EES’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  First: Waxman clearly has the right stuff to be leading this fight, and I commend his efforts so far. He fainted in his office after the House bill passed, which I think demonstrates how important and thrilling all this is to him.

  More substantively, however, it must be said that the regulations related to acid rain-causing and ozone-depleting chemicals were products of their individual circumstances - different chemical processes, different business and political climates, and so on.

  To the best of my knowledge, no one was under the impression that acid rain or the ozone hole were hoaxes at the time of those programs' passage.

  In addition, much of the science to reduce problematic emissions of those substances was already at the commercialization stage, such that it would be profitable, not problematic, for industries to switch over; doing so would cull competition and increase market share. Many of the alternatives to CFCs were already in the works by the time ozone policy was being developed, and were cheaper than CFCs without any added incentives. Recall that DuPont and others threw their weight behind, not against, the Montreal Protocol.

  At the last, I must note that they were fundamentally smaller, more sectoral problems than greenhouse gas emissions, both in terms of nations and businesses. More solar radiation due to ozone deterioration meant more skin damage to wealthy white people, who also happened to be the ones largely able to act on the problem. Skin cancer is an immediate danger, not a far-removed risk. And there were only a handful of companies producing CFCs. In the case of climate, most every business venture has a part in emissions, and those who hurt most from GHG emissions are also those least able to mitigate.

  It all boils down to this: climate change is much more difficult a problem to solve than the others under discussion here. In one case, every practical signal said "yes;" in this case, every practical signal says "let me think about that. . . uh . . . well . . . maybe." It calls for a more concerted, broad-based approach - 85% of the economy would be capped under the House bill, not just a few producers of certain chemicals, or power plants who can install scrubbers relatively cheaply - and the short-term economic consequences will, frankly, be much more difficult to take.

  From what we've seen so far, I think it fair to say that Waxman believes in this bill and what it stands for. Belief in the ethical, cost-internalizing, far-sighted requirement of climate change mitigation is ultimately what will make passing this legislation intact (i.e. still useful to its stated purpose, without nonsense concessions to polluters) possible. That was never the case for either acid rain or ozone depletion legislation.

  On Henry Waxman's decade-long fight to improve the Clean Air Act posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 7 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  Respectfully, "Mr. Durden," I do not think the United States would be responsible (in any way other than as a GHG emitter) for, say, a war between India and Pakistan over diminishing meltwater from already-contested Kashmir, but depending on the scale of the conflict, we would certainly suffer from it. Similarly, as with the Somalian example, when basic resources literally wither away in a developing country, predatory behavior may be the only visible path to survival. (Granted, natural resources such as oil, diamonds, and uranium seem only to "curse" developing countries with violent struggles for control.)

  I am not the hawkish type, and I fear climate change more than I fear terrorism, but the fact is that the two intersect in meaningful ways, and those involved in the propagation of that knowledge exhibit a lot of foresight as well as political acumen. Great reporting - all eyes on the Senate to see where this goes.

  On National security emphasis could inspire more support for climate bill, says former Sen. John Warner posted 3 months, 3 weeks ago 4 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  I'm not at all sure, Sindark, if algae's conversion factors are similar to the figures you cited. I also gather (from an industry presentation given at a recent EPA workshop on lifecycle emissions accounting) that the most prominent American sites for algal oil production are in Southwestern deserts, which probably have more available sunlight and lower opportunity costs for transitioning into production than your average temperate latitude piece of land.

  What caught my attention was the involvement of a slew of biotech companies. Are folks considering genetically modifying algae for this? If there's a single plausible GMO I would balk the most at seeing released into natural ecosystems, it might very well be algae. It (assisted by agricultural runoff) wreaks enough havoc as is.

  Don't get me wrong, I'm excited about prospects for algae fuel. I just hope my excitement isn't the naive first blush of acquaintance with something that, like most corn ethanol, is actually more trouble than it's worth.

  On ExxonMobil invests in algae biofuel project posted 4 months ago 3 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  It's completely agonizing that NYT isn't getting the real point across. Just . . . wow.

  On If New York Times can’t tell the global warming story (twice!), how will the public hear it? posted 4 months ago 1 Response

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ADFASFDASFD: Is that tariff politically feasible? At least right now, it doesn't look that way to me. Feed-in tariffs are certainly a Good Idea, but I believe Obama has come out against them, and I'm guessing they'd be a double-edged sword: save jobs, increase prices, risk being called protectionist. I guess that's three edges, but the last (the one Obama seems concerned with) is purely political.

  On a positive note, last I heard the WTO had made some moves that suggested they wouldn't take issue with such actions, though I could be wrong on that. Or anything. Correct and/or criticize freely.

  On How should you talk to your cab driver about cap-and-trade? posted 4 months, 1 week ago 59 Responses