Comments GreenMom has made

Very helpful!  Thank you.

Tyler, if cap-and-trade were the only provision in the bill you might have a point.  But it's not.  Go back and read David's second bullet.  It's all the other stuff -- energy efficiency, renewal portfolio standards, low-carbon fuel, smart grid -- that we desperately need, that would go by the wayside if Waxman-Markey goes down.

Chances are low that we're ever going to get a strong enough cap-and-trade OR carbon tax in this session of Congress.  Let's not throw out all the other critical stuff in the process, and wind up with nothing.

Sam -- what Sean is saying (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) is that currently, for industrial facilities, compliance under NSR is measured on an percent control basis - i.e. you have to reduce pollutant levels in the exhaust by x%.  If more coal is burned in the boiler each day that's ok (up to a permit limit based on your capacity) -- as long as your control device gets x% control of the exhaust coming out. 

The current input-based NSR standards don't encourage you to make run more efficiently- i.e. to produce more with the same amount of fuel input.  Output-based standards, on the other hand, would encourage energy efficiency and provide reassurance that efficiency upgrades are not going to trigger a re-opening of your permit. 

I was arguing that efficiency upgrades are not likely to increase emissions on a tons per year basis and therefore wouldn't trigger re-opening of your permit - but Sean was arguing that perception is reality, and the fear exists out there in industry-land that any time you make a change you risk having to renegotiate your permit. I believe him on that point, as there is an awful lot of fear-mongering out there.

Sean -- thanks, that's helpful. I do know a good bit about NSR, and completely agree that the switch should have been made long ago to output-based standards (the thinking was moving in that direction within EPA before the Bush adminstration appointees took over).

Here's what I don't understand in your argument -- under NSR your change is only a major modification if it increases emissions above a particular threshold on a tons per year basis, right -- not a ppm basis.  So how would efficiency upgrades qualify as major modifications? Are you saying that new equipment would have to be added that on a net basis increases overall pollution, measured in tons per year, because so much more power could be generated in the same time frame as before?  Or are you saying that industries fear any change that in theory could trigger a permit-reopening, even if in reality it won't?

I'm willing to believe I'm missing something, so let me know if I am.

There's no reasoning with the wingnuts, but...

...we don't need to reason with them.  We just need them to keep looking ridiculous to the rest of the country.

I really think Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert have done more for the planet than almost anyone, just by helping the wingers to marginalize themselves.  But the rest of us need to pitch in and nail them at every opportunity.

Oh, and also keep repeating the green jobs and energy independence memes.  Those really appeal to a wider audience.  Also energy efficiency -- honestly, David Frum notwithstanding, most people do readily understand energy efficiency as simple common sense.On Why cap-and-trade requires that Bangladesh evict radical Islamists posted 9 months ago 11 Responses

Hey Pompey...

...you must know how valuable your contributions to this blog are.  

To heck with the trolls.  Keep on keeping on.On Coen brothers shoot an ad busting the 'clean coal' myth posted 9 months ago 36 Responses

Cap-and-trade will only work...

...if the cap is tight enough, and declines over time (and permits are auctioned - no freebies).

Trading or no trading, the bottom line is that the program will succeed if we have the political will to set a low enough cap.  And it won't succeed if we don't.  

Whether or not there's trading is a second-order issue.On No particular policy instrument is appropriate for all environmental problems posted 9 months ago 11 Responses

My cost-benefit analysis says....

Scooping turds is an end-of-pipe solution.  What you really want to do is prevent deposition of turds to begin with.

What's the purpose of the dog?  Can you fulfill that purpose in another way that does not produce turds?

My dog is a watchdog.*  Perhaps his function might be better served by a security system, but we'd have to factor in the cost of the security system vs. the almost 14 years of food and vet bills we've provided, not to mention dog treats...

Of course my dog also provides the benefit of love and comfort to my family, but I can't find any studies to cite for a dollar figure on love and comfort, so naturally my cost-benefit analysis assumes a value of 0 for that.

Result?  The mutt's no longer worth having.  Maybe never was.  [sniff]

*well, he used to be, but now he's old and deaf and has cataracts, but never mind...On Question for the day posted 9 months ago 14 Responses

oh, for god's sake...

...rant, on, ids, for all the good it will do the planet.

Meanwhile the author of this post, who has spent a career actually working the system to positive ends (you could look it up), is making an important point about which policy is likely wring more carbon reduction from the political system.  He's also providing some important arguments to those who can help get something worthwhile passed.

You can choose to throw stones at people fighting the good fight within the system, while you sit on the sidelines taking potshots.  Or you can get in there and fight smart.

Who's more useful, you or David Hawkins?On Memo to tax sirens: Both a carbon cap and a tax can be implemented well posted 9 months, 1 week ago 20 Responses

Oh, for cripe's sake...

The Cardinals are from freaking Arizona -- John McCain country -- an overgrown, overwatered absurdly green and suburban desert.

The Steelers are from Pittsburgh, a former steel town reincarnated into a high tech center, with a deeply-rooted blue collar fan base across the western half of the state.  Their totem, the terrible towel, was dreamed up by a guy who, in his dotage, left the rights to the towel to a nonprofit that runs group homes for mentally handicapped adults, giving the nonprofit millions a year in income in perpetuity.

Who's really got the moral high ground?On In which industry conquers nature posted 10 months ago 3 Responses

If it were sold with an option for...

...still working five days a week, but shorter days -- i.e. a 35-hour week -- it would go over better. It'd help out parents, in particular, which is always popular.

I realize we won't get the environmental benefit of reduced commuting that way, but firms could still hire more workers.. at least in theory.On Shorter work week as stimulus posted 10 months ago 4 Responses

Just a reminder...

...that 28 states plus DC already have renewable portfolio standards, and more are in the works.  Of course they vary (see the link), but hey, we're already on our way.

http://www.ferc.gov/market-oversight/mkt-electric/overvie ...On Combine a carbon standard with a renewable portfolio standard posted 10 months ago 2 Responses

Keep it MUCH simpler...

Addressing David's points:

1. [the problem is dire] Ads and sound bites associating climate change with stronger storms (photos of Katrina), sea level rise (photos of floods), and drought (photos of wildfires eating houses).

2. [solutions/opportunities] Sound bites like energy independence, energy efficiency = green jobs, green jobs = jobs that can't be outsourced.
   

You want to educate?  Educate the kids.  Put ads on Disney and Nick showing kids making the point that electric cars/hybrids are cool, SUVs are SO last year (I'm not sure how to make that ad, but I'm sure it can be done).
On What will shift the public's attitudes on climate change? posted 10 months, 1 week ago 21 Responses

Well, honestly, David

You've got to admit, this one's a no-brainer.  On Move would allow California and 13 other states to set tougher tailpipe standards posted 10 months, 1 week ago 10 Responses

Important memes

I said this in more detail in the "Science is hard" thread today, but it fits here too -- all discussion of climate change needs to be linked with a few other key memes:

Clean Energy. Energy Independence. Green jobs.

We need to link the memes and keep hammering those links into people's heads:  

Energy efficiency equals jobs that can't be outsourced.  

Clean energy + energy efficiency = energy indepedence.

Etc.
On Seeing the light in the Pew poll on Americans' top priorities posted 10 months, 1 week ago 14 Responses

In Obama's defense...

...whatever good stuff he comes up with, he's gotta be saving for the inaugural address. Why waste it on the concert?  I doubt anyone was expecting much from him yesterday.  

Watching it on the teevee I was thinking he could have shortened it even more, but whatever.  It's all good.  Just for right now, don't worry...be happy.

Tuesday we party. Wednesday we get back to the real work.On Inaugural opening ceremony/concert posted 10 months, 2 weeks ago 2 Responses

Gas tax = dumb politics

Let the navel-gazers debate the gas tax.  It's not going to happen, and shouldn't -- the political fallout would jeopardize the likelihood of Congress passing any other climate policies.

That would be disastrous.On Another attempt to dispute the disproportionate attention paid to gas taxes posted 11 months ago 21 Responses

Best biology book of the past few decades

for the pre-school set:

"Everyone Poops" by Taro Gomi.  Translated from the original Japanese.  Get it for your kids.  

[Fun fact:  the U.K. translation is called "Everybody Poos".]On A review of The Big Necessity posted 11 months, 3 weeks ago 6 Responses

Truck stop electrification

...because truckers idle all night to keep up refrigeration, or heat, or what have you.

There's a trickle of truck stop electrification happening in my state, but we need lots and lots more.

Until we do what T. Boone wants and move trucks to natural gas, the least we could do is keep them from idling for hours on end.On American Progress' 'Green Recovery' plan posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 21 Responses

"Green jobs or depression"

You got that right, amazing...

I'm hopeful, though.  We may actually do the right thing.On Green stimulus, green jobs posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 13 Responses

Huh?

You've got to be kidding me -- She was a Superfund program manager, and later ran a pretty good state program.  

How is that hackery?  

Perhaps you would rather see someone with no political connections, or possibly one who never had to manage anything?  Think that would make EPA more effective?On Politico claims N.J. DEP commissioner Lisa Jackson in line to head EPA posted 11 months, 4 weeks ago 8 Responses

It's not an either-or

David, I think you have captured the landscape really well.

Jonathan, I agree with everything you say (I was going to make the same point about the rules inevitably getting tied up in court).

BUT I think you did not mention an important benefit of undertaking the adminitrative effort at EPA.  Inevitably, a serious EPA effort toward promulgating carbon rules will light more of a fire under Congress' butt to pre-empt EPA with legislation.  

That could be all to the good (hopefully), as legislation is much less likely to result in a protracted court battle.

I recognize the pitfalls you guys have pointed out -- that Congress could override tighter state efforts, for example...but I'm pinning my hopes on President Obama and Chairman Waxman [let me savor that for a moment... President Obama. Chairman (of the full committee) Waxman...].
On Some thoughts on the merits of regulating greenhouse gases via the Clean Air Act posted 12 months ago 5 Responses

They'll start with carbon cap-and-trade...

....and I'll bet they insert into that legislation a free pass from NSR for anyone covered under the cap-and-trade.  

An interesting question will be whether the bill will be multi-pollutant -- i.e. covering carbon cap-and-trade, but including NOx and SO2 trading as well (a la EPA's recently struck-down Clean Air Interstate Rule).

I'm not sure how that all fits together, but it'd be interesting to watch it all unfold.

Thank goodness (in advance) for Henry Waxman.  If this all happens successfully, it'll be because of him.  Oh, and Ed Markey too.On The new administration's success with climate policy will depend on where they start posted 1 year ago 3 Responses

Here you go

http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/takeitback/electron ...

...assuming you live in Seattle since you're a Grist editor.

That's all I know from 3000 miles away.On In which an argument erupts over electronics disposal posted 1 year ago 7 Responses

As a long-suffering EPA staffer...

...I'll take ANY of the above over Steven "whee! I get to hang with the big boys and all it took was my soul!" Johnson.On Who should be next head of the EPA? posted 1 year ago 8 Responses

Hey JMG

You've got a bunch of good ideas in here that need separating.  I'll try to pull some out, but if you use numbering and headers, it'll help.

Here's some ideas I think I see:

Trading sulfur under a hard cap worked for acid rain for several reasons that don't necessarily work for carbon and climate (I know you say it's debateable when sulfur trading worked, but really it's not...).

SO2 trading was restricted to big power plants, where it's really hard to fudge your emission measurements (an important point to add is that power plants have continuous emission monitors that record electronically and they report to an EPA database).

Power plants can (and do) report CO2 emissions, which are correspondingly hard to fudge.

Power plants are also by far the biggest stationary carbon emitters and they are x% of global carbon emissions (I forget -- it's like 40%, right?  That's important context).

Other carbon emitters can fudge much more easily.  They don't have single emission points analogous to a power plant's tall stack, and you can't easily directly measure carbon emissions from a bajillion small(er) emission points.

All those programs that provide carbon offsets for all sorts of actions (give examples) are really hard to monitor.  

So let's at least be really tight on the power plants we know are the bulk of the problem.  Let's keep them in a separate pool.

We have very little time to get this right.  Hansen, 350, yadda yadda yadda...

My two cents.  Take or leave!  :-)On If we try cap-and-trade systems, we have to handle coal separately posted 1 year ago 19 Responses

Hey, jabailo, for once I see your point!

Let's put them all to work retrofiting houses and buildings for energy efficiency, putting up solar panels, and building wind farms.

A clean energy new deal!  Excellent.On What's the best way to phase out the huge fleet of aging coal plants? posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

It's hard to imagine...

...shutting down coal plants by government fiat.  How's that going to happen in the real world?  

Sam, I like your idea that NSR enforcement could return and demand alternative sources and part of settlement agreements.  That might do a little bit.

More than 30 states have renewable portfolio standards, and that's going to help too.  A federal one would be nice (as long as it doesn't override tougher state RPS's).  Federal subsidies to, and greater tax breaks for, alternative energy sources would help too.

Of course a price on carbon (tax or cap-and-trade) is essential to help level the playing field.

A ban on mountaintop removal would go a long way too.  I'm not sure if there's anything we can do directly to stop strip mining in Wyoming, though.

Anyway, the Obama administration is going to have its hands full tackling all of this -- we will all need to keep up the pressure on them and on Congress.

That's my late night preaching to the choir, for what it's worth.  I'm sure you guys know all this already, though.On What's the best way to phase out the huge fleet of aging coal plants? posted 1 year ago 6 Responses

I think you're absolutely right...

...and per your question #3 above -- I wonder if part of the reason for appointing Rahm Emanuel is that Obama recognizes that the Republicans who are left in Congress just aren't going to go along.

If the minority is hell-bent on obstruction, why not hire a pit bull to clear them out of the way?  Not a bad strategy, especially if you know you're going to have to counter the propensity of Pelosi and Reid to roll over at the first sign of trouble.On Three key energy and climate questions and why conservatives just don't get why they lost, part 1 posted 1 year ago 4 Responses

I'll like it better a week from tonight...

...when I know that Obama's approach to building a green economy will be the one that matters, and not McCain's BS about nuclear power plants (unbelievably expensive and water-guzzling) and offshore drilling (useless).On Green jobs music video posted 1 year, 1 month ago 1 Response

Spare me the knee jerk, please...

...Israel is no more or less moral than any other country. I expect knee jerk stuff about evildoers from  the wingnut-o-sphere on the right, but clearly the left does it too.  So helpful in advancing the cause of peace (not)...

If you were an Israeli citizen right now, what would you do?  I like to think I'd be out there trying to green the country while hoping not to get my head blown off on the local bus.

Anyway this is not a site to discuss Mideast politics, so this is my last word on the subject. On The Israeli Army goes green posted 1 year, 1 month ago 5 Responses

Come on now...

Jon Rynn, I think you have it right.  A big gas tax is a huge political loser.  Unfortunate, but unavoidably true -- anyone in the next Administration who'd try such a thing would lose all credibility with the electorate.  Can you imagine President Obama (I love the sound of that... :-)) dumping that on the middle class?  He'd never recover from the backlash, and he'd lose his chance to accomplish anything.

It's got to be done another way.  Mass transit, that's good.  Push alternative energy as a way to get off Middle Eastern oil.  Push green collar jobs.  Build the green economy.  Raise MPG standards. And so forth.

We need to understand what works politically, and what doesn't.  What's the point of pushing pie in the sky ideas that will never happen?On We need a price-floor on fossil fuels posted 1 year, 1 month ago 20 Responses

ooh, that one may persuade me...

...to give them some $$$.

[After the election.  Right now, I'm tapped out.]On A new We ad gets feisty posted 1 year, 2 months ago 7 Responses

Yes we can.... Yes we can.....

We need to bust our butts to get him elected, all.On Obama calls out climate and energy in his big acceptance speech posted 1 year, 3 months ago 16 Responses

Tom

The issue of whether global capitalism should be the fundamental tenet governing the social fabric of the 21st century world (as many people assume it should be) is a long, interesting discussion that is far from black and white.  I'm going to need to read Robert Reich's book!

But the climate problem is urgent, and clearly the world currently does worship at the alter of markets and productivity.  So it's a crucial point that markets, structured correctly and overseen by readily enforced rules, are our best bet to reduce carbon emissions as quickly as possible.

And of course the role of government is to draft the rules - i.e. create the right market - and then enforce the rules - i.e. keep the market honest.  (I say that as a career civil servant.  Most of us really do try to do the right thing.)

At the same time, we should be subsidizing and mandating renewables, rewarding efficiency (and removing barriers to efficiency), and raising CAFE standards.

Oh, and I take your point about the dismantling of the regulatory structure starting well before Bush.  I realize it's been going on since Reagan, including under Clinton.  But the Bush Administration took it to extremes, taking every opportunity to place foxes in charge of all the bureaucratic chicken coops.  I've been in government since the 1980s, and no other Administration has come close to their level of hubris.On NYT Magazine probes Obama's economic thinking posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

It's all in the structure and the oversight

Markets are not inherently unethical, and carbon markets, like any other market, will work efficiently and fairly if structured fairly to begin with, and if they get plenty of oversight.

For example, financial markets went wild when the Congressional Republicans and the Bush Administration undercut the rules and the SEC.  Put the oversight back, and better behavior will return.

David, I don't know why recognizing the value of markets should make you any less a progressive. You're not Milton Friedman - you recognize that markets need proper structure and limits. It's not whether you have a market -- it's how it's governed.On NYT Magazine probes Obama's economic thinking posted 1 year, 3 months ago 46 Responses

David is right on

Thanks, David.  You said it way better than my two feeble attempts.

Yeesh.On Obama's energy and climate advisors posted 1 year, 3 months ago 52 Responses

Make it stop

Please, people, get a grip.

Joe Biden is not responsible for development in Delaware.  He's a SENATOR.  He's on the Foreign Relations Committee.  That's national.  He's not responsible for zoning, or parks, or any other issue specific to Delaware.

Plus, I don't think he takes money from developers, so really he has NO moreconnection to local issues than any other schmo in Wilmington.

It's not his thing, dude.On Barack Obama selects Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his running mate posted 1 year, 3 months ago 17 Responses

You guys are a little harsh...

...I wouldn't dismiss ALL of these guys out of hand.  There are definitely those who have waltzed through the halls of bureaucracy, as well as the repositories of Inside the Beltway posturing, without actually DOING anything for the planet or the human race (Bob Sussman, for example).

Other the other hand, people like Learner and Kammen have been pushing concrete change and are worthy of respect.

I do think Obama is surrounding himself with policy advisors who know their stuff.  Whether he and they have the guts and enthusiasm to succeed in creating the new energy economy remains to be seen.  But it also depends on public pressure (i.e. us), Obama's persuasive power, and Democratic political spine.  These advisors don't do their jobs in a vacuum.On Obama's energy and climate advisors posted 1 year, 3 months ago 52 Responses

Because nuclear means...

...DANGER, and really, really BIG EXPLOSIONS!!!!

Wind is SAFE.....and CLEAN.  

Ever hear that George Carlin routine about football vs. baseball?  Nuclear energy is football (armed combat).  Wind energy is baseball ("safe...at home").On Why is nuclear energy what 'real men' support? posted 1 year, 3 months ago 26 Responses

What amazingdrx said...

Jobs are sexy.  People need jobs.  Blue collar workers desperately need more blue collar jobs.

I'll recycle my old contest entry, which amazingdrx helped with...

Clean Energy.  Green Jobs.  One Living Planet.

We gotta link clean energy and green jobs.  Van Jones / Green For All have it right.

Sean, you may not like subsidies, and yeah, they create market distortions, and yeah, we may yet have an opportunity to reform the regulatory system and ass-backwards Federal subsidies.  

At the same time we need to subsidize, a la states and locals:

1.  Businesses making energy efficiency improvements
   
2.  Community colleges teaching green job skills
   
3.  Wind and solar too.

Clean Energy.  Green Jobs.

 On Efficienciezzz ... posted 1 year, 3 months ago 23 Responses

Gotta love it

Best line:  "I'll see you at the debates, bitches!"

Best thing about the ad:  her referring to McCain as "wrinkly white-haired guy."

So great that this is going viral.  The kids need to be engaged.  You know how they'll vote, so long as we can get them to the polls...On The Hilton energy policy posted 1 year, 3 months ago 8 Responses

Doesn't matter

I take your point completely -- but to the people we're trying to reach (i.e. NOT the choir), saving the planet and saving our asses are one and the same thing.

We're just arguing with ourselves here.  Pilpul.  (...for you Talmudic scholars out there).On Dem presidential candidate calls on world to unite to fight climate change posted 1 year, 4 months ago 11 Responses

Value of a life

Re the first bullet -- economics watchers beware -- the AP writer seems to fundamentally misunderstand how comparable different economic analyses are across EPA.  He's comparing apples and oranges, and it's leading him to conclude that something nefarious is going on.  While lots of nefarious policy changes have come out of EPA recently, this may not be one of them.

The reason I'm counseling caution here is that different monetary values per life saved have fundamental bases that are inherently different across EPA rules.  For example:

1.  the year for which you're adjusting -- i.e. are you looking at 1999 dollars, 2002 dollars, 2006 dollars, etc. (The inflation rate used varies less across EPA rules than the dollar year does).

2.  the compliance year of the regulation - i.e. the year the pollution reductions mandated by a rule are realized.  The dollar figure for a rule that has a 2015 compliance year is going to be different than the dollar figure for a rule with a 2020 compliance year.  

God knows the Administration has wreaked havoc with EPA rules over the last eight years -- but reporters still need to do their homework lest they look stupid.  I think this guy just got it wrong.On A weekly roundup of greenish news from the capitol posted 1 year, 4 months ago 3 Responses

Ken and Sean

Ken - the government is far more likely to lower a tax than to lower a cap.  Not so much for the legal reasons that Sean described, I don't think, but because of the difference in how each plays out politically.

Taxes have, in fact, been lowered many times. But lowering a cap would be politically much tougher if you had powerful interests crying wolf about economic hardship. It's the same forces that drove L-W to include allowance giveaways instead of auction.

Sean, I have a different question for you if you don't mind.  I'm curious about your take on CAIR going under...
...but more importantly I also want to go back to your endorsement of Bingaman's view that federal cap and trade legislation should nullify all the separate regional, state, and local action that has taken place.  Why rely solely on federal legislation that is always watered down by compromise, when tighter rules in particular states or regions often drive the market innovation that the whole country needs?On Smart ideas for post Lieberman-Warner climate policy posted 1 year, 4 months ago 71 Responses

Right on, Russ

Congressional Dems have been doormats for so long  -- they just can't help themselves.  It's mind-bending.  

Someone please let them know they have the majority now.  

Please explain to them that they control the agenda.

Tell them they can make the Republicans look like obstructionist simpletons.

Tell them to just keep repeating the sound bites -- here's what Republicans stand in the way of:

Efficient cars.  Clean Energy.  Green Jobs.  Get off foreign  oil.

It's really not that hard.

Recently, people have started stopping me in parking lots again, the way they did back in late 2003 when I first bought my (04) Prius.  

Only now they know what my car is, and they're stopping me to tell me they're jealous.

There's a lesson for Congress in that.On Lieberman-Warner's failure this year underdetermines next year's efforts posted 1 year, 5 months ago 5 Responses

Sean

I think you are being a bit unfair.  Back in 1990, EPA staff were intimately involved in helping craft the Clean Air Act changes.  Back then the political atmosphere was much less toxic (pun intended);  the two sides of the aisle were able to work together and the powers that be sincerely wanted a workable outcome.

EPA staff would like nothing better than to be help guide greenhouse gas legislation now.

But I think the resistance you may be seeing to changing the existing new source review provisions of the Clean Air Act are a result of the current toxic political atmosphere, and the likelihood of unforseen nefarious changes to the Clean Air Act that could well happen if it were opened up.On The challenges of reconciling science and policy posted 1 year, 5 months ago 32 Responses

Sean

Lakoff's whole shtick is directed at the choir -- he's trying to help them (us) frame the issues in a way that resonates with the rest of the country.

He isn't trying to speak directly to the general populace.  His audience is the choir, and he's clear about that.
On Well-informed Republicans are not concerned about climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 60 Responses

Your three have to be sound bites

The Dems are trying a lot harder to turn the politics into policy these days.  See George Lakoff.

Sound bites:  Green jobs.  Clean Energy. Health care for all. Get off foreign oil. Etc., etc.

Anyway some of us are still reading down this far.  Keep on trucking.

Thanks.On Well-informed Republicans are not concerned about climate change posted 1 year, 6 months ago 60 Responses

You've got a point, but...

I work in the regulatory world at EPA, and I understand and sympathize with your criticisms of cost-benefit analysis.  You're right -- it is inherently flawed.

On the other hand, I'll hasten to point out that rarely does the cost-benefit analysis drive the regulatory decision.  Rather, either the politics, or the environmental/health effects, or some combination of those, drive the decision.  The cost-benefit analysis is there, and its results help defend the ultimate regulatory decision -- but the numbers rarely drive that decision.  It's just too abstract for political decision-makers.

So that said, while the public could care less how the c-b analysis is conducted, the final numbers are widely reported and pointed at.  In that sense it is important how the analysis is conducted, because the dollar numbers can help defend a decision that may not, ultimately, have been made based on those dollar numbers.

And of course all the regulations have to get through OMB review, and OMB cares deeply about the  c-b numbers.  And during Republican administrations, what OMB cares about really matters.  Not so much when the Dems are power, though.  Here's hoping January brings good tidings.On Lisa Heinzerling responds to Richard Revesz on cost-benefit analysis posted 1 year, 6 months ago 38 Responses

Canis, Canis, Canis....

 "...the less interesting of this evening's races."

A little respect, please... We gave the man a 14 point victory tonight...

Yes we can!  Yes we can!  :-)On Remember how there are primaries today? posted 1 year, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Well, actually....

...EPA is legally bound to make the decision this year.  So it'll still be the Bushies.

Stay tuned.On U.S. EPA to tighten standard for airborne lead posted 1 year, 7 months ago 8 Responses

Seriously

That John Prine song is the best ever.  I've loved it for 30 years.On Songs about the enemy of the human race posted 1 year, 7 months ago 30 Responses

Would have loved...

...to attend the conference.  I look forward to hearing about it.

Excellent speech.  Let's all get to work.On Forty years gone: MLK's dream today would be colored green posted 1 year, 7 months ago 5 Responses

I think you're being a little harsh, DR...

...Canis and Colburn are right.  We're not the target audience. Young people in general, including the ones who don't pay close attention to environmental issues, are the audience for guests like Van Jones.  (I guess I'm giving myself "old fart" status...").  

The kids need to hear Van Jones.  They need to hear over and over about green collar jobs, until they're conditioned to expect them.

Shout out to Stephen Colbert for having Van Jones on, even if I learned nothing I didn't already know.

And hey, it was entertaining enough. Not hysterically funny, but good enough to keep me from changing the channel. I'm happy as long as the kids keep watching...On Van Jones on Colbert Report posted 1 year, 8 months ago 12 Responses

Kids are complicated

My kids are very outdoorsy.  We live in the country, and they love nature.

I'm also a soccer mom -- my daughter, a middle-schooler, loves to play, plays at the highest available level, and can't imagine life without it.

So hey, not that I have all the answers, but I do think the answer is to go with your kid's individual needs.  I've got one who lives in the soccer world and loves it, and one who would be killed by a schedule like his older sister's.

Life is complicated.  People are complicated.  Kids are individuals.  Listen to them, and they will tell you what they need.

My two cents.On E.O. Wilson calls for kids to be set free outside, scripted activities be damned posted 1 year, 8 months ago 6 Responses

Why not "James Inhofe" Wind Farm...

...wouldn't you just love to piss him off that way?

Anyway who cares who gets credit?  Flattery gets results.  It's like the Energy Star program.On Wind farms get sponsored posted 1 year, 8 months ago 3 Responses

What are the obstacles?

Kevin -- what I'd really like to know is what are the biggest obstacles to development of more green jobs, and what does the movement need the most?

For example, is it lack of a skilled workforce? Need for training?  Government incentives? ...and so forth.

Thanks.On Send your questions for the National Green Jobs Conference posted 1 year, 8 months ago 20 Responses

Perspective

While pork is not high on my personal menu, I feel obliged to add a little perspective, given that I live in Chapel Hill.

Canis, pork is a Southern staple.  

Smithfield is the evil empire of pork producers.  

Educating Carolina students about the evils of Smithfield farms, an NC factory farm behemoth, is HUGE.  At stake are the lives of the workers and the water and air of our state.

Showing Carolina students that better alternatives not only exist, but exist locally, is a brilliant stroke.  
If the students can get fired up enough to convince the University to ditch Smithfield in favor of the good people of Cane Creek Farm and others like them, what a message that would send.On Pushing for 'fair food' on campus in the land of hog factories posted 1 year, 8 months ago 22 Responses

There will be an ozone final rule

EPA meets court-ordered deadlines. Decision-makers may dither late in the game, and a cast of characters gets into the editing game.  But staff routinely work our asses off to get the rules out the door regardless.

There will be a final rule on March 12, for better or for worse.  On Public health pitted against polluter pressure posted 1 year, 8 months ago 5 Responses

PS

Patrick, that Heinlein line is excellent.  I love it.On Tina Fey: 'Bitch is the new black' posted 1 year, 9 months ago 7 Responses

I know, I know, I know...

....but he's our best bet against McCain, and he's teachable.  I don't really see Clinton as appreciably better, either.  They've both compromised their principles.  But they're the only choices that are realistically able to get elected, and he's more electable than she is.

That's my bottom line.On Will.i.am. releases new video for Obama posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

Hell, yes -- indeed

We need to put this video out as a TV ad.  Add a tag about renewable energy and climate change.

It needs a sponsor, though.  Anyone with $$ listening, out there?On Oh hell yes posted 1 year, 9 months ago 8 Responses

Wow

He's a phenomenon.

We're projecting our greatest hopes onto him.  He's got my vote (if it matters) -- I dearly hope he can live up to it.  Who knows.  But he's our best chance.

The world will welcome us back if we elect him.  That may be reason enough.  That, and his coattails...so we can pass some legislation that means something.

Yes we can...yes we can...  :-)
On Will.i.am. releases new video for Obama posted 1 year, 9 months ago 4 Responses

They chose him because he's a hack...

The Administration didn't turn Stephen Johnson into a hack.  They just elevated someone they already knew would be their hack.

He's quite willing to tie himself in knots to justify whatever they direct him to do.  He has no shame.  He's quite willing to make himself look like an ass, first to his staff and then to the world, in order to toady to the wishes of his masters.

Next year can't come soon enough.On EPA staffers warned Johnson he might have to resign if he denied Cali's waiver posted 1 year, 9 months ago 2 Responses

For better or for worse

We have a two-party system.  If you want to build a third party, start at the grassroots level.

A third-party candidate for president will always be a spoiler.  That's the way the system is set up.  You can't change it in one fell swoop from the top.  Money, entrenched power, and entrenched organization will prevent that from happening.

I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.

Much more effective:  rebuild the Democratic wing of the Democratic party.  It's happening in many places as we speak.On Ralph Nader might jump into the presidential race posted 1 year, 9 months ago 129 Responses

This is very good

Just one quibble -  on #2 "Go broad", it would be worth it for you to note that going broader makes it harder to verify reductions.  It's easy enough to know how much carbon is coming from a power plant stack or an industrial boiler -- but many other sources won't be monitoring or otherwise tracking the carbon as accurately, and funny business could be a real problem.

On the other hand, abiding by rule #3 "Go to the source" will prevent some of those tracking woes.On What makes a good climate change plan? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 3 Responses

Thanks, Canis

We're all home today - off for President's Day - and my middle-schooler quite enjoyed the Charles Barkley clip (though I had to explain who he was :-) ).

FWIW, the kids are all for Obama.  Too bad pre-teens can't vote.On I'm back posted 1 year, 9 months ago 8 Responses

Thanks, Sam...

...for clarifying my comments much more thoroughly than I could have done.On Delay makes environmental catastrophe more likely posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

Regulations

Sam, you may be right that it's going to be very difficult for EPA to write regulations for a cap-and-trade program that extends beyond just the usual big power plants, but the reason isn't necessarily allocation of allowances - especially if  (I hope) allowances are auctioned.

The bigger problem may be compliance monitoring -- power plants have continuous emissions monitors, as I'm sure you know, but other industries don't, and I'm not sure if CEMs are practical for other important sources.  For example, some sources will have multiple emission points of different types (as opposed to a single stack at a power plant) -- that would make monitoring more complex.

Could someone out there (Sean?) shed some light on that?  On Delay makes environmental catastrophe more likely posted 1 year, 9 months ago 25 Responses

Yeah, Obama's going to get...

...more delegates than expected -- maybe half.  Just a few weeks ago, Clinton was way ahead.  The momentum has shifted significantly in Obama's direction.  He actually seems to have exceed what he needed to get -- all the primaries between now and March 5 favor him.On Grist strives to be your #650,871st source of breaking primary news posted 1 year, 9 months ago 14 Responses

EPA action

Yes-- The new president -- i.e. EPA -- could act on climate and start putting together a carbon program, presumably cap-and-trade, under the Clean Air Act.  

That would work, but new authorizing legislation from Congress would make it a lot less vulnerable to legal challenge.

Probably what will happen is that EPA will start doing something, and so will Congress, and we'll just have to see how the politics play out -- whatever would pass in Congress would supersede Clean Air Act rules -- but the groundwork for a program will have moved forward within EPA in the meantime.

Anyway that's my hope.On Obama or Clinton: who's greener? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 46 Responses

Hmm..

Ids, I think you're being too hard on Sean -- his family business seems to be a positive one for the world at large (combined heat and power = efficiency and local generation).  I don't feel as negatively about NSR as he does (I'm not ready to scrap it), but I do understand where he's coming from.  

I don't see these as black and white issues.  But I expect that Sean is honestly pushing a business model that we want to encourage from an environmental point of view.  Given that he's on this blog, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he's got the common good in mind (and if he can make a buck at the same time, then more power to him.  As it were.)
On Our command-and-control air-pollution regulations are working against our climate policy posted 1 year, 9 months ago 17 Responses

Hey johnthetreehugger,

Thanks for setting the record straight.
  On Where are the environmental messengers in the South? posted 1 year, 9 months ago 13 Responses

Yes, but...

I agree with a lot of this, but a few things to point out:

While the New Source Review rules are written on an input basis, that could easily be changed without either killing the whole program or amending the Clean Air Act.  In the late 1990s EPA was starting to recognize that output-based regulations were infinitely preferable, and there are now output-based standards out there for some industries.

I do believe that if Bush had never been elected, we would have made some important changes to NSR, including writing output=based regulations.  Instead, as is well-documented elsewhere, the Bushies came in laden with gifts to their big industrial buddies, one of which was a (later overturned in court) switch from a tons/year accounting under NSR to a lbs/hour emissions standard -- which would have allowed big emitters to tremendously increases emissions without tripping a regulatory threshold - exactly the opposite effect from what we'd want.

On the third point you make -- which grandfathering definitely pushes plants to keep old emitting equipment around indefinitely, this effect would not have been nearly so pronounced had the rules been fully enforced.  Again in the late 1990s, EPA finally began enforcing against all the huge utilities that had made equipment changes that should have triggered NSR.  Those cases were enormously successful -- until the Bush administration shut them down and again, tried to rewrite the rules to exempt big stuff forever ("routine maintenance" rules that were also overturned in court).

On the second point, confusing the path with the goal -- ok, that's true, and perverse, but again, it probably did encourage one particular big unanticipated change -- not to creative use of resources, but instead fuel-switching to natural gas.  I think creativity is a tougher nut to crack and it's somewhat unfair to lay too much blame at the doorstep of NSR.

Finally (for anyone still reading), the new source review rules were not written to cover carbon -- BUT as soon as EPA decides to regulate carbon under the Clean Air Act in any context, NSR rules will begin to apply, and in theory, carbon reductions (i.e. efficiency) will have to happen because of those rules.On Our command-and-control air-pollution regulations are working against our climate policy posted 1 year, 9 months ago 17 Responses

Hang on a sec

David Sassoon, you make a good point about what a new Administration could do unilaterally, through the Clean Air Act as it currently stands.  The current structure of the Clean Air Act is not a perfect fit, and I haven't thought through the pieces, but still, there's potential.

Because it is not a perfect fit, though, the down side of using the current Clean Air Act is that new regulation would get tied up court as soon as it got signed.

New legislation specifically mandating the elements of a carbon cap and trade program would have a much better chance of spawning regulation that could succeed.

....and Grey Falcon, I do believe you are not correct this time -- the Clean Air Act was enhanced enormously by legislation, both in 1990 with acid rain provisions, and in 1977 with new source provisions and some other restructuring (cue protest from Sean Casten here).

On the other hand, in both 1990 and 1977 we had a Congress that actually worked together, across the aisles. There were centrists in the Republican party, for goodness sake. That's been gone with the wind for some time.

So I believe our only hope is a more dominant Democratic majority and Democratic president.  Next year.On On letting the perfect be the enemy of good climate legislation posted 1 year, 10 months ago 9 Responses

What did you expect her to say?

Her subtext:  Progressive memes.  Kumbaya. Obama for president.

Sounds like she's pushing the right buttons (at least from your description).  Prepping us on the memes of change, and coordinating the message with the candidate most likely to succeed.

More power to her.On Sebelius Dem response desultory liveblogging posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

My English attempt

Clean Energy.  Green Jobs.  One Planet.On Here's your chance to be the Pollan of climate change posted 1 year, 10 months ago 94 Responses

Well

Amazing, it's not as if Hillary has never fronted a corporation.

I'm hopeful that were Obama to become president, he would cease to be concerned with corporate interests specific to Illinois, i.e. corn and coal.

Anyway the big story in South Carolina is the turnout -- didn't Democractic turnout in SC exceed Republican turnout?  When did THAT ever happen in the last 40 years?

Obama is becoming a JFK-like phenomenon.  He's starting to show that he may be the Dem that can WIN in November.  That's the important thing.

I believe he's educable on renewable energy.  Let's make sure we educate him.On South Carolina primary posted 1 year, 10 months ago 13 Responses

Not quite right, Darth

As soon as EPA regulates CO2 in some way under the Clean Air Act, then PSD rules will apply.  I'm not sure whether granting a waiver to California counts as EPA regulating CO2.

But that's kind of a technicality -- regardless, I think you're overstating the likely effects of PSD.

PSD only applies to new stuff, or big additions to specific kinds of sources.  In theory EPA could be inundated, but in reality those kind of "draconian" consequences you fear never come to pass.  There's always ways around that kind of extreme regulatory consequence -- lobbyists love to fear-monger about those possibilities, but they never come to pass.

It reminds of me of back when Congress was debating cap-and-trade for acid rain in 1990, and the utilities swore it bring American industry down.  On Details on the EPA chief overruling his staff on California tailpipe emissions posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

Important clarification

Section 209 of the Clean Air Act restricts states from setting standards for motor vehicle emissions; that's what California needs the waiver for.

There is NO federal restriction on states' setting stricter air pollution standards on other emission sources (i.e. industry).  States are free to regulate industry as strictly as they want.

Utilities, chemical plants, etc. are often regulated more strictly by states than by the federal government.

On the other hand, more than half the states have passed their own state-level legislation preventing their own state regulators from writing rules more stringent than EPA's.  But in those cases, states have hamstrung themselves without help from the EPA.

Just setting the record straight.  It doesn't make Stephen Johnson's behavior any less deplorable. On Details on the EPA chief overruling his staff on California tailpipe emissions posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

Guys, guys, guys...

Our saving grace on climate policy will not be the feds. (I say this as a card-carrying federal employee). Yeah, Joe Blow won't vote for president based on climate change.

BUT...our asses may be saved by the unlikely combo of Arnold, Charlie Crist, Kathleen Sebelius, Elliot Spitzer, Google, Goldman Sachs etc. etc. etc.  

29 states have renewable portfolio standards. Texas is building wind farms.  They're building solar in the Nevada desert.  Green tech stocks are among the only current winners on Wall Street, and SUVs aren't selling nearly as well as they used to be.

Things are looking up this year.  There's some cause for optimism, Congress be damned.

The glass is half full.On How will climate play in the general election? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 4 Responses

I don't think that's exactly right

GreenOx, you say that requiring a mandatory portfolio of renewables is expensive and instead we should provide tax incentives...

While an RPS may be an expensive way to get renewable energy, in this country it's very necessary, because we need the big power companies to invest in renewables.  Incentives won't get them to invest enough, but renewable portfolio standards are in place in, I believe, 29 states now, and are an important component of regional energy policy.

Also, I'm not sure how you leap to saying that biofuel production would take up the bulk of renewable portfolios -- this assumption blurs the distinction between power production and transportation fuel.  Renewable power production is not largely crop based, right? -- it comes from many different sources like wind, hydro, landfill gas, even hog waste (in my state), and improvements in efficiency (which count toward the RPS in many states).

Finally, I'm skeptical of your positive comments about Romney, but I'll wait to comment til I've read up more.  But if you're voicing approval of comments he's made about including China and India in climate policy, be aware that the Republicans usually use this as an excuse for inaction at home (am I right in inferring that you are British and possibly less familiar with some of the usual political rhetoric over here?).On Your weekend in caucuses posted 1 year, 10 months ago 5 Responses

Oh, for goodness sake, Stopgreenpath...

it's not an "either-or."  Ideally you're right, but we need to do as much as we can, as soon as we can, to move toward renewables.

Have you been to Nevada?  I'd say there's a bit of extra space for mega-solar farms out there.  I would daresay a few more windfarms in the Dakotas would do a helluva lot of good, too, and compensate farmers who could still farm, to boot.

Local solutions are great (I have solar panels at my house) -- but we're not going to convert to renewables fast enough to avoid a global meltdown unless power companies start moving away from coal on a large enough scale -- and damned fast.

Let's do everything we can -- locally included.  But local solutions alone won't do it in the short term.On Google invests in solar thermal company eSolar posted 1 year, 10 months ago 17 Responses

Question for Sean

Sean, when you say that:

...energy prices are rising, in part because of the higher costs imposed by 1970s-era environmental controls which are only just now affecting the cost of power (since the pre-1970s plants all got grandfathered and it has taken this long to begin to turn over the fleet / max out the capacity of the old stuff).  I'm not arguing that we should repeal those laws (although they certainly can be improved to lessen their economic consequences).  But it is a big problem if those costs drive the energy-intensive manufacturers overseas to places with lax env't stds, and would hugely disrupt the economy for the reasons you outline.

I doubt I understand the economics of this as well as you do, but I'm not sure I get why those control costs could would all of sudden now be affecting the cost of power. Yeah, a lot of power plants got grandfathered...but since the early 1990s an awful lot of those plants have put on scrubbers and SCRs in response to the acid rain program and some state laws.  The price of my home power hasn't gone up appreciably, even as Duke Power has put on controls all over my state.

Are you saying that the power companies have both put on controls AND wrung out all the efficiency they can get from their coal plants (and demand-side programs) -- so now they're finally having to build new plants?  Even so, are new plants with scrubbers and SCRs really that much more expensive than they were 5 years ago, given that coal is still relatively cheap?  At least in my state, in 2002 the governor cut a deal with the power companies to pass control costs from new state rules on to consumers -- and still, our bills are not THAT much higher.

Thanks.On Green manufacturing could save the economy posted 1 year, 10 months ago 15 Responses

PS -- Mark Warner, just to clarify

I hope you know I mean MARK Warner, not John Warner.  The Democratic former governor, NOT the retiring Republican Senator.    

All those Virginians have the same names, don't you know...On Can the Kansas governor show toughness under assault from Big Coal? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 7 Responses

Dave and Sean, you guys are right...

...Sean, that we won't get anything this year,  and David, that we shouldn't.

There's a good chance for both a Democratic president and a stronger Congressional Democratic majority next year (unless I just jinxed it by saying that :-) ).

There's an even better chance that any legislation we get this year will be less than half the loaf that we'll be able to get next year.

Let's push for some smaller stuff this year (renewable energy and energy efficiency incentives in an economic stimulus package, maybe an RPS), and go for the brass ring next year, when we actually have a chance at it.

That's my two cents. On Is it important to push climate legislation through this year? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 19 Responses

You're right about the Edwards' house, Canis...

...they have geothermal heating and cooling, as opposed to the electric (forced air) heat and AC that everyone else in this area has.  

It was in the local paper down here a while back -- I mentioned this on another thread, but there's a lot of overlapping campaign discussion going on in the last week or so on Grist, so sorry for repeating myself.

I vaguely remember reading that the Edwards' have other green design measures as well, but I don't know what they are.  

FWIW, I had the good fortune of meeting Elizabeth once in a non-political context, and getting to chat (about kids, not politics).  She seemed to me to be very genuine, likeable and down to earth.
  On 2008 will see another peaceful transfer of power in the U.S. posted 1 year, 10 months ago 20 Responses

He might be o.k.

As I've said in a different thread, it seems to me that Obama is a savvy guy doing the savvy thing to get elected.  But behind all that I suspect, given his pre-Senate career path, that he's got some depth of character.  I hope to be proven right.

I think the jury's still out on whether he'd deliver as president, but he's very smart and presumably teachable -- I think GonzoDon is right to point out that when the people lead, the leaders will follow.   I hope that if he's elected, he'd choose to lead rather than compromise. That's my biggest worry about him.

But still, I'm hopeful. On Huckabee and Obama win Iowa caucuses; what's the green angle? posted 1 year, 10 months ago 19 Responses

Experience vs. Campaign Savvy

Canis and Steven T, you are chock-full of good sense.  

While substantively I'm with Edwards hands down, at least in his current incarnation, I really don't believe substance is ever what wills out.

Especially now, when people are so (justifiably) jaded and angry -- you'd think Edwards' anger at the system would resonate more than all the kumbaya from Obama.  But Obama makes people feel good simply by dint of star power and lofty rhetoric, and people really, really want to feel good again.

That said, I did feel better about Obama after seeing him at the Yearly Kos debate in August.  In front of an unusually knowledgeable crowd, he let his inner wonk out.  I was reassured -- there really is a there, there.  He just doesn't show that side in his regular politicking.  It seems clear he's made a very savvy choice.

I can live with that.On The candidacy is Obama's to lose posted 1 year, 10 months ago 32 Responses

If it makes you feel any better

Edwards' big-ass house out in the country has geo-thermal heating and cooling (as opposed to the electric heating/cooling ubiquitous in the area).  There was discussion about it in the local paper several months back.

That's not to apologize for the size of Edwards' house, but it does make me a bit less skeptical about their sincerity.  I don't really understand why the Edwards' didn't respond, at least in that way, to the charges about their house.On Darth Nader endorses Edwards instead of Green Party candidate posted 1 year, 11 months ago 38 Responses

Nader himself said...

In his book:

"In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."[11]

The large likely discrepancy was widely reported, and even Wikipedia has this quote.

That's a margin of 13,000 more votes for Gore than Bush out of Nader's 97,000.On Darth Nader endorses Edwards instead of Green Party candidate posted 1 year, 11 months ago 38 Responses

Exactly right, Jon

A green technology boom is building in this country, and should be a focus of both public and private investment (state and local gov't especially right now, Google, etc...)  

If we can make arguments for that investment that focus on jobs, growth, keeping or bringing back the technical and manufacturing edge to this country, and employing our workers, then we'll build support so much more quickly.
On The movement's greatest challenge is its own lack of diversity posted 1 year, 11 months ago 8 Responses

It has gotten nasty, hasn't it...

Sometimes it's hard not to respond to ugliness with more ugliness...

Hey DarthPetrol, here's a crumb -- you're right about recess appointments being for a year.  Hey, I should've remembered.  My only excuse is that it was 12:30 am my time, way past my bedtime... My bad.

Nevertheless, I still stand behind calling so many Bush appointees yahoos, for the record.  My part of the country is where he foists (or tries to foist) the theocratic Bible-thumpers, not to mention the occasional racist (remember Charles Pickering?).

And the ones that aren't yahoos are big industry shills.  Free market, my ass.

Phew!  I feel better now.

Anyway, I'd love to continue this digression (NOT), but I'm off to elderly Luddite-land for a week, so no cyberspace for me.

Happy holidays, all!!On Dems can't overcome filibuster threats to get decent legislation -- so what should they do? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 31 Responses

Speaking of idling

If you really want to make a difference, push for more financial support for truck stop electrification.  Think about all the 18-wheelers out there who idle all night to keep their cargo refrigerated, their butts warm, and their DVD players running.

A bunch of states, my own included, have pilot projects where they're giving some grant money to truck stop owners to provide truckers the means to plug in instead.

Talk about massive benefits.  Everybody wins.On When is a Tundra a better buy than a Prius? posted 1 year, 11 months ago 47 Responses

Dear KMP:

EPA staff have not forgotten.  Please don't confuse career staff with the Administration-appointed bosses.

The staff will long outlast those guys, and have been laboring under the radar for 7 years now.On Analysis of the EPA's decision to deny California's waiver posted 1 year, 11 months ago 15 Responses

Food for thought on themes and memes

Ok, very quickly, as we're making dinner for the family right now:

The message needs to do two things, one of which David mentioned:

1.  remind people of the destructiveness of dependence on foreign oil, and the need to blow off mountaintops to mine coal;

2.  focus on inspiring people to bringing back good old American technical innovation and create green jobs, both white collar and blue collar.

That way we capture patriotism (might as well use it positively as opposed to gagging on how it's wielded now), and job growth.

Somebody eloquent please do something with that.  Van Jones, are you out there? I've gotta go check the sweet potatoes.On How the Dem candidates should answer the question on energy independence posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses

He's the man

Maybe I'm just getting old, but I think there's no one else who gets it like he does.On Start your weekend with The Boss posted 1 year, 11 months ago 6 Responses

I'll second that

Right on, Sean.On U.S. emissions go down! posted 2 years ago 10 Responses

Hmm....

According to my elementary schooler, the kids overwhelmingly like Obama.

According to his 22 year-old babysitter, the grown-up kids do too.

Given the all-powerful zeitgeist, I think we'd best focus on changing the positions taken by the frontrunners, rather than tilting at windmills by touting Kucinich -- or, God forbid, a third party that could again tip the balance (lest we forget, in 2000 Nader got 90,000 votes in Florida...).

I like Kucinich as much as anyone, but honestly, the country's not going to elect a guy who looks like an elf and says he's seen UFOs.

Please let's keep it real.  This election is too important.On Obama condemns mining reform package as too hard on the mining industry posted 2 years ago 18 Responses

Even if he doesn't run...

...what's his incentive to endorse anyone?  He could stay above the fray til the Dems have a clear candidate.

That said, if I'm wrong, my money's on Obama.  It sure ain't going to be Hillary.On Gore thought likely to take home the Nobel Peace Prize posted 2 years, 1 month ago 11 Responses

That's not exactly it...

I don't read it as David suggesting we need another 9/11.  

I read it as "in order to save the planet, we need transcendant unity, which only big bad events provide...but we shouldn't trust that unity anyway because it can lead us in a bad direction."  

His conclusion is therefore that all we can do is stumble around best we can and try to fix the problem in fits and starts.On The clarity that crisis brings is not necessarily our friend posted 2 years, 2 months ago 8 Responses

I agree...

Sean, that's exactly my fear -- that Edwards' qualifiers are a greenwash -- he gets to look like he's making a really strong statement (no new coal), but in the end he'll be too quick to back off.

Although in terms of policy-making after the election it won't matter exactly what's been said during the primaries, their statements do provide a window into all the candidates' thinking.  And I fear they don't quite get it.

That said, I think Edwards gets it a bit better than the other two.  But all three are quick studies.  They just need to hear the right voices.On Why Edwards' 'ban' on coal plants does little good against climate change posted 2 years, 2 months ago 42 Responses

Hmm...Usama thinks democracy and capitalism...

...are one and the same.

Guess he's missed a few poli sci classes...and clearly he's never been to China.

Fareed Zakaria, where are you?  Can you set the man straight, please?On John Edwards links climate crisis and national security posted 2 years, 2 months ago 10 Responses

Hey biodiversivist

"You can buy a van today with near zero emissions that isn't a hybrid."

Really?  What van?  That I can carpool my kids in?  Cleaner than my Prius?  That I can afford?  Point me there!

And yes, I'm well aware there are more efficient ways to care about global warming, some of which I also pursue...but I still have to drive a car, and I want the cleanest one I can find (emission-wise, anyway...you wouldn't believe the crumbs on the backseat...).  

And yes, we all compete in some arena or other, but cars are not high on the soccer-mom status symbol list, at least where I live.  

Nevertheless, I do wholeheartedly believe, as DR pointed out, that the market potential for a hybrid minivan is HUMONGOUS.  If only Toyota or Honda or whomever would respond... Toyota actually makes one -- they've been selling it in Japan since 2001.On Honda fights to regain green car company mantle posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Where's my hybrid minivan...

Right on, DR, I've been asking that for YEARS.  

And Matt G, it has nothing to do with soccer moms competing to be green -- it has to do with soccer moms wanting to buy less gas and have the kids breathing cleaner air. And caring about global warming. That one-upmanship stuff is for the dads. :-)On Honda fights to regain green car company mantle posted 2 years, 3 months ago 33 Responses

Hey biodiversivist

I should have acknowledged the validity of your larger point, that biofuels currently in use (and perhaps in use for the forseeable future) aren't all that hot, from a carbon perspective.  

That point does get lost in the general public debate.On 'Biodiesel' is looking worse and worse posted 2 years, 3 months ago 21 Responses

JMG is soooo right

If you really study the utility sector and the climate crisis long enough, you wind up thinking "Well, I guess we have to make the bastards rich for doing the right thing, or we'll just watch them get rich while they destroy the world."

JMG, you are exactly right about that.  The North Carolina legislature will do the right thing environmentally, but only if Duke Energy and Progress Energy agree -- and the way they get them to agree is of course to allow them to pass the costs on to us, the ratepayers.  This is what happened with the Clean Smokestacks law in 2002 (SO2 and NOx controls on power plants), and this is what's happening again here with the renewable portfolio standard that'll hit the governor's desk this fall.

It's a price I'm resigned to paying as a Duke Energy ratepayer, because environmentally there's really no other choice.  It's a darn sight better than what's going on down there in Georgia, apparently.On And it's goood ... posted 2 years, 3 months ago 14 Responses

Missing the Point about Post-Combustion

Hey guys -- Y'all are not addressing the main point here, which is that we've got lots of pre-existing coal plants running, and they aren't shutting down any time soon.  

If those facilities can be made to retrofit CO2 controls, then a lot of CO2 emissions can be prevented in the near-term.  I don't care if it's accomplished through command-and-control, carbon tax, or cap-and-trade, but if post-combustion control becomes cost-effective, that could make a huge difference a lot sooner than anything else except efficiency.

Maybe they'd even do it in China.  Hey, a girl can dream, right?On A new technology to reduce GHG emissions from coal plants posted 2 years, 3 months ago 18 Responses

Kind of like Interface, Inc....

So does the Grist office have Interface carpet tiles and Herman Miller chairs?

http://www.grist.org/comments/interactivist/2004/11/08/an ...On Fascinating talk from people at the company posted 2 years, 3 months ago 1 Response

Decoupling and energy efficiency programs

Presumably what other states need is legislation like California's, decoupling utility profits from the amount of electricity they sell, and also providing incentives for demand-side management (don't utilities in CA have some requirement about having such efficiency programs?  I'm only marginally familiar with their rules).  

That way the utilities and large consumers all have incentive to come up with lots of way to boost efficiency in the system.On Two crazy environmental stories via podcast posted 2 years, 3 months ago 7 Responses

Dingell's no dummy...

Dingell is an incredibly skillful politician and he's clearly playing a complicated political game.

We're having trouble interpreting it because he's balancing competing political claims -- the growing consensus for greenhouse gas legislation among Congressional Democrats, his support for the auto industry, his desire not to be one-upped by the Speaker, and god knows what else, including whatever backroom deals he's got going and maybe even his legacy.  Not to mention whatever he may be hearing from constituents.

Greenpeace is annoying because they're falling into the trap of looking shrill in the face of a policy proposal that at the very least seems serious.  That just makes Greenpeace look stupid.

I'd love to be a fly on Nancy Pelosi's wall right now -- let's see how she decides to take this proposal -- it'll be a serious test of her political skill.
On Activists pester him about the most trivial stuff posted 2 years, 3 months ago 12 Responses

That's true...

Maybe so...though isn't it the utilities that will pay for sequestration, not Big Coal...not that they aren't intertwined.  I do take your point.On YearlyKos: Obama and coal posted 2 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses

Obama's state of knowledge...

I didn't hear Obama directly at YearlyKos (I was there, but chose a different candidate's breakout session instead)...but can I still hope naively that his dodging and weaving will end if and when he is no longer worried that he has to go back to being Illinois senator?

This may not be answerable, but by "clean coal", does he mean coal gasification (IGCC) plus sequestration, or either one individually?  Does he know the difference?  
Does he understand it isn't necessarily possible to retrofit IGCC?  Does he understand that sequestration isn't geographically possible everywhere?
Does he really think either option is likely to be viable on a large scale any time soon?

It doesn't give me warm fuzzies about the state of his knowledge that he is still dancing around nuclear power either, just from a practical point of view...doesn't he know that making a dent in climate change with nuclear would require billions of dollars and god knows how many new plants...

Oy vey.On YearlyKos: Obama and coal posted 2 years, 3 months ago 13 Responses

You betcha

I agree.  The one positive thing I'll say about a gas tax is that, in theory, it would increase demand for more fuel-efficient cars since, as you say, demand for gas is relatively price-inelastic.

On the other hand...a gas tax is an incredibly regressive tax which will make lots of regular folks hopping mad, thereby creating undying enmity for the environmental movement among all sorts of people.  It's a big political loser that could kill public support for all kinds of other important environmental measures, like renewable energy.

Carbon tax, yes, for all the reasons you say.  Or carbon-trading with auctioned permits, if that's more politically realistic.On It's not the same as a carbon tax, and it's not cool posted 2 years, 4 months ago 13 Responses

Re: maybe I'm missing something

Adi -- the reference scenario is not the 1990 baseline.  EPA's reference scenario refers to what emissions would look like each year going forward, assuming no climate legislation passed after 2006.  That's why the percentage reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are smaller than 65%.

David, no way I would take your bet.  You're quite right, of course.On Will you take it? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 9 Responses

Coal is the IMMOBILE Enemy of the Human Race

Hey Sustainable Green - The majority of global warming pollution is not emitted by multinationals, but by power companies in the countries where coal is mined -- i.e. the U.S. and now China.  All I'm saying is that creating CO2 markets isn't going to change that...my power company here in the Southeast will continue to use West Virginia coal until and unless the price skyrockets (God and Congress-willing...) - at which point the coal is NOT going to get sent overseas.  

Instead, less will be mined, and power companies here will do some combination of conservation and also building more nuclear or less likely natural gas or maybe even wind (it's starting to happen a little here).  

Anyway hmm...the possibility of our screen names getting together does boggle the mind...GreenGreen
...good thing I'm happily married...On A new Pardoner's Tale? posted 2 years, 4 months ago 30 Responses

Smart Stuff Down the Road

Hey spaceshaper, in answer to your question --

Offsets aren't going to do much to raise public awareness, but they ARE helping us do smart stuff down the road by funding cleaner technology, which really needs the capital....and that, in itself, is reason enough for me to buy some.  On Many offset critics appear to be shadowboxing posted 2 years, 4 months ago 76 Responses

Southern vacation misspent

Wow.  David, your generalizations have blown me away to quit lurking and finally post a comment.

I grew up in the northeast, but for 15 years have lived in a largish Southern college town with several local farmers markets, two organic groceries (one of which is a coop that sells abundant local produce), bike lanes, an attractive and vibrant downtown, and outdoorsy activities galore.  You need to get out of suburban Atlanta, man.

I have elementary school-aged children, and my observation is that they and their friends have FAR better manners than the kids I see when I visit relatives up north.  Even with the large percentage of newcomers to the South here, the local zeitgeist is still nicer and more laid-back than the northeastern suburbs where I grew up.

I've been to Seattle and it's very nice, but I wouldn't trade my home here for anything.  Come sit on my screened porch for a while, and you'll see why.  Don't worry, the town is overwhelmingly liberal.
On A few random observations before getting back to work posted 2 years, 4 months ago 25 Responses