mix, risk losing a little bit of his cool and composure. Otherwise he runs the danger of having his legacy be little more than vast and unrealized hopes.

    Related Links:

    Lindsey Graham: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China

    Obama’s nuclear generation gap

    What Obama could have said to the House Republican from West Virginia






  • Apple’s new iPad is deep green, but a planet saver? Nope.

    by Matthew Wheeland

    The iPad.Photo: Apple

    This post is reprinted courtesy of GreenerComputing.com.

    The day that gadget-lovers have been waiting for with bated breath for months if not years has finally arrived.

    On Wednesday, just after 10 a.m., Steve Jobs unveiled the iPad—something along the lines of a blown-up version of the iPhone. Weighing 1.5 pounds, just half an inch thick, and 11 inches tall, the iPad aims to be the Next Huge Thing for technology, making it possible to play music, watch movies, read books, and run all the other tens of thousands of apps available in the Apple’s application store.

    At the event, Steve Jobs and various Apple execs and partners showed off the iPad’s specs, including a new iBooks e-reader application and associated bookstore, and a new version of Apple’s iWork office suite specifically for the iPad.  Prices run from $499 for a 16-gigabyte model with no 3G internet, and up to $829 for a 64-gigabyte model with 3G internet.

    But what we really care about is, is it green?

    At the start of the event, Jobs ran down the green cred of the gizmo: In keeping with Apple’s environmental policies, the device is free of all kinds of nasty chemicals. It is arsenic-free, mercury-free, BFR-free, PVC-free, and, according to this slide, taken by the good folks (and great livebloggers) at Engadget, “highly recyclable.”

    Jobs also stated that the iPad can get 10 hours of battery life—an impressive feat if it’s true. (For comparison’s sake, my brand-new MacBook Pro supposedly gets 7 hours of battery life and in reality gets around 4, unless I turn the display to near-dark and stick to processor-light tasks.)

    The vagaries of its “highly recyclable” claim notwithstanding, those are all great green attributes, and another example of how Apple is leading the way with green computing.

    Still, I fail to see how this is really a game-changer for the planet.

    As I wrote on Monday:

    First and foremost, the production of electronics has a huge environmental impact. Precious and rare metals to build the gadgets, global supply chains to bring those materials to manufacturers (and bring those gadgets to market), and the energy used during their lifetime are the beginning of the problem.

    There is also the huge problem of end-of-life management for these gadgets. Electronics recycling is at best a nascent market—as we write about all the time on GreenerComputing, and which we find in our annual State of Green Business report. At worst, we’re throwing away far more gadgets than we should be, and neither manufacturers, retailers or governments have yet put in place a good way to collect even a fraction of what’s discarded.

    But the biggest problem to my way of thinking is that the tablet will just be an addition, not a replacement.

    Look at the “netbook” market for cheap laptops that are designed to surf the net well—they’re often highly energy efficient, and that’s a good thing, but the vast majority of netbook owners use them as a supplement to their full-sized and full-spec laptops or desktops (and their phones, e-readers, what have you), thereby multiplying the impacts per user.

    I stand by this assessment. In a nutshell, the iPad is a nifty little gadget, I’m sure it will do wonders for how people engage with technology, and hopefully will give a boost to the flagging newspaper and book-publishing industries, but it is still another resource-intensive gadget that will be an add-on rather than a replacement.

    More pics below.

    Related Links:

    Bin Laden blames industrial nations for global warming

    U.S. government to cut greenhouse emissions by 28 percent

    Obama and Kerry continue to push for climate bill






  • The climate and energy section of Obama’s State of the Union speech

    by David Roberts

    The text of Obama’s speech has been released. Here’s what it says about climate and energy:

    Next, we need to encourage American innovation.  Last year, we made the largest investment in basic research funding in history – an investment that could lead to the world’s cheapest solar cells or treatment that kills cancer cells but leaves healthy ones untouched.  And no area is more ripe for such innovation than energy.  You can see the results of last year’s investment in clean energy – in the North Carolina company that will create 1200 jobs nationwide helping to make advanced batteries; or in the California business that will put 1,000 people to work making solar panels.

    But to create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives.  That means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country.  It means making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development. It means continued investment in advanced biofuels and clean coal technologies.  And yes, it means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America.

    I am grateful to the House for passing such a bill last year.  This year, I am eager to help advance the bipartisan effort in the Senate.  I know there have been questions about whether we can afford such changes in a tough economy; and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change.  But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy.  And America must be that nation.

    The “comprehensive” is an oblique reference to a cap, but there’s no specific call-out for it, much less a veto threat. Pretty weak tea.

    Related Links:

    Lindsey Graham: “Every day that we delay trying to find a price for carbon is a day that China

    Obama’s nuclear generation gap

    What Obama could have said to the House Republican from West Virginia






  • THINK plans to charge into U.S. electric-car market

    by Agence France-Presse

    The THINK City.WASHINGTON—With a jump-start from a new quick charging system, Norwegian electric carmaker THINK is taking aim at the U.S. market with a new assembly facility set to begin operations later this year.

    The maker of quirky plug-in electric minicars, which has been operating in Europe for 19 years, is among a number of small and large players looking to cash in on what is expected to be a growing market for electric vehicles.

    THINK chief executive Richard Canny said at the Washington Auto Show this week that the company expects to begin work this year at an assembly facility in Elkhart, Ind., and begin production in early 2011, with the goal of producing as many as 20,000 vehicles a year.

    Canny, an Australian who spent 25 years with Ford Motor Co. in various locations, said the tiny startup is able to compete against some of the automotive giants in the marketplace. “Unlike the market for conventional cars, the playing field is more level in the electric vehicle market,” Canny said in an interview with AFP. “THINK has 19 years of experience. We build cars that start in the Scandinavian winters. The speed of a small company like ours will offset the scale of the large companies.”

    U.S. sales will begin later in 2010 from cars produced at a facility in Finland, Canny said. Initial sales are likely to be to company or government fleets, although some direct sales to consumers may take place as well, he noted.

    The privately held group is backed by investors from the U.S. and elsewhere, with a large stake held by EnerDel, an Indiana manufacturer of lithium-ion batteries that will be the supplier for THINK cars in the U.S.

    A boost for the startup automaker came with an announcement Tuesday by a developer of vehicle-charging systems that claims to provide an 80 percent charge in 15 minutes, at a price of just $2 to $3.

    THINK will work with California-based AeroVironment, Inc. on the new charging stations that will be installed in major cities. The fast-charge system employs a protocol developed by Tokyo Electric Power Company and has been used on development vehicles.

    “This is a major leap forward for electric vehicles,” said Canny. “The development and deployment of very-fast-charge stations will help speed the electrification of automobiles in the United States and globally.”

    THINK has sold about 1,600 vehicles in Europe, but only a few hundred are the new generation THINK City, which has top speed of more than 70 miles per hour and a range of more than 100 miles per full charge.

    Canny said the car is likely to be sold at under $30,000, and that volume may eventually bring prices down to the “low $20,000” range. Although the price is higher than many conventional cars, that is offset by the fact that it is virtually maintenance-free and has operating costs of about two cents per mile.

    Amid surging interest in electric cars, Canny said the company is not yet profitable but “we are moving toward profitability.”

    THINK is not alone in the race for the electric car market.

    Another startup, U.S.-based Wheego, announced at the Washington Auto Show that it would begin sales of its all-electric car this year in the United States at under $35,000. “We’re five guys in Atlanta, so we don’t have the overhead some of the bigger companies have,” said marketing director Les Seagraves.

    Some analysts say the road may not be smooth for electric cars in the United States.

    A study by Boston Consulting Group found that electric-car battery costs are expected to fall sharply over the coming decade, but are unlikely to drop enough to spark widespread adoption of fully electric vehicles without a major breakthrough in technology.

    “For years, people have been saying that one of the keys to reducing our dependency on fossil fuels is the electrification of the vehicle fleet,” said Xavier Mosquet, leader of BCG’s global automotive practice and a coauthor of the study. “The reality is, electric-car batteries are both too expensive and too technologically limited for this to happen in the foreseeable future.”

    Related Links:

    Bin Laden blames industrial nations for global warming

    U.S. government to cut greenhouse emissions by 28 percent

    Obama and Kerry continue to push for climate bill






  • USDA’s Deputy Secretary discusses local, organic farming

    by Twilight Greenaway

    Cross-posted from Civil Eats.

    Deputy Secretary of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan

    It was by no means Kathleen Merrigan’s first trip to the Ecological Farming Conference (EcoFarm). But when the Deputy Secretary of Agriculture stood at a podium to address last week’s annual gathering of farmers, retailers, processors, and advocates, it was clear she had never had quite such a crucial role to play at the event. Now on its 30th year, EcoFarm regularly draws a large percentage of those who have been envisioning and shaping the sustainable food movement for years.

    Since Merrigan’s appointment to the USDA, she’s been under a great deal of pressure to make big changes happen quickly. She began Friday’s address with a direct plea for patience, much like we have heard from President Obama in recent months. “I come to this job with great ambition—and a great history with many of you in the audience—but also with an understanding that change takes time,” she told the audience.

    What follows is a run-down of the major issues Merrigan touched on in her address and in response to audience questions.

    National Organic Program expansion

    Last fall, Merrigan played a personal role in appointing Miles McAvoy to head the National Organic Program (NOP)—the program she once helmed. Before Merrigan’s address, McAvoy ran through an in-depth PowerPoint presentation detailing his plans for creating what has been dubbed the “Age of Enforcement” in this regulatory program. After years of making do with a severely limited staff and budget, a shift will be made possible by a recent expansion of the NOP budget, from $3.8 million in 2009 to $6.9 million in 2010.

    “We needed to pull in some new leadership and we need to keep working on that budget, because it’s really important,” Merrigan said, “not only for organic [producers] but for all American agriculture, because our organic farmers have, in many ways, been research pioneers.” She also stressed that the whole USDA should be integrating organic into their work. “It’s about time that everything that has to do with organic is not just sent to NOP.” She described her plan to go to all 27 agencies within the department, and say “what are you doing for organic? Who’s your organic point person and what’s your organic agenda?”

    Every family needs a farmer

    Merrigan has high hopes for the recently launched Know Your Farmer Know Your Food program. She talked about traveling the country examining efforts to reestablish local and regional food systems, taking notes on what needs the department’s support.

    When asked by a member of the audience where she sees the program in five years, Merrigan responded: “I’m hoping that it is like what ’sustainable’ is now. We won’t have to sit around doing creative brainstorming about what it is we need to do to reconnect consumers with their food; it will be embedded in the agenda of every agency in the USDA.”

    To ensure that this happens, Merrigan appears to be focused on systematizing the local food infrastructure. The day she spoke, for instance, she and several USDA staff members had just come from visiting a mobile slaughter unit, and she described the lack of small scale meat processing options as “a big structural barrier to sustainability.” The biggest challenge for small meat producers, she continued, is the fact that “Food Safety Inspection Services (FSIS) rules about mobile slaughter aren’t written down anywhere … and that puts a lot of risk into the equation.” Within the month, she added, the USDA will release a mobile slaughter compliance manual along with several instructional webinars. “That should let everyone know the rules of the road,” said Merrigan.

    Reaching new audiences

    Merrigan and her staff also appear to be focused on communicating to new audiences using methods that might have sounded strange for an official branch of the government just one year ago. She described the suggestion on the part of her new-media-savvy staff to launch the Know Your Farmer Know Your Food program by inviting a group of bloggers to a small farm, rather than staging a formal press event. And, she also announced plans to start participating in new technology more directly. “They’ve convinced me,” she said. “I’m going to start tweeting, even if I’m not even sure what that means.”

    She also described her efforts to engage college students, as she travels around the country, as a way to address what she sees as, “a profound disconnect between consumers and American agriculture.” The night before her arrival at EcoFarm, for example, Merrigan had spoken to an audience of Stanford students, where she employed “a colorful slideshow, combined with multiple choice questions the audience could answer with transmitter devices … handed out before the talk.”

    Part of her intent in reaching young audiences, is engaging would-be-farmers, and figuring out how to begin meeting their needs in new ways.  “I was at Iowa State, and I can’t tell you how exciting it was for me when a bunch of students stood up and said, ‘I want to be a farmer.’ But when I asked, ‘how many have a business plan?’ maybe two hands were raised. So one big question is how to bring young people— especially those who have grown up on farms and ranches— back into American agriculture. The desire is there, we just need to help them find the pathways.”

    Farm to school and vice versa

    Merrigan described the farm-to-school tactical team she established. “It’s a group of USDA employees from both the food and nutrition and agriculture marketing departments that are currently traveling the country taking stock of the dos and don’ts of farm-to-school programs.” As important as recording the successes, she said, will be documenting what hasn’t worked, so that school systems with stretched budgets can make wise decisions from the get-go, based on models that work.

    “USDA really has an opportunity to help farm-to-school programs,” said Merrigan. “We see that as part of Know Your Farmer Know Your Food. And at the same time we want get our research agencies to think about what it means to go school-to-farm. What can we do in terms of curriculum and connecting farmers and schools? I think that needs to be part of the equation.”

    Stimulus dollars

    Merrigan fielded a number of questions about stimulus funding, and addressed the USDA’s use of the money directly. The answer? The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) program (formerly know as food stamps). “You know as well as we do that there are a lot of people whose only source of survival is food stamps,” she said.

    “The recovery act has allowed for $80 more a month for every [qualifying] family of four,” she continued.  “We have an incredible upsurge in participants and we expect that to continue. So we are spending that recovery money in a way that is very meaningful.”

    Related Links:

    Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes

    The future of farming and food at the Eco Farm Conference

    And the winner of the USDA food safety sweepstakes is …






  • State of the Union: Inefficient

    by Lane Burt

    The State of the Union is in a few hours, and folks are abuzz about what the president will say. Count me among those who are expecting a strong push for clean energy to create jobs and jump-start our economy, but I wonder if the president will spend much time discussing where we are right now as a country.

    There is one word that comes to mind when I think of the state of our union: inefficient. We waste energy and money in our homes and workplaces as if we had an infinite supply of both.

    Just consider the situation in the average home:

    The air that we have paid to heat and cool us leaks out of the ducts before it ever gets to us.
    Some of the air that does make it to us gets sucked outside, so we keep reaching for the thermostat in frustration.
    The windows are single-paned and leaky, only slightly better than a hole in the wall.
    The lighting is provided by little space heaters designed over 100 years ago.
    The hot water takes minutes to arrive at the faucet, wasting water and energy in addition to time.
    The air conditioner is old and on its last legs and can’t keep drafts and cold spots from popping up.

    Not a pretty picture, but it doesn’t have to be that way. As the president has pointed out repeatedly,
    this is actually an incredible opportunity to improve our economic and environmental health. Why not fix all those leaky ducts and windows while replacing those old water heaters and furnaces? We can put Americans to work saving Americans money while slashing carbon emissions. We need significant performance-based incentives for homeowners to retrofit their homes to be more energy efficient, a la HomeStar. Folks who get hung up over the cost of a program like this are missing the point—we could be stimulating the economy with the money we waste on energy. And generally speaking, the unemployed don’t pay income taxes, so let’s get them back to work. The status quo of high unemployment and wasteful energy use will cost us all much more than any efficiency program.

    This is only one component of the push for clean energy and lower carbon emissions, but it is a crucial one. We need to put a price on carbon to support the fledgling home efficiency industry as it grows to be millions of jobs strong, while we simultaneously shift away from wasteful old technologies.

    There is actually one answer to our climate and energy and jobs questions and hopefully the president will continue to hit the nail on the head tonight.

    Related Links:

    The Climate Post: The documents … they are … Alive! Alive!

    Smart meters save energy, water, and dollars

    In State of the Union, Obama panders to conservatives on ‘clean energy’






  • U.S. slips in Environmental Performance Index

    by Jonathan Hiskes

    Researchers at Columbia and Yale released a new Environmental Performance Index ranking 163 countries on a broad variety of indicators—basically, how well they protect their people’s air, water, natural resources, and ecosystems.

    Surprise, surprise, Scandinavian and Northern European countries do well. So does Costa Rica, the country that shut down its military in 1949 and invested instead in education.

    The United States comes in 61st, down from 39th in the most recent index, “with strong results on some issues, such as provision of safe drinking water and forest sustainability, and weak performance on other issues including greenhouse gas emissions and several aspects of local air pollution.”

    Of the newly industrialized nations, China and India rank 121st and 123rd respectively – reflecting the strain rapid economic growth imposes on the environment. However, Brazil and Russia rank 62nd and 69th, suggesting that the level of development is just one of many factors affecting placement in the rankings.

    The index can’t be a perfect measurement of a nation’s success, or conflict-ridden Colombia and broke-a$$ Iceland wouldn’t rank near the top. It’s still worth a look.

    Here are the top 30:

    EPI SCORES
    100 – 85

    1 Iceland 93.5
    2 Switzerland 89.1
    3 Costa Rica 86.4
    4 Sweden 86.0

    EPI SCORES
    85 – 70

    5 Norway 81.1
    6 Mauritius 80.6
    7 France 78.2
    8 Austria 78.1
    9 Cuba 78.1
    10 Colombia 76.8
    11 Malta 76.3
    12 Finland 74.7
    13 Slovakia 74.5
    14 United Kingdom 74.2
    15 New Zealand 73.4
    16 Chile 73.3
    17 Germany 73.2
    18 Italy 73.1
    19 Portugal 73.0
    20 Japan 72.5
    21 Latvia 72.5
    22 Czech Republic 71.6
    23 Albania 71.4
    24 Panama 71.4
    25 Spain 70.6

    Related Links:

    Where things stand on the Copenhagen Accord and international climate politics

    Bin Laden blames industrial nations for global warming

    U.S. government to cut greenhouse emissions by 28 percent






  • The future of farming and food at the Eco Farm Conference

    by Makenna Goodman

    Last week I went to California for the 2010 Eco Farm Conference—a three-day organic farming extravaganza featuring big names (and big influences of the organic agriculture movement) such as Wes Jackson, Frances Moore Lappé, Deputy Security of Agriculture Kathleen Merrigan, and a ton of folks who are part of an ever-growing and expanding movement for healthy food and a sustainable planet. But make no mistake about it—this wasn’t no utopian hippy fest (at least not all of it.)

    I came to Eco Farm looking for some inspiration, but also as a skeptic. As both an editor of farming and food books, and a young farmer myself—I was psyched about the three days of nonstop grad-school-ish conversation and networking, but worried about the elitism of the “organic” movement. And sure, there was a lot of self referencing, but you learned about people, and fast. At workshops: “I farm X, Y, and Z. What brings you here?” At meals: “I farm X, Y, and Z. What brings you here?” At the dance and the movie screening and on the way to the toilet: “I farm X, Y, and Z. What brings you here?” Turns out, though, most of the people there were hard working, sun-up to sun-down folks looking towards a future where people have more power over their lives.

    At Eco Farm I met an entire family (three generations!) of organic walnut farmers, and a couple of “hermetic hippies” who had a small but working farm, and ran an illegal underground market/CSA (and refused to get certified, because it’s too expensive.) I met a Canadian fellow who salvages cedar from beaches (and splits it along the wood grain) for custom furniture. I met a lot of women farmers. I met permaculturists and rice growers, orchardists and garden educators. Old timers and newcomers.  Farmers and foodies. (And a lone conservative who came to the last banquet as someone’s date and hurrah’ed  the new Massachusetts senator…yikes.) Indeed, after three days of much needed West Coast rain showers and farm fresh meals in a dining hall filled with over five hundred like-minded, hard-working, truly Democractic thinking, healthy farmer folks, I was frothing at the mouth thinking about razor hoes, hoophouses, perennial vegetables, and the power of food to heal national wounds.

    I expected the hippie contingent. Hell, people who were farming organic in the 60s and 70s are basically the backbone of this country’s movement. I expected the social justice activists bringing some much needed perspective on the politics of food, and what kinds of people (wealthier, whiter, landowning) have access to healthy meals (this, in fact, being one of the most important aspects of the food movement in general—stopping hunger, democratizing food, and redistributing power.) I even expected the unfortunate and veiled cultural appropriation that subconsciously permeated the fashion and spiritual energy of the retreat. (Which is to say, yes, I oiled my feet in a yoga class and dance-chanted to my Cherokee ancestors from the North and South.) What I didn’t expect, however, was the dominating corporate influence among the home-growers and anarchist farmers. I didn’t expect to leave the conference feeling deflated and powerless after days of uplifting, anti-corporate brainstorming. Because Mother Earth wasn’t the only thing watering the soil at Eco Farm 2010. Big business, too, came to rain on the parade.

    Take, for example, the new administration of the Asilomar Conference Center, campy resort and host of the Eco Farm conference since it’s beginnings.  In the past year, the place was bought by Aramark, a food and facilities provider supplying businesses, courts, prisons, schools, and all sorts of other corporate institutions.  The leaders of Eco Farm were really pissed about the new management—they didn’t get into too many details, but suffice it to say, the conference may be moved to another site next year.  And so it began—the opening plenary was rife with anti-corporate sentiment, and with good reason. Because, for one, with the rise of big business we’ve seen the rise in world hunger. The myth of “green” and “good” big business hangs over society like smog.

    In fact, most of the conversation at Eco Farm was focused on the power of the organic movement to change the way the country treats its roots—which is food, and people—and yet the delicious local farm-donated meals we were eating were forked from the same plates that serve garbage to the incarcerated, a paradox that seemed fitting considering the theme of the conference itself: Where the Future is Planted. Because, folks, it may be planted in the produce aisles of the Wal-Mart that put your family feed store out of business. It’s about exclusion masked as inclusion.

    It was appropriate then, for the closing plenary session of the conference to be focused on the future of food. And the question up for debate was: Is small the only beautiful? And who better to speak on this subject than Eliot Coleman, farmer, author, and proponent of small-scale organic farming; Dick Peixoto, owner of Lakeside Organics, California’s largest organic farm; and Gary Hirshberg, self-described “CE-Yo” (that’s everyman terminology for CEO) of Stonyfield Farm Yogurt.

    The hottest part of the debate sparked between Coleman and Hirshberg—two East Coasters on opposite ends of the farming spectrum. And whoa nelly, did sparks fly.

    Eliot Coleman, first of all, pretty much stole the show of the conference with his season-extension small-scale farming techniques and devotion to old-world organic practices he learned outside of the U.S. that go “deeper than just bottom-line certification.” He talked about how small farms are relentlessly subversive and keep big corporations nervous because of the possibility consumers will become farmers, and won’t need to buy a product. And while his idyllic farm in Maine may not be the reality of every one of our futures, it represents a counter-corporate model that needs more support in order to make change in a world that is far, far, far from sustainable.

    Gary Hirshberg, in contrast, sells his certified organic yogurt in Wal-Mart. In fact, he’s a big supporter of Wal-Mart. He’s a big supporter of big business, and has perfected a rap on how BIG is going to change the world. Hirshberg’s speech was successful in that he’s basically a politician. He wooed the audience with his charm, his humor, and constant affirmation about all of his heroes—the small farmers out there. He aligned himself with the entire movement around organic by using the classic stats that prove healthy food is better for everyone. He talked a lot about “our children” and “poor people” and “carbon footprint.” It all sounded legit until you realize this guy’s company is owned by the same corporation who owns Dannon and Evian (how can he be “for” the health of the environment when he’s in bed with bottled water?) He kept talking about his friend Tom Vilsack and how they were just in the oval office talking to Obama about healthcare. He came across as a real leader, and agent of legitimate legal change. There were frequent smatterings of applause after he pressed each progressive talk-button.

    But wait a minute. We had just spent the last three days talking about how to get more people farming, more farms in urban areas, healthy food to low-income communities, and how to decrease the negative impact of large scale agriculture (as Wes Jackson put it: The biggest enemy of the environment.) Now there’s a bigwig on the podium telling us it’s not farming, but buying that’s going to save the world. Now, I’m not saying we have to choose one or the other—big or small—but what’s the model we’re striving for? What kind of society do we see ourselves becoming in the future? Big businesses and their CE-Whatevers bloating the economy? Or a culture of self sufficiency, ownership, and access?

    What scares me (and I think it scared Eliot Coleman, too, or at least half of the people at Eco Farm who sat in their chairs, angrily shaking their heads) is that it’s companies like Gary Hirshberg’s that are making it impossible for small farmers to make their own yogurt and sell their own milk to their own communities. Stonyfield Farm Yogurt may have started as a small family farm, but as Eliot Coleman said, they “sold the cows” and became a proponent of the model that puts sustainable agriculture at dire risk. But Stonyfield does bring organic yogurt to urban places (far from farms), and they bring it to big stores. And thus they bring a healthier yogurt to the masses, which is great. They also keep conventional companies in check—at least theoretically. For that, we can thank Stonyfield Farm.

    The most worrisome part, however, is how easy it is to listen to guys like Gary Hirshberg, and be convinced there’s real progress being made in the world. He uses all the buttons we want to hear about global warming, diabetes, saving our children. But what he doesn’t say is that big businesses like his are putting small communities at risk by putting families out of business (at least the ones not part of his co-op), and risking the future of the family farm while claiming to be saving it.

    I’m not saying there aren’t farmers out there who don’t benefit from the dairy co-op model. In the hurting industry, it’s certainly a good thing for some (a dairy farmer couple I met at Eco Farm sell to the Organic Valley co-op, and told me they’re one of few farms surviving these bad times.) But I don’t want to make the success of a few farms cover up for the MANY more that have gone under because of the corporate model. (Gary Hirshberg even admitted himself that Butterworks Farm has the right idea, run by a husband and wife team in Vermont that has stayed small while still earning a profit.)

    Hirshberg went on to say we are a culture of consumers, so we should just make that culture a “certified organic” one. He said the most important thing we could do was to be a conscious consumer, and to buy the right thing. He said we should embrace both big business and the small farm, and just be friends, but didn’t go into detail about the negative side of big business, or how that model came into existence in the first place. Who’s benefiting here? The people, or the shareholders?

    I’m lucky. I live and farm in Vermont, a state that still has small towns, local food co-ops, and small-scale farms who operate on a local scale. I can sell eggs to my neighbor, or go in on a community cow. But where are small towns across the U.S. going? They’re not prevalent, I can say that. They’re disappearing. A Wal-Mart comes in, small businesses go under, and people who have no other choice are forced to shop there. We’ve robbed them of a choice to do different.

    One woman asked Hirshberg (at the head of a gigantic line of questions which were turned down due to lack of time): “So what you’re telling us is that we are a culture of consumers, not a culture of self-sufficient beings?”

    And Gary Hirshberg said, “Yes.”  He said, “This is the reality of our world.”

    Good for him, I guess, for becoming a voice for all the other large-scale organic companies keeping hush hush about their corporate values. I hate using him as a scapegoat, because he’s certainly not a bad person, and he’s trying his best. But I also didn’t elect him my leader. His reality may be that of a consumer, but that doesn’t mean mine has to be, at least not forever. Unless of course, I lose my job, my (limited) funds, my access to land, and therefore all of my power. And yes, I buy blue jeans and leather shoes. It’s cheaper to buy them than to make them myself! Which is a shame.

    I’m not sure the directors of the Ecological Farming Association are on board with Hirshberg and the mega-coporate model, but he still got the last word. Are we to think the future is planted in a corporation? That our power as people lies with these men in suits? I felt like a CEO had taken my language and changed the meaning of all the words. Like “organic,” for one. A word that started off substantial is now a label with regulations that cover only the bottom line, not the deep practice.

    So while we’re all talking about how far organic has come, we need to face the reality that it is in danger in an entirely new way.

    Related Links:

    Battle for the soul of organic dairy farmers goes on behind the scenes

    USDA’s Deputy Secretary discusses local, organic farming

    Can a new USDA advisory committee make the dairy industry less pathetic?






  • The death knell for comprehensive cap-and-trade

    by David Roberts

    I’ve resisted writing the obligatory “what Scott Brown’s victory means for the climate bill” post, mainly because the real answer is Nobody Knows and Everyone’s Full of Sh*t. What pundit wants to say that?

    Certainly everyone in the DC Village agrees that the Mass. special election was the Biggest Thing Evar (unlike, say, the Oregon special election wherein voters chose to raise taxes on rich people and businesses—only conservative news is big news). Congressional Democrats’ first reactions to Brown’s win were predictably and pathetically hysterical, with one after another racing to the microphone to assure voters that they’d gotten the message and wouldn’t be so presumptuous as to ever again try to pass any of the items on the agenda that got them elected.

    The dust has settled a little, but this is still an extraordinarily volatile political climate. Conventional wisdom has been that with polarization so high and tempers so raw, the climate/energy bill is doomed. I’ve been holding out slivers of hope, though. The Obama administration and Harry Reid have both recently reiterated that they want a comprehensive bill this session.

    Now, however, it looks like Sen. Lindsey Graham—the token Republican working on the Kerry/Graham/Lieberman “tripartisan” bill—has officially bailed on an economy-wide cap-and-trade system:

    “Realistically, the cap-and-trade bills in the House and the Senate are going nowhere,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who is trying to fashion a bipartisan package of climate and energy measures. “They’re not business-friendly enough, and they don’t lead to meaningful energy independence.”

    Mr. Graham said the public was demanding that any energy legislation from Washington focus on creating jobs, whether by drilling for offshore oil or building wind turbines.

    “What is dead is some massive cap-and-trade system that regulates carbon in a fashion that drives up energy costs,” he said.

    To me, regardless of what Obama or Reid may want, this signals the death knell for a comprehensive cap-and-trade program, this year and probably for the duration of Obama’s term in office. If Graham won’t go for it, no Republican will, certainly not the 6-8 Republicans needed. Indeed, opposition to cap-and-trade has become part of the Republican purity pledge. As long as the rabid teabag base has total control over the party, there will be no flexibility on this. And 41 senators is all they need to block it.

    Graham’s comments seem to point to an alternative that’s been much-discussed recently: a scaled-back cap-and-trade program that would cover only the electricity sector. That would be coupled with some version of the (pitifully weak) American Clean Energy Leadership Act passed by Bingaman’s Energy Committee last year, with additional subsidies for offshore drilling and nuclear power.

    Would the resulting bill be worth a damn? Put it this way: it would be possible to craft a good package of climate and energy legislation with a cap-and-trade system covering utilities, ambitious renewable energy mandates, stringent energy efficiency regulations, and a massive round of investments in clean energy.

    That’s not what will pass. My prediction is that whatever K/G/L come up with will look more or less like energy policy over the last 20 years: a hodgepodge of subsidies and tax breaks for favored industries. At this point there seems little hope left of anything better.

    There’s much to discuss about the bill, the political fight that will take shape around it, and the best way forward for clean energy advocates in coming years. For now I just wanted to mark what looks to me like the final passing of the dream of an economy-wide price on carbon.

    Related Links:

    Bin Laden blames industrial nations for global warming

    U.S. government to cut greenhouse emissions by 28 percent

    Ben Nelson’s logically incoherent stance on cap-and-trade