Comments Glenn Hurowitz has made

How long should we wait until someone invents an alternative, politically viable means of ending deforestation and the 20 percent of climate pollution it causes and improving agriculture and the 15 percent of climate pollution it causes? We've needlessly lost more than 300 million acres of tropical forests since the Kyoto Protocol was signed. 30 million acres disappear every year, sending about 6 billion tons of carbon into the air. We've got to address that or we won't solve the climate crisis. We can't just focus on the 50 percent of climate pollution that comes from energy. Great New York Times editorial on this topic from Friday: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29fri2.html?ref=opinion

This bill won't solve global warming

Van Hollen's bill (and cap-and-dividend in general) only addresses half of global warming - the energy half. It leaves out tropical deforestation (20% of emissions), agriculture (15% +), and industrial chemicals like F-gases (likely over 10 %). It's also politically naive. People aren't demanding rebate checks right now - they're demanding a healthy economy, and that's one created by government investment. This is a plan suited for a Republican era, not a verging-on-depression Democratic one. It also misunderstands how legislation gets passed: bills are passed through coalitions - and that investment spending can bring in labor, minorities, clean energy businesses and others. Finally, it's just bad negotiating. Cap-and-dividend advocates are actually arguing NOT to have revenue go to green purposes. That's why they have climate action saboteurs like Bob Corker backing them. It will mean less action for the planet. On Van Hollen to introduce cap-and-dividend bill posted 9 months ago 2 Responses

really?

The idea that there's a wide backlash against Schwarzenegger's plan or cap-and-auction seems exaggerated to me; I'm I know this is just a blog post, but it would have been good to show that there's a lot of praise to go along with the criticism to give a fuller picture of what's happening. On Business groups, community activists blast California's cap-and-trade plans posted 1 year ago 12 Responses

I meant liquid coal

i.e. after talking with Grist folks, Biden seems to actually have been talking about CCS, not liquid coal.On Reactions and info on Joe Biden's selection to the Obama ticket posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Actually, tankers do transport oil from rigs

While some offshore rigs do use pipelines (which are also subject to oil spills), a huge number use tankers or Floating Storage and Offloading Units (actually converted single-hull tankers). If you doubt me, maybe you should check out the Minerals Management Service Kids Page, "Stacey Visits an Offshore Oil Rig": http://www.mms.gov/mmskids/explore/explore.htmOn How greens and Democrats can win the energy debate posted 1 year, 5 months ago 19 Responses

Forestry is different and better

The Stamford study you refer to focuses its analysis on the energy sector, where additionality is, as it points out, a major problem. But forestry, particularly avoided deforestation, can be quite different. The best estimates suggest that without action to conserve forests, 85 percent of the world's tropical forests will disappear, releasing between 87 - 130 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air. What that means is that almost any tropical forest saved is an additional tropical forest saved (though you might want to provide a 15 percent discount for forest conservation credits). Of course, there should be a priority on protecting the most threatened forests, generally those closest to the agricultural frontier, but protecting tropical forests almost by definition brings additionality in.

I co-authored an essay about overcoming other challenges to deforestation with Dorjee Sun here.On Probably no U.S. CO2 emissions cuts from new Lieberman-Warner bill until after 2025 posted 1 year, 6 months ago 3 Responses

Good Offsets and Bad Offsets

I think it's important to note that the Wara-Victor paper is mainly critical of energy offsets and more hopeful about allowing polluters to get credit from forests and certain other offsets:

Third, the CDM rules should be liberalized to allow all forms of carbon reductions. At present, the CDM has an eclectic (but growing) array of methodologies, many concentrated on projects that deliver small volumes of credits for projects of dubious additional effort. Adding other large sources of reductions for which it is easier to assign additionality--such as CCS projects as well the growing array of possible forest-based net reductions in emissions--would ease the task of reorienting the CDM to a smaller number of projects with higher integrity.

It's also important to note that verifiable offsets have received powerful support from the Bali conference (PDF), the Stern Review (PDF), the World Bank (PDF).

One reason is that forest offsets are far cheaper than most offsets, with about 50 percent being able to be achieved at a cost of less than $20 US /ton CO2. That means that deforestation globally can be cut in half for approximately $5 billion a year (PDF), according to the IPCC (completely stopping deforestation might cost an additional $10 billion, still super cheap compared with other forms of emissions cuts).

To put this in perspective, that's a cost of about $3.50/ton, far cheaper than either direct or international Clean Development Mechanism greenhouse gas reductions.

What this cheapness means is that more greenhouse gas reductions can be achieved through forest conservation far faster than in any other sector. On What would the use of carbon offsets mean for McCain's climate policy? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 16 Responses

probably contact the Sierra Club

www.sierraclub.org - but you should just join them - they're a great group with the best grassroots environmental presence in AmericaOn More on Catalog Choice and the Do Not Mail registry posted 1 year, 8 months ago 8 Responses

Why not forests?

Big kudos to Yahoo for going carbon neutral, but I must say I don't understand why they didn't do it by protecting tropical forests - they'd get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of both carbon saved, biodiversity protected, and social benefits than working with huge financial interests to install hydropower and wind turbines. And people would understand it more easily. Hopefully, they'll choose that option in the future. On Web company announces selection of offset projects posted 2 years, 1 month ago 8 Responses

Beef is the problem, not tofu

Um, the problem with beef is that cows have to eat a hell of a lot of soybeans to give you the same nutritional value that comes from eating tofu directly, about 16 times as much land, and up to 100 times more water and electricity. On On PETA's latest campaign posted 2 years, 2 months ago 256 Responses

Tropical Farmers Destroy Tropical Forests

Encouraging agriculture in tropical countries is a climate disaster. Much of this agriculture comes a result of razing tropical forests - by far the most powerful lungs the planet has, storing more than 550 metric tons of CO2 per hectare. Whether it's Big Ag or small farmers, clearing of forests for agriculture, ranching, and other purposes accounts for more than 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Global south folk would be much better off if they are given financial credit for protecting tropical forests rather than destroying the forests that give the world life (and also give local communities clean water and air). Read more about this idea here.On Is it really a savior for smallholder farmers in the global south? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

Dingell and Unfrozen Cavemen

A big thank you to Grist. This interview inspired my latest op-ed, "Frozen Attitudes Bode Ill", printed today in The South Florida Sun-Sentinel (based in Fort Lauderdale's Broward County, an area particularly vulnerable to sea level rise). The article talks about why the Democrats would allow an "Unfrozen Caveman Committee Chairman" like Dingell to have such a powerful post - and the political consequences of that decision. Click here to read the original version of the op-ed.

Here's a sample:

So why are the Democrats allowing Dingell, who's so obviously beholden to a special interest, the power to decide such an important issue? It's because under their current rules and leadership, they don't have much of a choice. Democrats continue to give out committee assignments on the basis of seniority, not competence or even how well a particular chairman represents the sentiments of the majority of the Democratic caucus.

It's that system that has elevated other Unfrozen Cavemen like Jack Murtha to important posts, despite undistinguished and ethically questionable records...

There is another way, though it's the Republicans who pioneered it. When they came into office in 1994, the Republicans did away with the seniority system, requiring committee chairmen to run for office, and instituting term limits...