December 2009

Richard Heinberg: Trying to save the world

December 4, 2009

Today’s guest blogger is Richard Heinberg, senior fellow in residence at the Post Carbon Institute, an expert on peak oil and the author of nine books, the latest of which is Blackout: Coal, Climate and the Last Energy Crisis. My friend Ed Maibach sent me this essay, and I liked it so much that I obtained permission from Richard to run in on the blog. While I edited it for space, it’s still longer than the usual blogpost—but worth reading, I think, for what it says about the need to rethink economic growth and to have a more honest debate about climate.

Heinberg Hi. My job is trying to save the world, and I’d like to tell you a little about my line of work.

First, it’s a job I enjoy. I get to feel good about what I do, and I meet a lot of smart, interesting people. I get to travel to exciting places to attend conferences, and at least some people respect my efforts (though many others think I’m crazy or misguided).

It’s not all a bed of roses. The biggest problems with trying to save the world are: first, that it doesn’t always seem to want to be saved; and second, that those of us trying to save it can’t agree on why it needs saving or how to go about doing so. Let me explain.

When I say “save the world,” I mean preventing human civilization from collapsing in a chaotic, violent way that would entail enormous amounts of suffering and death. I also mean preserving the natural world, so as to minimize species extinctions and the loss of wild habitat.

I regard both of these priorities as about equally important, since they are closely interrelated: if civilization collapses chaotically, billions of people will do an enormous amount of damage to remaining ecosystems in their desperate attempts at survival; and if nature goes first, that means civilization will go too, because we rely on ecosystem services for everything we do.

But not everyone who works full-time at saving the world has the same balance of priorities. [click to continue…]

{ 3 comments }

Why I’m glad I cover business..

December 3, 2009

and not the Congress.

Three headlines today, all dispiriting examples of political irresponsibility that display a cavalier disregard for markets.

auto_dealerFrom the AP: GM, Chrysler agree to reconsider dealer closings

General Motors Co. and Chrysler will reconsider decisions to close thousands of dealerships as part of a compromise meant to stave off federal legislation that would require them to keep the showrooms open.

…Rep. Christopher Van Hollen, D-Md., who has criticized the dealer cuts, said the GM and Chrysler plans “still fall short of what is needed to help reinstate profitable car dealers and put their employees back to work.”

Wonderful. My congressman will tell GM and Chrysler which dealers are profitable and which are not.

From The Times: Senate Blocks Use of New Mammogram Guidelines

The Senate on Wednesday night agreed to bar the federal government from relying on the findings of an independent panel of health experts that recently recommended women should begin having routine mammograms at age 50 rather than at age 40.

Great. Who needs scientists when we have elected officials to decide what women need?

One more from The Times: Black Caucus Seeks to Ease Radio’s Woes

This story explained that the Congressional black caucus is holding up financial regulation reform its members want the administration to bring pressure on Goldman Sachs and GE Capital to renegotiate their loans with a troubled but well-connected radio company called Inner City Broadcasting:

In a rare break with President Obama, the caucus, made up of black members of Congress, is holding back support for the legislation because it wants the administration to help minority-owned businesses, including Inner City, whose financial plight has been specifically identified in meetings with top administration officials.

So while Republicans did favors for Halliburton, the Democrats twist arms on behalf of Inner City Broadcasting. Isn’t this what they call crony capitalism in Russia?

You have to say this about this Congress: They’re consistent.

Arrogant in thinking they know what’s best.

And generous in giving away other people’s money.

{ 0 comments }

Climate: where are we headed?

December 3, 2009

Here’s an interesting use of social media by a group called Climate Interactive. It’s an attempt to track progress being made at the Copenhagen climate negotiations. Climate Interactive (“vigorous sharing of user-friendly simulations”) grew out of modeling done at MIT, and has support from universities, nonprofits and business (Citi, Morgan Stanley, Nike, Schlumberger). Given the unavoidable uncertainties of climate science, these projections should be understood as best estimates. But the organization is admirably transparent about its methods and assumptions, as best as this non-scientist can tell.

Here’s a short video explaining the scorecard.

The question is, can organizing tools like this one motivate people to care about the impact of our actions today on generations to come?

{ 0 comments }

The strange power of prizes

December 2, 2009

Prizes are powerful incentives.

secondary

In 1927, Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic to win the $25,00 Orteig prize.

The DARPA Challenge

Tartan Racing, a collaboration between students at Carnegie Mellon and General Motors, won a $2 million prize in the 2007 DARPA Grand Challenge, a competition to develop an  autonomous ground vehicle for the military.

Cracker_Jack_Box

And, of course,  kids since 1912 have been tearing open Cracker Jack boxes to get at the prize inside.

Prizes are fun. The difference between a spelling test and a spelling bee is a prize.

These days, as never before, private companies, foundations and government are turning to prizes as a way to spur technological and environmental innovation. This proliferation of prizes tells us some interesting things about ourselves and about the limits markets, as I’ll argue in a moment.

Best known of the prize-givers is the X Prize Foundation, whose slogan is “revolution through competition.” It’s offering prizes of at least $10 million each for safely landing a robot on the moon (sponsored by Google),  for building a super-efficient car (sponsored by Progressive Automotive) and for breakthroughs in genomics. [click to continue…]

{ 10 comments }

A devastating critique of cap-and-trade

December 1, 2009

“You can only compromise to a point before a solution isn’t really a solution.”

That, in a sentence, is about as succinct a critique of the cap-and-trade legislation pending in Congress as you are likely to read. For more, when you have 10 minutes, watch the video below from Annie Leonard, best known as the creator of The Story of Stuff. In language anyone can understand–it’s a cartoon, after all–she argues that a global cap-and-trade system to regulate greenhouse gases, which is what the upcoming Copenhagen climate talks are all about, won’t solve the problem of global warming.

She makes great points. Among them:

Giving away the permits to pollute under a cap-and-trade system is inequitable. As she puts it:

Industrial polluters will get the vast majo of these valuable permits for free. Free! The more they are polluting, they more they get. It’s like we’re thanking them for creating this problem in the first place.

The U.S. has a moral obligation to help poor countries which didn’t, after all, create the global-warming mess we’re in. As she says:

Don’t we have a responsibility to help those most harmed? It’s like we had a big party, didn’t invite our neighbors and then stuck them with the cleanup bill. It’s just not cool.

Carbon offsets are a risky business. She worries:

The danger with offsets is that it’s very hard to guarantee that real carbon is being removed to create the permit, yet these permits are worth real money, This creates a very dangerous incentive to create false offsets—to cheat. Now in some cases cheating isn’t the end of the world. In this case, it is.

Her solution? Cap emissions, let EPA regulate them, tax carbon, use the money for clean energy or to help poor countries adapt or mitigate their emissions.

In an ideal world, maybe. Her solution isn’t as simple as it sounds. Any effort by EPA to regulate emissions could be tied up in the courts for years.

In today’s world, forget it. As David Roberts points out in his acerbic critique-of-the-critique in Grist, the problems with cap-and-trade legislation as it is now written are a direct result of the power of the fossil fuel lobby. When Big Coal and Big Oil go toe-to-toe with Big Green, industry wins.

The fundamental problem we’re facing is that the environmental movement–even at its most mainstream– doesn’t have the clout to get a truly strong climate bill enacted. Getting even the current watered-down version enacted will be tough. Indeed,  inside-the-Beltway BINGOs (big NGOS) worry so much about losing supporters  that they are reluctant to engage in an honest conversation about climate change: That is, one that says we will likely have to sacrifice now–by paying higher prices for energy, subsidizing renewable power, and sharing clean tech with poor countries–to save the planet for future generations.  Instead, they chant the mantra of “green jobs.”

One more thing to note about this video: Leonard says carbon trading will be run by the likes of Goldman Sachs and Enron, the people who gave us the dot-com bubble and the subprime mortgage crisis. (Somehow Bernie Madoff’s name comes up as well.) She doesn’t like markets or big business, clearly.

This isn’t an argument. It’s name-calling.

But because some people in corporate America have screwed up so badly lately, it is, unfortunately, effective name-calling.

That’s a problem for those of us who still believe that well-regulated markets–including a carbon market–can be part of the solution to global warming.

Your thoughts?

UPDATE: I rushed this blogpost into “print” yesterday because Annie Leonard’s video was sweeping through the green blogosphere and I was eager to join the conversation. In retrospect, I wouldn’t call her critique “devastating” in the headline. “Pointed” or “hard-hitting” would be better.

What’s more, while Leonard effectively highlights the flaws of cap-and-trade, the policy debate around whether it will work, whether it has worked in Europe, who will benefit, whether a carbon tax would be better, why offsets are essential to any cap-and-trade scheme (or not) is obviously much more complicated than any 10-minute video or 800-word blogposting can capture. (See the comments to David Roberts’ post if you like, for a useful discussion of these issues, with numerous links.) For what it’s worth, I believe cap-and-trade can be made to work despite its dizzying complexity and the risks of gaming the system–although I’d prefer to see a cap-and-dividend approach where the proceeds from auctioning permits are returned to consumers or even a revenue-neutral carbon tax.

{ 2 comments }

Best Buy: An emerging green giant

December 1, 2009

best_buy_5th_ave.home By now, everyone paying attention to the greening of corporate America knows about Wal-Mart’s sweeping sustainability programs. Big-box rival Best Buy has not been nearly as visible about its efforts to become more environmentally and socially responsible. But I recently visited Best Buy’s headquarters in Richfield, Minnesota, on assignment for FORTUNE, and came away impressed with what the $40-billion a year company has been doing.

My story, headlined Best Buy Wants Your Electronic Junk, appears in the current issue (December 7) of the magazine, as the latest in a series on FORTUNE 500 companies. This one showcases a corporate responsibility leader, and we settled on Best Buy.

Why, you may wonder? Predominantly because Best Buy is a pioneer when it comes to electronics take-back, which is the focus of the story. [click to continue…]

{ 2 comments }

Next Entries →