Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Exclusive: Report Charges Broad White House Efforts to Stifle Climate Research
Justin Rood, ABC News (U.S.)
Bush administration officials throughout the government have engaged in White House-directed efforts to stifle, delay or dampen the release of climate change research that casts the White House or its policies in a bad light, says a new report that purports to be the most comprehensive assessment to date of the subject.
Researchers for the non-profit watchdog Government Accountability Project reviewed thousands of e-mails, memos and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests and from government whistle-blowers and conducted dozens of interviews with public affairs staff, scientists, reporters and others.
The group says it has identified hundreds of instances where White House-appointed officials interfered with government scientists’ efforts to convey their research findings to the public, at the behest of top administration officials.
The report is slated to be released tomorrow at a hearing before the House Science Committee, which is investigating the issue.
(27 March 2007)
Norway’s Lutheran Church calls for climate change efforts
AFP
Eleven bishops from Norway’s Lutheran Church on Monday called on the country’s authorities to step up efforts to fight climate change, which they say is particularly harmful to the southern hemisphere.
A joint declaration drafted by the humanitarian aid organisation Norwegian Church Aid urged Norway to reduce its greenhouse gases rather than buy emission rights, emphasize climate issues in development aid talks, and form a coalition with other “responsable countries” that are also ready to reduce emissions.
(26 March 2007)
What Markey’s Select Committee could do about global warming
Original: “Markey’s Big Chance”
Katrina vanden Heuvel, The Nation
Two weeks ago, Representative Ed Markey was appointed chair of the new Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. The committee has no legislative role but it does have subpoena power, a $3.7 million budget, a team of investigators, and a two-year term. So there should be ample opportunity to powerfully illustrate the crisis and arrive at some smart policy recommendations.
There are already strong legislative proposals out there and Markey’s committee could use these as a starting point for potential Congressional action. “Our job,” Markey says, “will be to take these issues and translate them into a language that has political potency and is accessible to the public.” Here then are some areas the Select Committee could explore in response to the global warming crisis.
1.Job Creation …
2. The Exorbitant Costs Myth …
3. The Economic Harm of Global Warming …
4. ‘The Experts of the Land’ [indigenous peoples] …
5. A Bipartisan Approach …
6. Centralize Findings …
7. Describe Domestic Investment …
8. Paint a Picture …
9. Two Federal Bills …
(26 March 2007)
Nation editor Katrina vanden Heuvel is beginning to write more about energy issues. -BA
Why don’t you sequester some carbon today?
Travis Daub, Foreign Policy Passport
Here’s a novel idea: Buy up carbon credits by the boat load, never emit any carbon, and thereby help to reduce the worldwide output of greenhouse gases. As the demand for credits soars, the value of individual credits will skyrocket, and carbon-reduction technologies will become more cost-competitive. At least, that’s the theory.
Just last month, CO2quota.org set up a foundation to collect funds and purchase carbon credits-credits they plan never to use. In exchange for giving money, donors receive a certificate detailing how many tons of carbon they’ve kept out of the atmosphere. It costs about $19 to offset one ton of carbon emissions. (That’s a bargain: $28 will buy you just one ton of carbon emissions using green tags.) CO2quota.org says that they buy their credits from The Nordic Power Exchange, and that Deloitte watches over their books.
Personally, I’m skeptical. To me, this whole scenario sounds about like ripping up $100 bills to help fight inflation. So far the foundation has offset roughly 185 tons of carbon emissions, which actually isn’t much-it’s the amount of carbon produced by about twenty average U.S. households in a year. I suspect that similar savings could be achieved if those who bought credits just switched to energy-saving lightbulbs.
But any environmental movement that relies on the generosity of individuals to donate, volunteer, or otherwise sacrifice our way to a greener future will never work, simply because the problem is too big. The only way green technologies will overtake their older counterparts is for the market to deem them to be more profitable.
(26 March 2007)
Perhaps we could amend the last sentence to say: “The only way green technologies will overtake their older counterparts is for the market with envrionmental externalities factored in to deem them to be more profitable. -BA
New Stern climate warning
Peter Hannam with Liz Minchin, The Age
SIR Nicholas Stern, the author of the world’s most comprehensive study of the economic impact of climate change, says fresh research into the planet’s carbon sink suggests his report probably underestimated the potential damages.
New research indicated a weakening of the so-called carbon cycle, in particular the ability of the planet’s oceans to absorb carbon dioxide, Sir Nicholas said. And the risks threatening forests, another type of carbon sink, “are stronger than we thought”, he said. “So I think we are seeing early signs that some risks are bigger than the ones that we included.”
(28 March 2007)
