U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said Tuesday that the long-standing focus of climate policy on setting precise emissions reductions targets and timetables has led to an "over-obsession" with numbers, according to Reuters.

Reuters reports:

The comment came less than a week after a congressional panel approved President Barack Obama's landmark draft bill on climate change [see Breakthrough's analysis of the bill here], bringing it closer to debate in Congress.

"There was a great deal of discussion on the Kyoto targets, and I'm not really sure which fraction of the countries that took part in that actually met their targets," Chu, a Nobel laureate for physics, said at a conference in London. "In terms of the targets, whether it's 17 percent or 20 or 25 percent, I think there's perhaps ... an over-obsession on these percentages."

Continue reading "Secretary Chu: Climate Debate May Have "Over-Obssession" With Emissions Targets" »

[Updated 6/18/09 to more clearly explain and depict the potential banking of offsets.]

At the heart of the nearly thousand page long climate change and clean energy bill being debated in the U.S. House of Representatives this week is a "cap and trade" mechanism aimed at limiting greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming.

However, a provision in the bill, known as the American Clean Energy and Security Act (H.R. 2454 or "ACES"), allows polluting firms in the U.S. to finance emissions reductions overseas in lieu of reducing their own global warming pollution and may allow American emissions to continue to rise for up to twenty years, according to new analysis from the Breakthrough Institute.

The provision allows power plants, oil refiners, and other polluters regulated under the bill's cap and trade program to use up to one billion tons of international emissions reductions, or "offsets," to be used instead of reducing their own emissions each year. The bill also allows up to one billion tons of additional offsets each year, sourced from sectors of the U.S. economy that do not fall under the pollution cap, such as forestry and agriculture. If a suitable supply of domestic emissions offsets are unavailable, the limit on the use of international offsets may be raised to 1.5 billion tons annually at the discretion of the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The extensive use of these international and domestic offsets would effectively allow U.S. firms in capped sectors to continue emitting global warming pollution at levels well above the reductions supposedly driven by the emissions cap. New analysis from the Breakthrough Institute reveals that if fully utilized, the offset provisions in the ACES bill would allow continued business as usual growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions until 2030. Emissions in supposedly sectors of the economy supposedly "capped" by ACES could continue to grow at BAU rates until as late as 2037.

Continue reading "Climate Bill Analysis, Part 4: Emissions "Cap" May Let U.S. Emissions Continue to Rise Through 2030" »

As sweeping climate and clean energy legislation is readied for debate in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, details are emerging on the deals and compromises struck between the bill's architects, Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) and the group of reluctant swing members of the committee who hail largely from states reliant on coal and heavy industry.

The "breakthrough deal" struck between Waxman, Markey and the swing E&C Committee Dems will enable a full subcommittee markup of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) beginning Thursday and likely proceeding through next week (markup = votes on a series of amendments on the proposed bill followed vote to pass the bill out of (sub)committee). The deal apparently involves a series of concessions that either incrementally weaken the objectives of the bill or give free greenhouse gas pollution permits to utilities and heavy industry in order to blunt the impact of the proposed cap and trade program on these sectors of the economy.

Continue reading "Climate Bill Heading for Markup - Will it Invest in a Clean, Prosperous Energy Economy?" »

One of the most often-repeated assumptions in the climate policy debate is that cap and trade, the preferred mechanism for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, worked for SO2 and acid rain, so it will work for GHGs. Sounds good. Until you take a second to think about the comparison.

Dealing with GHGs is a challenge of an order of magnitude greater scale and complexity. To see why, see the two graphics below:

First, here's a graphical representation of the Acid Rain cap and trade challenge:

Below the fold, you'll see a graphic representation of the global flow of greenhouse gas emissions, the challenge we have to deal with to avert potentially catastrophic climate change...

Continue reading "Cap and Trade Worked for Acid Rain, Why Not for Climate Change?" »

Stream it directly from the ABC News Australia site, or download the mp3 here (particularly if you're a Mac/Linux user).

From Peter Mares at ABC Australia National Radio:

"This week, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd announced changes to the Australian federal government's planned emissions trading scheme, postponing the start date, increasing the compensation for big polluters and promising deeper cuts to Australia's greenhouse gases (with the proviso that the rest of the world does the right thing). The result is a scheme that's both greener and browner - if such a thing were possible. But as we examine the pros and the cons of the decision, some argue it's all pointless anyway. Climate change sceptics dispute the need for any reductions at all; then there's the critique from sections of the environmental movement that an emissions trading scheme is like rearranging deckchairs on the Titantic: far too little, far too late. On the program today, we're going to hear the case for state intervention - the idea of a Marshall Plan for alternative energy in which public money is used to solve the global warming problem."

See more on the Breakthrough's take on this issue here: Australia Shelves Cap and Trade Until 2011.

Geoengineering is the idea that we as humans can somehow "hack the planet" and to control (i.e. engineer) climate systems on a large-scale and counteract the potentially disastrous impacts of global climate change. Once considered the realm of kooks, crackpots and science fiction writers, the idea was given a recent push towards legitimacy when none other than John Holdren, the White House's science advisor, mentioned that no option, no matter how farfetched, is off the table as far as climate change was concerned.

Holdren later clarified that this was only his own personal opinion and not that of the current administration, but when Obama's science chief admits to considering something it does add a note of credibility to the argument.

Breakthrough Senior Fellow, Roger Pielke Jr., was recently asked by Seed magazine to throw in his own two cents on the issue. Along with four other writers, scientists and environmental advocates, Pielke had this to say:

Writing in Nature last December, Dan Sarewitz and Dick Nelson offer three criteria by which to distinguish "problems amenable to technological fixes from those that are not." Here I apply these criteria to the technology of geo-engineering the climate system, defined by the American Meteorological Society as an effort to "deliberately manipulate large-scale physical, chemical, or biological aspects of the climate system to counteract the climate effects of increasing greenhouse gas emissions." Examples of geo-engineering thus include injecting aerosols into the stratosphere or seeding the ocean with iron, but would not include capturing carbon dioxide from coal plants or the ambient air.

Geo-engineering falls well short of all three of the criteria that Sarewitz/Nelson present as guidelines for when to employ a technological fix."

(read Pielke's response in full here)

Continue reading "The (Dangerous?) Allure of Geo-engineering" »

American climate policy advocates should watch our neighbor to the north closely. With social and political values not too distant from our own and an economic makeup broadly similar, Canada's experiments with climate policy - particularly carbon pricing schemes - offer a real-world laboratory we would be wise not to ignore. While Canadians are broadly supportive of actions to address climate change, proposals at both the federal and provincial levels to establish a price on global warming pollution have met with difficulty. We covered the failure of the national Liberal Party's "Green Shift" carbon tax proposal in the October 2008 elections here, and have watched closely as British Columbia battles over their controversial, first-in-North American carbon tax system. Now, social values research firm Environics (the sister firm to our colleagues at American Environics) has new research findings that shed light on the difficulties facing 'environmental pricing reform' proposals like carbon taxes, cap and trade, and congestion pricing. Environics' Keith Neuman presents their findings in this piece, originally posted at Green Business...

By Keith Neuman, Ph.D.

Environmental pricing reform (or EPR) is the term now used to describe the various types of market mechanisms (e.g. carbon pricing, cap and trade, congestion fees) which are now being given serious attention as the most promising strategy for addressing climate change and other pressing environmental challenges such as water scarcity and traffic congestion. This concept has been around for some time, and is now finally receiving serious attention on the North American policy agenda. Economists have long been making a persuasive case for harnessing market forces to achieve environmental objectives, but only recently has this cause been adopted by major players, such as the Canadian Council of Chief Executives and the National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy. The idea that society puts a monetary price on environmental "goods" and "bads", and then letting market forces do their work (as they do with most other forms of business and consumer behavior) is compelling.

Governments and industry now seem ready to move forward with environmental pricing strategies, but is the Canadian public ready to buy in? The limited experience to date is hardly promising. Over the past year, the B.C. provincial carbon tax has been implemented but remains highly controversial (it has become a major issue in the current provincial election), and the Federal Liberal Party's touted "Green Shift" election platform failed spectacularly with the electorate. These early examples suggest there is sufficient citizen resistance to make EPR a difficult political sell. Why should this be the case, given the clear evidence that EPR can be an effective environmental policy? There are three central reasons.

First, is it axiomatic that consumers prefer not to pay more for goods and services, and will resist at varying levels when asked to do so. This is the most commonly understood basis for resistance to EPR, and many policy makers mistakenly believe it is the overriding obstacle. But in fact this dilemma is by no means limited to environmental policy, and has not prevented other successful economic policy measures that shifted costs to consumption, such as the GST and the Ontario Health Premiums. Such measures do not succeed because they are popular, but when they are deemed acceptable given their purpose by a sufficiently critical mass of relevant constituents.

Second, the public is skeptical about the effectiveness of EPR, in terms of how paying more for gasoline, water or consumer goods will actually benefit the environment. Research has shown that public resistance to B.C.'s carbon tax has as much to do with doubts about its effectiveness in reducing the province's greenhouse gas emissions as it does with paying a few more cents per litre at the pump. Consumers can readily understand how stiffer regulations or new technologies can make a difference in cleaning up pollution, but it requires a greater act of faith to believe that higher prices or trading systems will accomplish the same goals. Such faith requires confidence in both the intentions and efficacy of governments and industry, and neither has been seen to have done much to justify this level of confidence. Moreover, there continues to be a widely-held public sentiment that market-based environmental policies, such as cap and trade systems, favour industry by giving it a "license to pollute."

Third, at a deeper level environmental pricing reform is not currently well-positioned in terms of how it fits within Canadians' social values and broad world views. This conclusion comes from a research study Environics recently completed for Sustainable Prosperity, a multi-stakeholder non-profit initiative dedicated to promoting EPR policy in Canada (www.sustainableprosperity.ca). This research revealed that Canadians generally view environmental pricing mechanisms in narrow economic terms (akin to other conventional financial levers), without much appreciation of the broader principles of "polluter pays" and the positive force of the market to achieve important social goals.

The research identified distinct segments or groups of the Canadian population, based on their orientation to EPR and their broader social values. It found that among supporters of EPR, there is only a very small group (4%) who understand and support EPR in the same way as the economists and policy-makers who promote it. Most of the Canadians who express support for EPR (13% of the population) do so for very different reasons - they put much less priority on environmental solutions but rather are pro-market enthusiasts who accept the inevitability of market forces whatever their effect (e.g. they are very strong on a social value Environics defines as "social darwinism", and weak on one called "primacy of environmental protection"). While this latter group is on-side with environmental pricing, they are hardly the kind of supporters sought by EPR advocates.

On the opposite side of the issue, the strongest opponents of EPR are those Canadians who make up the most vulnerable parts of society, including women, older Canadians, and those with the lowest levels of education. This group (21% of the population) sees EPR more as a threat than as a solution to anything. They may care about the environment, but tend to be more focused on day-to-day concerns. There is little potential for building support for environmental pricing initiatives within this group, but it is hardly one that can be ignored if EPR policy is to succeed in Canada.

In the middle is a sizeable group (33%) which is on the fence about EPR. This group (we call them "responsible citizens") has a high degree of social responsibility and concern about the environment. These Canadians are open to the potential of market mechanisms to offer solutions to issues like climate change because they are truly worried about these issues and feel strongly that progress is essential. But they are also concerned about how EPR might affect those more vulnerable than themselves; they are unlikely to support pricing policies that do not treat everyone fairly and make provisions for those who are disadvantaged. The size and composition of this group makes it a critical constituency for building public support for broad-based environmental pricing initiatives, and attracting its support will require demonstrating how such initiatives address social and economic equity issues.

What does this research tell us about what it will take to build the necessary public support in Canada to move forward with environmental pricing reform? EPR will continue to be a tough sell to consumers until such market mechanisms are framed in ways that are more in tune with Canadians' social values, and in particular address the discomfort many citizens have with using market forces to address environmental objectives. This cannot be accomplished through facts and arguments alone (which rarely sway established public attitudes), but through developing a new narrative that more effectively defines EPR in what it will accomplish, in meeting broadly held environmental, economic and social aspirations.

Keith Neuman (keith.neuman@environics.ca) is Group Vice-President, Public Affairs, for Environics Research Group Ltd.

By Teryn Norris & Jesse Jenkins

Today, President Obama announced a new national energy education initiative to inspire and train tens of thousands of young Americans "to tackle the single most important challenge of their generation -- the need to develop cheap, abundant, clean energy and accelerate the transition to a low carbon economy."

Last summer, we developed a proposal for a National Energy Education Act (NEEA) to launch a major new federal initiative supporting clean energy-related education, in collaboration with our Breakthrough Generation Fellows. We published the proposal in two newspaper op-eds, including the SF Chronicle and Baltimore Sun, and it was later featured in Mother Jones magazine, congressional testimony, and online interview. We also submitted a fact sheet and strategy brief to the Obama campaign and called upon young people to advocate for NEEA.

President Obama's new energy education initiative, announced today at the National Academy of Sciences, takes a very similar approach. As he declared today:

"There will be no single Sputnik moment for this generation's challenges to break our dependence on fossil fuels... But energy is our great project, this generation's great project... the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation will be launching a joint initiative to inspire tens of thousands of American students to pursue these very same careers, particularly in clean energy. It will support an educational campaign to capture the imagination of young people who can help us meet the energy challenge... And it will support fellowships and interdisciplinary graduate programs and partnerships between academic institutions and innovative companies to prepare a generation of Americans to meet this generational challenge."

This new initiative is a big step in the right direction, and we applaud President Obama and his administration for their commitment to inspiring and training the next generation of clean energy innovators. As we wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle last July:

"It is imperative that we transform our nation's universities, colleges and vocational schools into multidisciplinary hubs of clean energy innovation... Today, a National Energy Education Act would equip a new generation of Americans with the highest-caliber human capital, inspire them to tackle energy as their generational undertaking, and pave the way for new industries and technologies that will drive the U.S. economy for decades to come."

Continue reading "Obama Launches Energy Education Initiative" »

Cross-posted from David Douglas' Near Walden blog

In my role of Chief Sustainability Officer at Sun, I take part in an annual discussion of whether the company should purchase carbon offsets as part of our GHG reduction plan. Since we can buy carbon offsets at a price which is lower than what it costs us to reduce our GHG directly, we have four different approaches available to us:

1. use offsets to report a greater emissions reduction at the same price as if we only did internal projects
2. use offsets to report the same emissions as internal projects, but at a lower price
3. ignore offsets and just do internal projects
4. some mix of offsets and internal projects

So far, each year we have elected to only invest in internal projects. Our rationale is that we can help the company and the environment with that choice -- the company gets more efficient and the we lower our direct GHG emissions. Furthermore we find that this rationale is applicable to each marginal dollar of investment, so that we end up only investing in internal projects as opposed to a mix. This means that the emissions reductions that we report aren't as low as they theoretically could be, but that's a tradeoff that we think makes sense for us, since we keep reducing our own emissions instead of paying others to reduce theirs.

As it thinks about creating a cap and trade system, the US Government faces the same decision: do we allow international offsets in order to keep costs down and/or make the results look better, or do we stick to investing within the country?

Continue reading "International Carbon Offsets: The Next Trillion Dollar Issue" »

Cross-posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog

The United Kingdom will release this week plans for building new coal plants:

Mounting fears within government circles that Britain's utilities are poised for a new dash for gas - increasing the country's future power dependence on fuel imports from Russia - has persuaded Ed Miliband, the Energy and Climate Change Secretary, to back funding for a second clean coal demonstration power plant.

In an attempt to ensure that coal remains part of the UK energy mix, he will also set out licensing conditions for more coal power stations.

Mr Miliband's renewed pitch for clean coal, which could be timed to coincide with the Budget on Wednesday, is to be pushed out quickly to counter scepticism in the power industry that the Government has a viable strategy to promote carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology.

Meantime, the UK government also plans ambitious emissions cuts over the next decade:

The Budget statement on 22 April will contain budgets for CO2 emission cuts alongside projections for tax and spending.

The carbon budgets will run for five-year periods up to 2022 when the UK should have cut emissions by between 34% and 42%.

Congressman Henry Waxman says, "by and large," the revenues from climate and clean energy legislation should be reinvested in clean energy technologies, Bloomberg News reported Friday.

The statement is a marked improvement over Congressman Waxman's appearance on PBS' Tavis Smiley show last Monday, when he seemed to indicate that the primary driver of clean energy technology innovation and deployment would be the higher prices on dirty fuels set by proposed cap and trade legislation and made little mention of the critical role public investments in clean energy can and must play in accelerating the birth of a clean, prosperous energy economy.

Like Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's prior statements that cap and trade is designed to "pay for some of these investments in energy independence and renewables," Waxman's latest remarks could indicate a growing consensus among House leadership that carbon revenues should be primarily used to spur clean energy technologies and accelerate the transition to a clean, new energy economy.

Congressman Waxman, who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee set to draft climate and clean energy legislation over the coming weeks, was also openly critical of President Obama's proposal to send the bulk of revenues raised from a proposed cap and trade system back to taxpayers in the form of middle class tax cuts. Bloomberg quotes the Congressman as saying:

"I don't think that's the best use of it [carbon revenues]," Waxman said. "By and large" it should be spent on green technologies, he said, and part of it could be used to "help consumers with higher energy costs" and hard-hit industries, "especially coal."

The draft climate and clean energy bill circulated three weeks ago by Congressman Waxman and Congressman Edward Markey (D-MA) (who chairs the subcommittee taking the first crack at the bill beginning this week) made little commitment to the public investments necessary to spur clean energy innovation and accelerate the deployment of clean energy technologies. Waxman's statements last week indicate that commitment may be coming soon, as Markey and Waxman begin the real work of drawing up the climate and energy legislation they hope to send to the House floor by Memorial Day.

Continue reading "Waxman: Carbon revenues should "by and large" be invested in clean technology" »

Is the cap and trade system at the core of the draft Waxman-Markey climate and clean energy bill full of hot air? That's what a new report from two environmental organizations warns.

Rainforest Action Network and International Rivers released an initial analysis (pdf) of the Waxman-Markey climate and energy discussion draft yesterday. The two environmental groups conclude that the cap and trade regulations established by the bill would be "blown to pieces" by the up to two billion metric tons of carbon offsets the bill allows polluters to use in lieu of pollution permits.

Despite all of the talk of establishing hard caps on global warming pollution, the use of so many offsets would stuff the cap full of hot air, making it not much of a cap at all. The report concludes:

Unfortunately the "firm" caps exist only on paper. In reality, the caps will be blown to pieces by allowing polluters to meet their emission reduction responsibilities through buying offset credits rather than reducing their emissions.

If the full amount of offsets allowed by the Waxman-Markey draft legislation were utilized by polluters, the report concludes that any actual emissions reductions in capped sectors of the U.S. economy would be delayed until 2026, allowing a full seventeen years of continued business as usual. (See figure below...)

Continue reading "Is Waxman-Markey's "Cap" and Trade System Full of Hot Air?" »

File this under "D" for "Depressing" and "G" for time to "Get Serious" about adaptation, geoengineering, biochar and air capture technologies and transformational clean energy innovation. Because if what these scientists say is true, we're going to need a healthy dose of each to mitigate and adapt to the warming likely to hit populations across the planet over the coming century and beyond.

According to a survey from the UK Guardian:

Almost nine out of 10 climate scientists do not believe political efforts to restrict global warming to 2C will succeed, a Guardian poll reveals today. An average rise of 4-5C by the end of this century is more likely, they say, given soaring carbon emissions and political constraints.

Such a change would disrupt food and water supplies, exterminate thousands of species of plants and animals and trigger massive sea level rises that would swamp the homes of hundreds of millions of people.

The poll of those who follow global warming most closely exposes a widening gulf between political rhetoric and scientific opinions on climate change. While policymakers and campaigners focus on the 2C target, 86% of the experts told the survey they did not think it would be achieved. A continued focus on an unrealistic 2C rise, which the EU defines as dangerous, could even undermine essential efforts to adapt to inevitable higher temperature rises in the coming decades, they warned.

Continue reading "Scientists Say Don't Bet on Holding Warming to 2C" »

Cross posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog

John Holdren has given his first interview since being confirmed as President Obama's science advisor. In it he suggests that the Obama Administration is ready to consider geoengineering via particulate injection into the upper atmosphere as well as air capture, citing new cost estimates. Here is an excerpt from the AP article:

John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Continue reading "John Holdren's First Interview - Supports Geoengineering, Including Air Capture" »

By Teryn Norris & Jesse Jenkins
The Huffington Post
April 7th, 2009

If Democrats want to win on climate policy, they must think fast and move quickly to regain control of the debate. Last week was the opening round of the national climate fight, and the Democratic Congress was nearly knocked out.

It began on Tuesday with the introduction of a major climate bill by Democratic Congressmen Waxman and Markey. The proposal made a fateful choice: it threw out President Obama's "Apollo" plan for investing $150 billion in clean energy and focused instead on meeting the demands of leading environmental organizations, emphasizing cap and trade regulation and a laundry list of electricity and efficiency standards.

Meanwhile, the response to climate legislation in the Senate was swift and harsh, with Republicans deftly maneuvering to secure the political high ground. Senator Thune (R-SD) introduced an amendment to the budget (which as originally proposed had included revenues from carbon cap and trade) declaring that any climate legislation should "not increase electricity or gasoline prices," which quickly passed 89 to 8. Senator Ensign (R-NV) then proposed an amendment stating that climate policy should not result in higher taxes on the middle class, passing unanimously (98-0). These votes effectively put all but a handful of Democratic Senators on the record opposing policies to raise the price of dirty energy -- the central purpose of cap and trade regulation, including the provisions at the heart of the Waxman-Markey bill.

What went wrong? The Democratic Congress made a critical mistake in following the direction of leading green groups like Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense Council. By tossing out Obama's energy investment plan and focusing on carbon pricing and regulation, Democrats allowed Republicans to quickly and easily frame the entire debate around increased energy prices and economic costs. That's a fight Republicans take up with relish -- and one they will surely win.

Continue reading "How Democrats Can Win the Climate Debate" »

A major new climate bill hit the House of Representatives this week and was met with deft political maneuverings from Senate Republicans that could render cap and trade dead on arrival. The Breakthrough Institute team has the angles covered:

Jesse Jenkins says this new climate bill is proof of misplaced priorities as the leading green groups setting the climate agenda walk away from billions of dollars in critical clean energy investments in favor of regulations, standards and carbon pricing. See also "Climate Bill is All About the Coal Hard Cash" at Huffington Post and listen to Jenkins talk about the Markey-Waxmen bill on KPFA radio.

Meanwhile in the Senate, two Republican amendments may leave cap and trade with no where to go. In reaction to the House climate bill, the Senate this week voted 89-8 to preemptively reject any cap and trade bill that increases consumer energy prices and voted 98-0 to ensure that any climate bill protects middle-income taxpayers from any tax increases.

Roger Pielke jr. thinks the Thune Amendment may have preemptively killed cap and trade and says Republicans have outflanked Democrats on climate already with the Ensign Amendment.

Michael Shellenberger sees these votes as the clearest rejection yet of the pollution pricing paradigm and examines the artful political maneuverings at play.

Ted Nordhaus is left worrying that the climate bill is on a crash course for compromise that will leave us stuck with the worst of both worlds: a climate policy lacking both a price signal sufficient to drive private investment anywhere near the scale we need and NO money for public investments in an RD&D strategy sufficient to make clean energy cheap.

Teryn Norris and Jesse Jenkins outline what Democrats can do to regain the political high ground and win the climate debate in this op ed, featured at Huffington Post. If Democrats want to win, they should quickly follow President Obama's lead by shifting the focus of climate legislation from pollution regulation to bold government investment in the clean energy economy.

As Congressional Democrats and DC greens gear up to fight for cap and trade, yet another another public opinion poll shows voters want investments in clean energy, not new taxes or regulations.

We are now witnessing the inevitable entailment of putting pollution caps and climate at the center of the political proposition.

Everyone is all for capping carbon until it comes time to pay for it. Then it is a consumption tax and few politicians and voters are prepared to support it. It inevitably leads to a debate centered on the costs and regulations, not the social benefits of the policy.

The Apollo approach, which puts the immediate social and economic benefits - a clean energy economy, energy independence, new industries that can create good jobs - at the center of the debate and uses modest carbon price revenues to pay for it has always been vastly more robust to the kinds of political attacks that we are seeing this week. The debate becomes about whether or not we are going to make these investments in America's future - not whether or not we are willing to take our medicine in order to avoid the end of the world. But making this move requires more than simply swapping out the picture of the polar bear on the front page of your newsletter for a picture of a construction worker. It requires taking the investment agenda seriously and making it the central objective of policy.

The choice that greens and sympathetic policy makers will have in the coming months will be whether to move to this kind of plan B or accept a cap and trade bill that is likely to provide neither a very significant price signal nor any serious money for RD&D.

Continue reading "The Worst of Both Worlds: Climate Bill on Crash Course for Compromise" »

Cross posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog

As I mentioned yesterday, some stark political lines are being drawn in the Senate on cap and trade legislation. The Thune Amendment had 89 members of the Senate going on record opposing any increases to electricity or gasoline prices as a result of cap and trade legislation. In the Senate yesterday another important amendment to the Budget Resolution was approved unanimously, 98-0, sponsored by Senator Ensign (R-NV), chair of the Republican Policy Committee. Here is its text:

To protect middle-income taxpayers from tax increases by providing a point of order against legislation that increase taxes on them, including taxes that arise, directly or indirectly, from Federal revenues derived from climate change or similar legislation.

What does this amendment mean?

It means that money raised from cap and trade (or even a carbon tax) cannot lead to a net increase in the overall tax burden on the "middle class." What is "middle class"? According to Senator Ensign in a press release trumpeting the amendment, it includes those households earning less than $250,000 per year. Senator Ensign cites the President on this point, referring back to his campaign promises not to raise taxes on this group.

Politically and practically, this amendment could then mean that proponents of cap and trade will need to pursue an explicit "cap and dividend" approach with any such policy being tax neutral for those earning less than $250,000 per year. In other words, the costs of cap and trade will have to be fully borne by those earning above $250,000 per year. Some of the challenges of the distributional effects of cap and trade are discussed in recent CBO testimony (PDF). Whether or not legislation can be written that allows supporters to claim to have met the spirit of the Ensign Amendment, it is clear that the Amendment makes the political challenge that much more difficult.

Continue reading "Senate Republicans Outflank Dems on Climate" »

Cross posted from Prometheus: The Science Policy Blog

The ability of Congressional legislation on cap and trade to result in actual emissions reductions was dealt a serious blow yesterday. An Amendment was introduced by Senator John Thune (R-SD) on the Budget Resolution and its text is as follows:

To amend the deficit-neutral reserve fund for climate change legislation to require that such legislation does not increase electricity or gasoline prices.

What is this? Climate change legislation cannot increase electricity or gasoline prices? The entire purpose of cap and trade is in fact to increase the costs of carbon-emitting sources of energy, which dominate US energy consumption. The Thune Amendment thus undercuts the entire purpose of cap and trade.

Continue reading "Did the Senate Just Preemptively Kill Cap and Trade?" »

Breakthrough director of energy and climate policy Jesse Jenkins appeared again today on KPFA radio in the Bay Area, talking on The Morning Show about the newly released Markey-Waxman climate bill "discussion draft."

You can listen to the segment below (apologies for the rapid talking!), which begins about 1:34 into the show:

Marking the starting bell in the long-promised fight over the nation's energy future, Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Ed Markey (D-MA) introduced a climate and energy legislation "discussion draft" yesterday.

As Beltway insiders have repeatedly "reminded" me, this is "just a discussion draft," and its final form may be much different. But just looking at what's in this bill so far -- and just as important, what's not -- paints a clear picture of misplaced priorities and a bill in critical need of some "course correction."

Even a cursory read of this "American Clean Energy and Security Act" (ACES) -- and I've read far more of this 648 page bill than I'd like! -- speaks volumes to the priorities of the various parties driving this debate so far - namely the green groups and big industry players already cutting deals as part of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.  This bill should be proof, once and for all, these leading greens will throw clean energy investments overboard to preserve precious regulations and an increasingly compromised "cap" on carbon.

Continue reading "New Climate Bill Proof of Misplaced Priorities" »

Andy Revkin did an incisive piece on the claims around climate tipping points in the Times on Sunday. It was nice to have the antidote to Tom Friedman's apocalyptic column on tipping points just pages away.

In 2006 a retired software executive insisted to me that we had only 10 years to do something dramatic about climate change (because that's what James Hansen had told him). When I gently suggested that 10 years was not a scientific number but rather an arbitrarily political one, the executive accused me of being anti-science. But the funny thing is that in January of this year Hansen told the Guardian that we have only four years left for the U.S. to act -- coincidentally, the same length of time in Obama's first term in office.

The assumption behind all of it is that throwing out these numbers -- four years, 10 years, 350 ppm, etc. -- will provide the public and policy makers with a sense of urgency that global warming as an issue currently lacks. But there's no evidence to back up that assumptions. If any correlation were to be drawn, it would likely be the opposite, that the increasingly apocalyptic tone of those seeking action on climate change has resulted in an increasing number of voters (according to Gallup) who believe that the threat of global warming is being exaggerated.

Continue reading "Are Greens Tipping the Debate Away from what Really Matters?" »

It was with much fanfare and bravado that then-newly-elected Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of Australia announced at the 2007 Bali climate talks that his nation would abandon opposition to climate action and ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Better late than never, Rudd said and bravely declared, "I can unite the world on climate."

To deliver on that bold promise, Rudd directed his ministers to put together a cap and trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions and put a price on CO2. The outline of an Australian "Emissions Trading Scheme" was rolled out last week with plans to implement a cap and trade program in June 2010 aimed at cutting emissions 5 to 15 percent below 2000 levels by 2020.

Now, the Australian Prime Minister's efforts to put a price on carbon and cap emissions are under fire from both Right and Left, and cap and trade is going under Down Undah.

Continue reading "Cap and Trade Going Under Down Undah" »

A few days ago I came across an article in the New York Times entitled "Trashing the Fridge", a mildly amusing piece about some environmentalists who have decided to give up their home refrigerators, ostensibly in order to become more environmentally responsible.

The anti-refrigerator movement may represent nothing more than a harmless fashion statement - an attempt to achieve a "holier than thou" status in fringe environmentalist circles, but the broad thinking behind it is something that is quite widespread in the environmental movement today: the notion that technology is the problem, that human prosperity is the problem, and that we will have to make major sacrifices of technology and prosperity (such as refrigerators) if we want to save the planet.

For me, one particular quote by an environmentalist in the New York Times article stood out: "Refrigerator lust is one of the things driving huge energy-use increases in the developing world".

Continue reading "Refrigerator Lust and Disgust" »

Two weeks ago Andrew Revkin of the New York Times wrote an article with the headline, "In Climate Debate, Exaggeration is Common Pitfall." In it he pointed to Washington Post columnist, George Will, on the right, who claimed global warming is not happening by drawing unscientific conclusions from sea ice data, and to Al Gore, on the left, for claiming that increased hurricane damage is due to global warming. There is not scientific evidence for either claim, Revkin noted.

Revkin quoted American University communications professor, Matthew Nisbet, who studies the social science of global warming communications. Nisbet said:

Mr. Gore's approach, focusing on language of crisis and catastrophe, could actually be serving the other side in the fight.

"There is little evidence to suggest that it is effective at building broad-based support for policy action," Dr. Nisbet said. "Perhaps worse, his message is very easily countered by people such as Will as global-warming alarmism, shifting the focus back to their preferred emphasis on scientific uncertainty and dueling expert views."

The article inspired Media Matters and Center for American Progress to level harsh attacks on Revkin, claiming that while Will's statements were gross lies, Gore's statements were mere exaggerations.

But now there is new empirical evidence to support Revkin's claim that hyping the threat of global warming is actually hurting public support for action.

Continue reading "What's driving opinion on global warming? " »

written by David Douglas and cross-posted from Near Walden

Roger Pielke Jr. has an outstanding post titled US Mitigation Math where he shows the general sources and sinks of US energy and resulting GHG emissions. He also throws out some reduction scenarios and concludes that they cannot come close to meeting an emissions reductions goal of 14% below 2005 levels by 2020.

So he closes with a challenge: "... present a scenario combining decarbonization of the energy supply and efficiency gain that has a realistic chance of succeeding in meeting a 14% emissions reduction (below 2005) by 2020."

It's a busy week for me so I haven't had time to work out some complete solutions, but I took a shortcut and asked myself how much CO2 I could reduce if I took all of the Obama administrations projected $645B in revenue from emissions allowances between 2012 and 2019 and applied it to various solutions.

Since I'm living in a hypothetical world, I'm going to take a couple of liberties. First, I'm going to assume that I've either got access to all of the money on the first day of 2012, or I can get the average amount of $80B/year for a long time to come. Second, I'm going to ignore the physical and temporal realities of implementing my solutions - in my world I've got the full support of the nation and they'll do everything they can to implement these ideas. Finally, I'm going to conveniently ignore the emissions required to implement these solutions.

Solution 1: Buy Lots of Prius's

In this scenario I'm going to buy 25.6M Prius cars at an estimated 45MPG and replace 25.6M gas guzzlers at an average of 15MPG. At 12K miles/year each, we'll save 533 gallons of gas per car per year, and at about 20 pounds of CO2 per gallon, that's about 4.8 metric tons of CO2 per car per year. Grand total savings: 122MMt/year, or a 2% savings from 5991 MMt.

Continue reading "Mitigation Math: Hypothetical Answers" »

Last Thursday, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu delivered groundbreaking Congressional testimony (testimony PDF) to the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee about Obama's energy plan and what's necessary to create a clean energy economy:

"Our previous investments in science led to the birth of the semiconductor, computer, and bio-technology industries that have added greatly to our economic prosperity. Now, we need similar breakthroughs on energy. We're already taking steps in the right direction, but we need to do more...

Developing Science and Engineering Talent: Several years ago, I had the honor and privilege of working on the "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" report commissioned by Chairman Bingaman and Senator Alexander. One of the key recommendations was to step up efforts to educate the next generation of scientists and engineers. The FY 2010 budget supports graduate fellowship programs that will train students in energy-related fields. I will also seek to build on DOE's existing research strengths by attracting and retaining the most talented scientists.

Focusing on Transformational Research. The second area that I want to discuss is the need to support transformational technology research. What do I mean by transformational technology? I mean technology that is game-changing, as opposed to merely incremental...

Speeding Demonstration and Deployment: While we work on transformational technologies, DOE must also improve its efforts to demonstrate next-generation technologies and to help deploy demonstrated clean energy technologies at scale...

We will move forward on all of these fronts and more, as we invest in the transformational research to achieve breakthroughs that could revolutionize our Nation's energy future."

Continue reading "Steven Chu calls for $150 billion investment in "breakthrough" energy R&D" »

A few years ago, on this blog and at Climate Audit, there was a healthy discussion of a paper by Greg Holland and Peter Webster that claimed definitive attribution of hurricane activity to greenhouse gas emissions (PDF). Now a paper by Sim Aberson is out in the current issue of BAMS (PDF) which uses the Holland/Webster paper as a good example of how not to do statistics.

The Aberson paper is summarized as:

A cautionary tale in which previously published results are shown to be invalid due to the lack of statistical analyses in the original work.

Continue reading "Aberson on Holland/Webster" »

Question: What is the "greatest threat to farmers in the developing world"? Is it (a) grinding poverty, or (b) global warming, or (c) low farm productivity, or (d) drought?

Well, according to noted environmentalist icon, Vandana Shiva, it is none of the above. Addressing a recent conference of the Slow Food Movement in San Francisco, Shiva claimed that the "greatest threat to farmers in the developing world" was none other than the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Yes, Microsoft founder Bill Gates' Gates Foundation. The reason for such ire? Apparently, it is because the Gates Foundation has committed the sin of attempting to fight poverty in Africa through technological transformation. Through the Alliance for Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA), the Gates Foundation has sought to increase agricultural productivity in Africa through technology. This, some environmentalists believe in their infinite wisdom, represents the "greatest threat to farmers in the developing world"

Continue reading "Is Bill Gates a Menace to Poor Farmers?" »

In a candid conversation with reporters yesterday, newly-confirmed Energy Secretary Dr. Stephen Chu called for "a second industrial revolution" in energy technology to overcome the world's energy and climate challenges.

Sounding like an honorary Breakthrough Institute Senior Fellow, Dr. Chu said solving these pressing challenges would require Nobel-level "breakthroughs" in at least three core energy technologies: advanced batteries for vehicles, new crops for biomass energy, and solar panels cheap enough to deploy without subsidy.

Continue reading "Energy Secretary Steven Chu: Honorary Breakthrough Fellow?" »

Environmental News Network reports that a Kenyan power firm is planning on building a 300 MW wind farm, which will open in 2011 and reach full capacity at 2012. On the one hand, this news has some environmentalists celebrating Kenya's new clean energy plans and touting the fact that the wind farm will provide 30% of the nation's electricity (in reality, a 300 MW wind farm will provide more like 8% of the nation's demand, since it will only operate at about 30% of capacity on average). Perhaps more importantly though, this news throws into stark relief the energy poverty that pervades much of the developing world.

That 1,200 MW of energy that Kenya consumes represents the sum total electricity use of the 40 million inhabitants of Kenya. This translates to just 30 average watts of electrical power per Kenyan, disregarding the disparity between haves and have-nots that exists even in this East African nation. Contrast this to California, a state with a population comparable to Kenya's which has approximate 30,000 MW of average electricity demand, almost thirty times Kenya's total electricity demand. And California is the most electricity-efficient state in the country.

Continue reading "New Kenyan Wind Farm "Victory" Highlights Extreme Energy Poverty " »

Public opinion on global warming lags far behind the rhetoric and apparent commitment shown by President Obama and other elected officials, according to reports today from Andy Revkin at the New York Times (in print and on his DotEarth blog).

"The latest in an annual series of polls from the Pew Research Center on people's top priorities for their elected leaders shows that America and President Obama are completely out of sync on human-caused global warming," Revkin writes, pointing out that "Mr. Obama stressed the [global warming] issue throughout his campaign and several times in his inaugural speech, mentioning stabilizing climate in the same breath as preventing nuclear conflict at one point."

Continue reading "Public Opinion Cool on Global Warming" »

The U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP), a coalition of corporations including General Electric and Duke Energy in addition to environmental groups such as the Natural Resource Defense Council and Environmental Defense Fund, released a "blueprint" for climate legislation today. Essentially a Cap-and-Trade system, the legislative recommendation reads like a sequel to the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act.

The report was released today, and already the fallout has perfectly captured the existential moment that the major green groups are experiencing right now in their increasingly urgent efforts to address climate change on a national and global scale.

The defeat of Lieberman-Warner, the oil drilling debate, and global recession have awakened the greens to the immovable political truth that politicians will never enact, and the public will always reject climate legislation that significantly increases energy prices. This truth undermines the power and attraction to cap and trade that has made it the preferred legislation of climate activists for two decades.

Continue reading "Greens Divided by USCAP Proposal: Will They Find Their Way Past the Price Gap?" »

Confirmations were held today for Energy Secretary-designate Steven Chu, Nobel laureate and director of Lawrence Berkeley National Labs (LBNL). Chu, a clean energy expert, is well known for turning the Berkeley Lab into a center of clean energy and efficiency innovation, forging the Berkeley Lab-British Petroleum partnership, sitting on the Copenhagen Climate Council, and winning a Nobel Prize in physics in 1997.

Suffice it to say that Chu has a deep and nuanced grasp of the many variables and drivers that contribute to global warming and he understands the scale of the challenge as well as anyone. As an administrator at LBNL, Dr. Chu worked to secure increased funding for research in clean energy and efficiency. And as an academic, Chu was able to speak candidly--and in fact, quite bluntly--about energy and climate issues.

Not any more! Dr. Chu has arrived inside the Beltway now, and already his tone is changing...

Continue reading "Inside the Beltway, No Coal Nightmares or Gas Taxes for Steven Chu" »

By Jesse Jenkins and Adam Zemel

Barack Obama made public today his intentions to appoint Steven Chu, director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, as Secretary of Energy and Carol Browner, former EPA Administrator and current transition team advisor for energy and environment, as the administration's new "Energy and Climate Czar."

Breakthrough gives Obama's selection of Dr. Steven Chu a preliminary thumbs up, while the selection of Browner - who seems to see regulations as the primary driver of innovation - raises concerns about the kind of counsel Obama will receive from his new point person on energy and climate change.

Continue reading "Will the Academic and the Regulator Invest?" »

Representative Henry Waxman of California defeated Representative John Dingell of Michigan in the battle for the gavel of the influential House Energy and Commerce Committee today.

Over the past two weeks, the two senior Democrats waged one of the most hotly contested challenges for committee chairmanship in recent Congressional history. Waxman was announced the victor today after a 137-122 vote of the full House Democratic Caucus, ending Dingell's nearly 28 year reign as Chair of the committee, which has jurisdiction over several key issues, including energy, interstate commerce and health care.

Continue reading "Waxman Bests Dingell in Contest Over Influential House Committee" »

The stark tone of the International Energy Agency's World Energy Outlook 2008 is a dramatic departure from their normally staid and frequently rosy projections about the world's energy future (I presented highlights from the piece in this proceeding post). The report's opening statement that current world energy trends are "patently unsustainable" will no doubt receive the most attention in headlines across the blogosphere and mainstream news. But in this post, I want to delve deeper into the key statement that follows it:

"It is not an exaggeration to claim that the future of human prosperity depends on how successfully we tackle the two central energy challenges facing us today: securing the supply of reliable and affordable energy; and effecting a rapid transformation to low-carbon, efficient and environmentally benign system of energy supply."

While the environmental community focuses primarily on the latter of those two concerns, the IEA appropriately recognizes that the future of human prosperity depends on our ability to tackle both challenges: decarbonizing the energy supply and providing ample and affordable energy supplies to power global development.

In short, the IEA confirms what is perhaps the central challenge of the 21st century: developing clean and affordable energy sources to power the globe.

Continue reading "IEA Report Confirms Clean and Cheap Energy Needed to Power Global Development" »

As the parties to the United Nation's Kyoto Protocol on global warming prepare to meet in Poznan, Poland next month, India's Minister of Science and Technology weighed in today to voice little interest in a global action plan on climate change.

In a statement that strongly favored initiatives tailored to suit local needs, Minister Kapil Sibal told attendees at a climate change conference, "You cannot have a global action plan on climate change. You can only have a global commitment."

Minister Sibal, who been representing India at international climate negotiations, said the issue of climate change has to be addressed at national, regional and local levels as each part has different sets of problems.

Continue reading "Indian Official Rules Out Global Action Plan on Climate Change" »

China's greenhouse gas emissions could more than double by 2020, according to a new report released by the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

Beijing has been reluctant to release official data on greenhouse gas from the nation's fast-growing use of coal, oil and gas. This new study from the state-run institute breaks that reticence and sends another clear reminder that China is where our quest for climate stability will be won or lost.

"To a significant degree, our planet's energy and environmental future is now being written in China," says the study's authors. And the only way that story has a happy ending is if China has access to clean and cheap energy sources to power its sustainable development.

Continue reading "China's Greenhouse Gas Emissions Could Double in Coming Decade" »

Yesterday was election day in Canada, a fact that I hope I'll be forgiven for missing amidst the frenzy of election politics here in the States. However, this stunning headline from the UK Telegraph grabbed my attention:

"Canadian election: Carbon tax proposals sealed Liberal defeat"

That's right, the opposition Liberal party was just dealt a stunning defeat, and their Achilles heal turned out to be their proposal to enact a carbon tax on coal, natural gas, gasoline and home heating fuels.

Continue reading "Carbon Tax Seals Liberal Party's Defeat in Canada" »

By Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, jr., cross posted from Prometheus

Yesterday's E&E News PM (subscription) has an interesting article about a new poll out on U.S. view of climate change, sponsored by a set of environmental groups and consultants. It supports many arguments that we have made here at Prometheus, such as the fact that support for action on climate change is broad but shallow, the public generally accepts a significant human role in climate change, and Al Gore has played a big role in making the issue partisan (an even more interesting finding because Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection is a sponsor of the poll). I don't have the poll yet, but have requested it. Meantime, here is an excerpt from the E&E News PM story:

Continue reading "New Poll Finds Shallow Support for Climate Action, Partisan Split" »

Joe,

Your strategy, as usual, is to shoot the messenger rather than confront the facts. This is what you did when you attacked Nature for publishing Roger Pielke, Chris Greene, and Tom Wigley’s “Dangerous Assumptions” about faster-than-expected emissions increases. This is what you did when the International Energy Agency came out and said that stabilization requires technology “breakthroughs” (their word). This is what you did when you attacked those of us who support adaptation as “delayers.” And this is what you are doing in response to the accumulating evidence that governments won’t raise the price of dirty energy to deal with global warming.

Continue reading "An Open Letter to Joseph Romm" »

Breakthrough founders Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus have been engaged in a discussion at Cato Unbound on what to do about climate change. The lead essay, written by conservative libertarian Jim Manzi, argues that global warming, while real, is a problem of limited magnitude, deserving a proportional response, not overreaction. Coverage of the debate here.

by Michael Shellenberger & Ted Nordhaus

Continue reading "Invest in America" »

There's one thing at the top of Americans' minds these days: energy prices.  Prices at the pump have been hitting Americans hard for months now, and an overwhelming majority (87%) do not foresee things getting any better before the end of the year.  As of June, concern for energy prices eclipsed the Iraq War as #2 on the Gallup monthly poll of top American concerns (just behind concerns over the ailing economy). And as Republicans and Democrats enter their conventions still sparring over oil drilling, energy is now the #1 election issue.  

All of this paints a very clear picture of where Americans are at: they are focused on their pocketbooks, grimacing every time they head to the gas station to fill 'er up.

This new focus on energy prices is a game changer for the world of energy and climate policy.

Continue reading "A Pivotal Moment" »

"The ultimate issue here is Ecuador has mistreated a U.S. company," said one Chevron lobbyist who asked not to be identified talking about the firm's arguments to U.S. officials.

"We can't let little countries screw around with big companies like this -- companies that have made big investments around the world."

from "Chevron hires lobbyists to squeeze Ecuador in toxic-dumping case," Newsweek, Aug. 4, 2008

Continue reading "Quote of the Day" »

Written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold

Over at the Environment and Energy blog, Bradford Plumer points the way to a great Guardian article on the Chinese wind boom. Wind installation there has been surpassing projections for some time, blowing through 6 GW earlier this year, and by year’s end China should lead the world in capacity. By 2010, one wind farm will add 3.8 GW - i.e., one third of total current US capacity - in its first phase of expansion. In other words, T. Boone Pickens has nothing on Chinese entrepreneurs (does anyone?).

Continue reading "What Does China's Wind Boom Tell Us?" »

When I moved to California in 1993 I quickly fell in love with one of the rites of summer: grilling fresh salmon. Ted took this ritual to another level, hosting salmon BBQs at his house complete with fancy sauces, cold rose wine, and friends.

Back then, salmon was cheap -- thirty or forty bucks would get you a whole one, enough for 30 or 40 people. Over the years, the salmon stock declined and the price increased, enough so that the size of the parties and the servings got smaller and smaller.

This year, salmon fishing has been banned from the California and Oregon coasts. There are no salmon BBQs. There are many reasons, some historic and some proximate. More than 150 years of logging has stripped rivers of their shade cover, heating up the water and clogging it with silt, boiling and suffocating salmon eggs. Mining has had a similar effect. And the need for water for agriculture has lowered rivers to levels that the salmon can't swim back up stream.

I'm not sure what's more depressing, the loss of salmon or the lack of public outcry about it. I would have expected Alice Waters and Michael Pollan to be leading marches on Sacramento and Washington by now. Bring back our salmon! Yes, it sounds foodie-elitist, but the truth is that salmon fishing used to provide thousands of jobs that are now gone. Put the fishermen and women at the front of the march. What a great pro-consumption and pro-jobs campaign that would be.

I've been bummed out about this all summer, but couldn't figure out what to say or do about it. Then, this morning, somebody emailed me asking what my take is on environmental education. If we are post-environmental, what does a post-environmental education look like? I had given a talk on the subject back in 2005 to the New England Environmental Education Alliance and when I re-read it just now I was reminded that the centerpiece of my talk was one of my favorite children's book, Bring Back the Salmon, which I used to read to my son and which invariably choked me up every time I did.

It's an inspiring story about how a bunch of kids in Washington state restored a local creek and brought back the salmon. For me it was a launching point into a meditation about environmental education. But now I hope it can serve as an inspiration for a future effort to bring back the salmon. I encourage readers who know about existing efforts to bring back the salmon to our rivers (and dinner plates) to comment here.

Here's the first of three posts on "The Dream of a Post-Environmental Education."

Continue reading "Come Back, Salmon!" »

This is a response to Max Epstein's guest post, "In Defense of Carbon Pricing: Why Clean Energy RD&D Isn't Enough." Our response is written by Breakthrough Generation fellow Zach Arnold.

Before anything else, I want to thank Max for his thoughtful post. His arguments have been a big help in clarifying our own thinking.

In my response, I'm going to try to define the problem we're trying to solve, and clarify the differences I see between a carbon price driven regime (as Max advocates) and an investment-led regime (as we're more fond of at Breakthrough). I'm then going to explore the political feasibility of a carbon price, and what a politically sustainable carbon price can and can't do to address climate change. In doing so, I hope to show that, for now, we can't rely on carbon pricing to drive the shift to a clean energy economy.

Continue reading "Breakthrough Responds: Why Carbon Pricing Won't Cut It" »

"Deconstruction," that much maligned philosophical move that began with Heidegger and was turned into an art form by Derrida, was never as complicated as its pro/opponents made it seem. Take an ordinary seeming concept -- Nature, say -- and demonstrate the ways in which it rests on a nonsensical binary opposition (i.e., nature doesn't include humans). The deconstruction "that happens" (Derrida wanted to emphasize that nobody "does" deconstruction -- it occurs when old concepts no longer make sense) goes like this:

1. Humans aren't superior to Nature. (This, notably, is where most greens stop.)
2. Come to think of it, there is no "Nature" separate from humans.

The great American comedian George Carlin, R.I.P., gave a very funny twist to this deconstruction (tip o' the hat to the Times' Andy Revkin for blogging on this).

Continue reading "George Carlin and Deconstruction" »

Over the last few weeks at the Breakthrough Blog, there has been some discussion and debate over consumption and anti-consumption (see my post "Is Consumption Evil" here and Michael Shellenberger's post "The UnGandhi Generation" here). This post is intended to be a continuation of this discussion.

Continue reading "Against Anti-Consumption " »

By Adam Rodriques, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Taking a break from its everyday responsibilities, the National Intelligence Council (NIC) took a noteworthy step yesterday when it delivered a briefing on climate change to the House of Representatives' Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The briefing, given by Thomas Fingar, the Deputy Director of National Intelligence for Analysis, represents the first time that the American intelligence community has weighed in on the issue of climate change.

Now, these guys are not physicists, nor were meant to be: Fingar explicitly stated that they "did not evaluate the science of climate change per se," choosing to focus instead on analyzing the national security implications of existing predictions (their chosen model was a mid-range IPCC prediction). Nevertheless, the mere fact that this briefing was given at all is hugely significant...and on top of that, they have some very interesting and insightful things to say.

Continue reading "Climate Change Gets The Fingar: Intelligence Community Weighs in on Climate Security Risks" »

By Helen Aki and Jesse Jenkins

Just as the time becomes ripe for a major push towards clean, cheap sources of electricity, the Bureau of Land Management threw a two-year stumbling block in the path of solar power development last Friday.  As solar power ramps up--the Bureau has received 130 proposals solar plants since 2005--the Bureau decided to put a hold on further development, claiming that that an exhaustive environmental impact report must be completed before solar plants can be installed on federally owned lands. Meanwhile, the push continues for oil drilling in protected offshore areas and the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge (an endeavor that really merits an environmental impact assessment!).

Using environmental justifications to suppress the growth of new, clean, American energy sources doesn't fly with environmentalists (who must feel like their political tool (the EIS) has been perversely co-opted by the "dark side").  But the Mojave ground squirrel aside (a species allegedly threatened by the solar development), it strikes me that anything that actively blocks much needed new clean, renewable energy is not only perverse or ironic, but actually dangerous.

Timed as it is to coincide with the expiration of critical renewable energy incentives, this new road block is bad news for the solar industry-- and actively blocking the advancement of new sources of clean, American energy is bad news for the economy as a whole.  Now more than ever, as the price of oil continues to rise, buoying inflation and economic insecurity along with it, the transition to new clean sources of American energy is critical to secure continued economic prosperity.

Continue reading "Energy Delayers, Get Out Of The Way: A New American Energy Future Awaits" »

An open letter by Alisha Fowler, Breakthrough Generation Fellow

Dear Dr. James Hansen,

For more than twenty years, your scientific expertise and public statements have helped many (including myself) understand the relationship between human activity and global warming. I felt a sense of urgency as I read your latest testimony to Congress (PDF) regarding the need to curb greenhouse gases and put us on the path to building a clean energy economy. I can only imagine how frustrated you must be by the inability of Congress to pass meaningful and comprehensive energy and climate legislation. As I read your testimony it was clear that you fully grasp the scale of the energy and climate challenge and desire to implement effective solutions that will tackle it head on.

That's why I felt totally lost when you articulated what you feel is the best way to transform our current energy system. You said, "One hundred percent dividend or fight!"

Continue reading "ATTN James Hansen: Cap-and-Dividend NOT Worth Fighting For" »

A new study in the journal Climatic Change confirms reports that the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has drastically underestimated the rate of emissions growth. The new study points to far more rapid global economic growth, driven largely by China and Asia, as a major source behind far higher global emissions increases. The report comes days after a new study found that China's annual emissions are now 14 percent higher than U.S. emissions.

Continue reading "New Climatic Change Analysis Challenges IPCC Scenarios" »

Brazil is a country of stark contrasts. It is the land of the Amazon and the favelas. Of breathtaking natural beauty and rampant violence. Its forests hold what some have called "the lungs of the earth," but the desire for a better life is driving their destruction. Environmentalist efforts to save the rain forest tend to brush over the plight of the Brazilian people, but until the country's widespread poverty is addressed, Brazilians will keep hacking down trees to eke out a living.

Continue reading "Brazil: "Lungs" -- or Bowels -- of the Earth?" »

Who killed cap and trade? Dogmatists on left and right.

On the right, Senate Republican leadership insisted that the problem of climate change isn't serious and nothing should be done. On the left, environmentalist Democratic Senators insist that the only way to emissions reductions is to price our way to a clean energy economy. In this way Democrats actually helped Republicans, who didn't need to do much more than repeat "higher gasoline prices" to defeat the bill.

The price-centric approach is a political, technological, economic, and ecological loser. Voters, and thus politicians, will never accept raising energy prices high enough to make clean energy cost competitive.

Continue reading "Who Killed Cap and Trade?" »

Andy Revkin blogs that Nobel laureate Dr. Steven Chu says that climate change is not like dealing with the ozone hole.

Avoiding a lot of warming and climate change while heading toward 9 billion people seeking a decent life will require an utter transformation of the multi-trillion-dollar energy system, Dr. Chu said. An audience member wondered whether spiking gas prices would propel the change. Dr. Chu said higher energy prices would not be enough on their own, adding that the necessary energy transformation will also require decades of sustained research, development, and deployment of new technologies.

Apparently Dr. Chu didn't get the memo that explained how a price on carbon dioxide will magically transform the global energy economy.

Some of the world's leading energy and climate experts have now officially responded to Roger Pielke, Tom Wigley, and Chris Green's May 8, 2008 "Dangerous Assumptions" article in Nature, which showed that the U.N. IPCC has radically underestimated the technological challenge of reducing emissions. (The reason? In a word: China.)

What stands out is that there is a clear consensus about the need for massive public investments to bridge the technology gap -- and a bit of humor about the enormity of the challenge.

Vaclav Smil of the University of Manitoba -- a big dog in energy circles -- writes:

I largely agree with the overall conclusion of Pielke et al. that the IPCC assessment is overly optimistic, but I fear that the situation is even worse than the authors imply.

Oy vey: there are actually people who think Pielke et al. are being overly optimistic.

Continue reading "Experts Respond to "Dangerous Assumptions"" »

Wired just went live with a powerful challenge to environmentalists as its cover story for its June 2008 issue.

Dave Roberts at Grist is, predictably, freaking out. (You can always tell when Dave finds something exciting because he goes on and on about how boring it is.)

The special issue is the opposite of boring. It's totally provocative and interesting. While I don't agree with all of it (I'd like our few remaining old-growth forests to remain standing!) Wired nails a bunch of hugely important issues that greens (that means you, Dave) still haven't grappled with.

Continue reading "Wired Calls for the Death of Environmentalism" »

Tuesday's Journal offers further insight to why the Economy Trumps Environment, but also offers hope for sustainable development advocates.

Continue reading "Economic Trump, Environmental Hope?" »

by Roger Pielke, Jr.

This post summarizes, in capsule form, what I believe to be the necessary elements of any successful suite of policies focused on climate mitigation and adaptation. This post is short, and necessarily incomplete with insufficient detail, nonetheless, its purpose is to set the stage for future, in depth discussions of each element discussed below. The elements discussed below are meant to occur in parallel. All are necessary, none by itself sufficient. I welcome comments, critique, and questions.

Continue reading "Elements of Any Successful Approach to Climate Change" »

In a previous post, Michael examines how appealing to xenophobic tendencies has become a fundamental strategy for attacking any issues intended to address the health and welfare needs of the poor. By extension, this piece suggests how xenophobic appeal could extend to attacks on environmental efforts on the diplomatic front. Michael's connection is an important one because we know from history environmental concerns, particularly during times of economic hardship, are easily overwhelmed by the politics of insecurity.

Continue reading "Xenophobia Goes Global" »

Based on a reading of this blog and the comments from readers, it seems reasonable to assume that this conversation is dominated by a modern cosmopolitan culture. It is a culture of self-identified progressives living a post-material existence; in fact the closer one approaches zero-impact-person the better. More specifically the merit of a particular technology or policy is often evaluated on a per-unit-of-carbon basis. Yes, there are divergent and impassioned views over any specific technology, policy or definition of "the problem," but the discursive space and basic units of evaluation (carbon, dollars, votes) are quite consistent; this is Culture.

Continue reading "Car Culture" »

Ah, the politics of the sixties. Openness to other cultures. Harmony with nature and -- hysterical overpopulation screeds?

Continue reading "The Sixties Were the (Population) Bomb" »

Yesterdays New York Times ran a piece describing renewed interest in genetically modified crops (GMOs) even in countries that had "longstanding resistance" to their use. The piece is interesting because is ran shortly after "Sticker Shock in the Organic Isle" which describes how the rise in the cost of organic foods may begin to price people out of the market.

Continue reading "GMOs: Organics Best Friend?" »

In 2018 we will almost certainly look back on Earth Day 2008 as the high point of the Green Bubble. We will cast our eyes over our abandoned backyard gardens and chuckle softly to ourselves about how we once thought they were the solution to skyrocketing emissions in China. We will wonder why we were more worried about future droughts caused by climate change than we were by the worst global food shortages in 30 years, which were triggering food riots at the same time that we were flipping through our special Earth Day issue of the New York Times Magazine. And we will remember how, just months later, the Green Bubble burst and images of food riots abroad and economic hardship at home finally replaced images of melting glaciers, stranded polar bears, and the lists of the 1,001 Things You Can Do to Prevent Eco-Apocalypse.

Continue reading "The Coming Bursting of the Green Bubble" »

In their Earth Day issue, Vice Magazine profiles Breakthrough Institute. At long last, Breakthrough finds a magazine interviewer who uses more profanity than its two co-founders. Little wonder it's the best Break Through book interview yet.

Continue reading "Tuesday Interview: Vice Magazine: "Breakthrough Institute Wrests Environmentalism Away From the Dumbs"" »

Breakthrough Senior Fellow, Roger Pielke, Jr., has a new post up examining the LA Times Alan Zarembo's look at what people are doing to slowly come around to a new way of thinking about weather, climate change and the damage that new and stronger hurricanes can mean for coastal development.

What are we doing to adapt?

Continue reading "Adapting to a Changing Earth:" »

On Thursday, March 13 2008, the Department of Energy announced 11 grants totaling $14 million dollars to various research projects aimed at driving down the high-cost of solar energy equipment.

In their words:

The[se] solar projects have the potential to significantly reduce the cost of electricity produced by PV products from current levels of $0.18-$0.23 per Kilowatt hour (kWh) to $0.05 - $0.10 per kWh by 2015 - a price that is competitive in markets nationwide. [We think it'll take more like $50 billion, by the way]

Each university will work closely with an industry partner to ensure the projects retain a commercialization focus and that results are quickly transitioned into market ready-products and manufacturing processes...

Continue reading "Department of Energy grants $14 million dollars to Solar" »

When we talk about Breakthrough technologies, most of us think of large-scale research communities where all the scientists dress in white clean-suits. The IKEA version of the future comes to mind. But in between Arthur C. Clarke and Phillip K. Dick, there is the middle ground of real-world development.

Shawn Frayne is a 28 year-old inventor from Mountain View, California. Working in Haiti, he saw a need for bringing easy, cheap renewable electricity to villagers for $2 - $5 in materials costs.

The large-scale wind farms we currently lobby for would not have worked here for a number of reasons; so, instead, he put nature to work.

The "Wind Belt", a winner of the 2007 Breakthrough Award from Popular Mechanics, was the result.

Continue reading "The Answer is Blowin' in the Wind--and cheaply, too!" »

After we published Break Through last fall we constantly heard from old-school environmentalists like the Center for American Progress blogger Joe Romm that we don't need technological breakthroughs. (Romm was careful to narrowly define "breakthrough" as the invention of a brand new technology, even though we had explicitly defined it as "breakthroughs in performance and price.")

One of the chief barriers to dealing with global warming is that clean energy remains much more expensive than fossil fuels. As long as that remains the case, neither rich countries like the U.S. nor poor countries like China are going to move to clean energy sources any time soon. What to do? We argue that major federal investments in clean energy are required to scale up the technologies and bring down their price.

Continue reading "Solar Breakthroughs Needed, Says New UC-Berkeley Study" »

As prices for agricultural products have skyrocketed over the past year, thousands of square miles of Amazonian rainforest have fallen. The rate of new deforestation is truly alarming: in the four months between August and December of 2007, 2,500 square miles of forest came down. According to the Brazilian Minister of the Environment Marina Silva, November and December were particularly bad, seeing 740 square miles cleared. All this, despite decades of well-intentioned environmentalists' conservation efforts and wide recognition of the potential disasters from continued deforestation. And while the link between commodity prices and deforestation is apparent, another equally important link - urban poverty and deforestation - doesn't even show up on most environmentalists' radar.

Continue reading "Rethinking Deforestation: Macro Drivers Plow over the Amazon" »

Today's San Francisco Chronicle reports that the state Public Utility Commission will consider a surcharge on utility bills to fund a proposed institute for climate solutions. The surcharge would provide a projected $60 million per year to address gaps in existing research funding.

Continue reading "A Small Step for CA" »

There are a number of items in today's Wall Street Journal that underscore the role of stable financing for clean energy technology. Is Clean Tech the Next Bubble underscores an inconvenient truth regarding clean technology products - consumers are not willing to pay. According to this report "a whopping 47% of U.S. adults say they just don't care" about clean technology products.

Continue reading "Putting the Green in Green" »

While you were reading the New York Times on Break Through, you may have noticed the article about how the Great Lakes wolf has hybridized into a new species. The article describes how human habitat destruction, followed by protection created conditions for the Great Lakes gray wolf to cross breed with other wolves and coyotes. Based on DNA analysis the "pure" wolf has effectively become extinct.

Continue reading "A Hybrid is Born" »

Health is arguably the most universal human values. Consult any parent and the health and of their child(ren) will consistently draw top rank. Consult the Global Burden of Disease project's infant mortality data and the contributors to children's health are evident - food, safe water and immunization. Absent these fundamentals dysentery and infectious disease run rampant and deadly. If you are reading this, chances are you live in a corner of the world where food is abundant, sanitation systems are established and vaccination has created heard immunity. The conditions of affluence, especially the absence of rampant infectious disease, have given rise to a modern anti-vaccination movement.

Continue reading "Political Science" »

All too often current events provide a canvas to project our political anxieties. Consider the recent spate of China-bashing resulting from contaminated pet food, toxic tooth paste and leaded children's toys. Early reports characterized China as "a marketplace teeming with unlicensed operations and entrepreneurs willing to cut corners to make a bigger profit." From Pinots to Firestone 500s corner cutting is hardly a uniquely Chinese phenomenon - its synonymous with capitalism.

Continue reading "Abstract Art" »

Surrealism is no stranger to politics. In a recent posting , Ted describes how a non-descript stand of oak trees in Berkeley has metamorphosed into an "ecological wonder." Equally as intriguing is how efforts by the University of California to ensure tranquility at a football game, by separating this ecological wonder from 70,000 fans with a fence, became the moral equivalent of Bloody Thursday .

Continue reading "Rear View Politics" »

I'm trying to decide who I'm supporting for President, and frankly, I'm not getting there. Along the way, I'm hearing lots of bad reasons for not supporting one candidate or another. I understand how this works. Most of us make a decision, based on some jumble of reasons or emotions, and then go looking for ways to prop it up.

And that's fine with me. If you have a horse in this race, go ride it. But I just want to be that little voice out here on the sidelines urging you to stay a little flexible. After all, your candidate just might fall by the wayside. That happens, right? And people of good will eventually will need all the help they can get for this campaign to turn out well.

So, in the interest of increasing the level of cognitive dissonance among readers of this fine web-based establishment, let me suggest several reasons you shouldn't broadcast too fervently in buttressing your own choice for President. I'll start with Barack Obama. Next time, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

Continue reading "One Reason not to dis Barack Obama" »

My neighbor recently had the unfortunate experience of being jettisoned from his bicycle into the back of a car. The incident resulted in a painful blow to the neck followed by a Good Samaritan rushing to his aid with an offer of herbs which she "takes all the time for pain." With the explosion of homeopathy, the slightest sniffle or cough can result in an offer of a specialized supplement followed by an herbalist's statement that it is "natural."

Continue reading "Toxic by Nature" »

In June of this year, Environmental Defense and DuPont introduced the NANO Risk Framework to "evaluate and address the potential risks of nanoscale materials." Nanotechnology refers to applied science and technology whose unifying theme isthe control of materials on the molecular level and the fabrication of devices within that range.

What is striking about the framework and an earlier editorial published in the Wall Street Journal by Fred Krupp is the reliance on the eco-tragedy meta-narrative combined with the risk assessment sub-plot.

Continue reading "Risking it All" »

History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Back in the mid-nineties, Michael and I met on the campaign to save Northern California's Headwaters Forest. Headwaters was the last significant privately owned stand of ancient redwoods on the West Coast and was threatened with liquidation by the corporate raider Charles Hurwitz.

Continue reading "Fire Up the Chainsaws" »