Yale study: Green Economy = Growing Economy

Terra Daily reports on a Yale meta study looking at the economic impacts of a carbon-constrained economy.  The results:

“As Congress prepares to debate new legislation to address the threat of climate change, opponents claim that the costs of adopting the leading proposals would be ruinous to the U.S. economy. The world’s leading economists who have studied the issue say that’s wrong – and you can find out for yourself,” said Robert Repetto, professor in the practice of economics and sustainable development at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies …

Check out See For Yourself, an interactive website which enables users to examine studies, their assumptions, and results.

New GW denialists’ deceptive lie on global temperatures

Guest post from BruinKid.

They’re at it again.  Over at ICECAP, a site that claims to not be made up of global warming deniers, but turns out to host some of the biggest names in the global warming denial field that get serious $$$ from the oil companies, Joseph D’Aleo (a meteorologist, not climate scientist) put up their latest lie.  This graph is the brunt of their argument.

See??  There’s no correlation between temperatures and CO2 output!

Debunking after the fold.

Operation Iraqi Freedom and Global Warming?

The environmental impact of warfare is real, a cost that is rarely understood or accounted for as this is submerged under the quite real costs in people’s lives and other resources (notably dollars).  How many ‘average’ people when consider the U-Boat campaigns of World War II consider the oil slicks and implications for wildlife? The long-term impacts of bomb craters on a jungle? The … Over 30 years ago, I read Ecological Consequences of the Second Indochina War which first sensitized me to this issue. Thus, warfare (whether Just or otherwise) has an impact on the environment, on that space in which we live, work, die.

Oil for Change just issued a report that seeks to raise awareness in this vein, highlighting yet another “cost” of the Iraq War:  A Climate of War: The war in Iraq and global warming (pdf).

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Statistics from industry on pollution control costs

One sign that serious people consider some form of carbon-constraining legislation in the United States a serious possibility is the proliferation of industry-funded “analysis” somehow “proving” that “Global Warming is going to wreck the economy”. 

You know the old adage, “Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics”.  Well, there really should be a new category added: 

Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Statistics from Industry Projecting Pollution Control Costs

Time after time, when faced with potential mandates, industry has warned of disaster to come economically.  Seat belts, crash worthiness, air bags in cars: people won’t be able to buy cars.  Need to replace CFCs, costs will be so high that you’d have to be a Rockefeller to afford air conditioning or a refrigerator.  Reducing sulphur emissions and electricity bills will skyrocket.  Every time the potential mandate has emerged, the screams of pain to come fill our ears and politicians’ in-boxes, backed by tainted study after tainted study. The study that the National Association of Manufacturers‘ paid for, released earlier today,  Analysis of  The Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act (S. 2191) Using the National Energy Modeling System (NEMS),  fits well within that long lineage.

Global Warming Legislation: What matters?

Energy and Global Warming are complex, multifaceted, deep subjects. They are beyond the ability of any single person to totally master. And, a great challenge to those focused on them is seeking how to communicate, in a meaningful way, to those who don’t have the ability to dedicate huge chunks of time to learning about the issues.

When it comes to Global Warming, ever more of the Globe is aware. As some say, Katrina opened the door, Al Gore strode purposefully throught it, and now people realize that we need to do “something”.  But, defining that something becomes the next and, perhaps, even harder challenge.

Part of that “something” must include Global Warming/Climate Change legislation.  But not just any old legislation should do, we must have meaningful legislation that meets core principles.

WashPost Blurs R-D Presidential Race’s Climate Change Differences

For anyone who pays close attention, it is clear that John McCain is far behind both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton when it comes to Global Warming.  McCain’s campaign might be a “Green Straight Talk Express” but, when given the opportunity to act, Senator McCain’s reality is more like a Dirty Energy Twisted Delay Action Machine. 

But, for the Washington Post, the significant differences between a McCain and Obama or Clinton Administration aren’t worthy of note. From today’s lead editorial on the choice voters will face this November, The Coming Change:

 In contrast to President Bush, the next president will not start as a skeptic about the danger posed by global warming, and he or she will favor, not resist, legislation to impose mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, even without an international agreement binding other nations.

Yes, John McCain has talked the talk when it comes to Global Warming, having had a conversion to reality-based thinking earlier this century.  And, John McCain did co-sponsor Climate Change legislation only slightly worse than the Lieberman-Warner Coal-Subsidy Act.  But, having a toe in the real world doesn’t mean that there is not significant difference between McCain and the coming Democratic Party nominee (whether Obama or Clinton).  This one-sentence re Global Warming washes over these differences and, sadly, is likely the view of those who don’t pay real attention to this critical issue.

Money talks. Coal walks?

It isn’t too often that I turn to the pages of the Wall Street Journal for good news, but let today be a little different.   As per Wall Street Shows Skepticism over Coal, major banks, working with some environmental organizations (including, the much maligned Environmental Defense),

are imposing new environmental standards that will make it harder for companies to get financing to build coal-fired power plants in the U.S.

Boxer reacts to FoE’s left hook

The situation is moving from sparring to some serious boxing when it comes to the Lieberman-Warner Climate (in)Security Act (CISA) .  Friends of the Earth (FoE) has launched an advertising campaign voicing reason re Lieberman-Warner, pointing out that the CiSA (the Coal-Subsidy Act) is not just inadequate, but also is far weaker than the energy and Global Warming positions of the two Democratic Presidential candidates.  Why, FoE is asking, are Democratic leaders so desperately working to get votes for a bad bill, carrying the names of two endorsers of John McCain for President?

Fix or Ditch the Lieberman-Warner Global Warming Bill

After years of ignoring global warming, the U.S. Senate is finally considering legislation to cap greenhouse gas pollution. Unfortunately, the Lieberman-Warner bill being advanced by Senate Democrats lavishes up to $1 trillion on industries responsible for global warming, and in return asks for reduction targets well below what scientists say are necessary. If this is the best Senate Democrats can do, the world is in trouble.

And, at the same time, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) is working hard to whip up support for Lieberman-Warner, Boxing our way to disaster. 

Senator Boxer has reacted angrily to FoE’s efforts (note: E&E article behind firewall), basically calling them a “foe” rather than guardian of the interests of humanity, of America’s citizens (born and unborn), when it comes to sensible choices for Global Warming legislation. 

“They’re sort of the defeatist group out there,” she said. “They’ve been defeatists from day one. And it’s unfortunate. They’re isolated among the environmental groups.”

Yes, Senator Boxer, please focus on attacking an organization that is calling on all Americans to support legislative action that does not fall short of what science says is required to give us just a 50% chance of avoiding catastrophic climate change.  No, much better to be praising legislation that represents a trillion dollars of new corporate subsidies (making dealing with Global Warming that much more expensive and harder to do) and falls far short of what science says is required.   

“Far from being defeatists, we’re being realists,” Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said when asked to comment on Boxer’s remarks. “We’re focusing on what the scientists tell us has to be done to solve global warming. It’s not acceptable to pass a bill that falls short of the science. It’s not acceptable to pass a bill that gives $1 trillion to polluters.”

Let us be clear, this is not Friends of the Earth seeking the perfect as the enemy of the good.  Even with the fixes FoE seeks, the resulting bill would be ‘maybe good enough’ and not ‘perfect’.  No, the challenge is not perfection as enemy of good but, simply, bad, inadequate and dangerous being the enemy of good enough.

A Voice of Reason from an Oil CEO?

Yet again, Shell’s CEO, Jeroen van der Veer, has put himself out in public speaking truth that merits attention.  Last year, van der Veer made the case for serious energy efficiency as part of the energy path forward:

More than half the energy we generate every day is wasted.

What’s the point of producing even more energy if we continue to waste most of it? Instead, we should aim to become twice as efficient in our use of energy by the middle of the next century. That is entirely feasible, provided that the will is there.

I discussed that Times (London) oped in Powerful Call (by a powerful man) for Energy Efficiency.

Well, van der Veer has spoken up again.

Power Line: Questions to Ask Before Construction

Today is the last day for placing questions and comments before the Virginia State Corporation Commission (VSCC)  (comments) about two major issues from Dominion Virginia Power.

1. Wise County coal-fired power plant (application, 14 page pdf) PUE-2007-0066
2. A 500 kV transmission line to bring coal electricity to Northern Virginia from Ohio (application, 29 page pdf)  PUE-2007-00033

Green Miles posted, yesterday, Help Stop the Wise County Coal Power Plant.  Excellent discussion. Highly recommended.

Thus, let’s turn to the Power Line question.  Quite simply, there has been no efficiency focus in the power line debate, with too much NIMBYite focus.  Public officials, before rushing forward with approval of Dominion’s proposal, should ask the questions that follow and consider potential responses.