Uncategorized

Will the U.S. Postal Service permit a practically indestructible material to be reused?

The U.S. Postal Service demands that I discard perfectly good, used Tyvek Priority and Express Mail envelopes, and I am tired of it.

Their concern seems to be that people will grab these envelopes, turn them inside-out, and use them for regular first-class or media rate mailings, which effectively costs the Post Office money. In fact, they have threatened dire consequences if I try to reuse them for media mail.

But my theory is that it is both environmentally unsound and illegitimate for the Post Office to forbid this reuse as the envelope is no longer USPS property once it is delivered to me with proper Priority or Express mail postage -- the sender paid the Express or Priority postage. Once the carrier gives me the delivery, that Tyvek envelope -- which is nearly indestructible and should be reused scores of times -- it is mine to use as I wish, which includes the noblest reuse of this very sturdy material: mailing books at the media rate.

Media's 'decision to play the stenographer role helped opponents of climate action stifle progress'

One of the country's leading journalists has written a searing critique of the media's coverage of global warming, especially climate economics.

How Much Would You Pay to Save the Planet? The American Press and the Economics of Climate Change [PDF] is by Eric Pooley for Harvard's prestigious Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy. Pooley has been managing editor of Fortune, national editor of Time, Time's chief political correspondent, and Time's White House correspondent, where he won the Gerald Ford Prize for Excellence in Reporting. Before that, he was a senior editor of New York magazine.

In short, Pooley has earned the right to be heard. Journalists and senior editors need to pay heed to Pooley's three tough conclusions abut how "damaging" the recent media of the climate debate has been:

1. The press misrepresented the economic debate over cap and trade. It failed to recognize the emerging consensus ... that cap and trade would have a marginal effect on economic growth and gave doomsday forecasts coequal status with nonpartisan ones ... The press allowed opponents of climate action to replicate the false debate over climate science in the realm of climate economics.
2. The press failed to perform the basic service of making climate policy and its economic impact understandable to the reader and allowed opponents of climate action to set the terms of the cost debate. The argument centered on the short-term costs of taking action -- i.e., higher electricity and gasoline prices -- and sometimes assumed that doing nothing about climate change carried no cost.
3. Editors failed to devote sufficient resources to the climate story. In general, global warming is still being shoved into the "environment" pigeonhole, along with the spotted owls and delta smelt, when it is clearly to society's detriment to think about the subject that way. It is time for editors to treat climate policy as a permanent, important beat: tracking a mobilization for the moral equivalent of war.

Precisely.

Pooley is one of the few major journalists in the country who understands that global warming is the story of the century -- if we don't reverse our emissions path soon, it will tragically be the story of the millennium, with irreversible impacts lasting for many, many centuries (see here).

In a conversation Saturday, Pooley told me, "I think this is the only story going forward." That's why, although he remains a contributor to Time magazine, he is devoting most of his time now to researching and writing a book on the politics and economics of climate change.

The first step for Pooley was an analysis of media coverage over the past 15 months. In a long introduction to the different roles reporters can play, Pooley notes:

On 'mitigating' coal damage

This NYT editorial on the mythiness of "clean coal" is most welcome, but the conclusion rubs me the wrong way:

But coal remains an inherently dirty fuel, and a huge contributor to not only ground-level pollution -- including acid rain and smog -- but also global warming. The sooner the country understands that, the closer it will be to mitigating the damage.

If coal is inherently dirty, why should we confine our ambitions to "mitigating the damage"? Why not try to stop using it?

You never see this when people talk about oil. When people rehearse the damage oil is doing to our atmosphere, our land, and our geopolitical posture, they do not finish by meekly calling on Americans to clean up the messes. They say we should reduce and eventually eliminate our use of oil.

Why is coal different?

I know, I know, it's domestic, but domestic poison still kills. It's got to be more than that, no?

We need to cut emissions faster than 80 percent by 2050, but how fast?

For a long time, the climate science consensus suggested that to avoid increased average surface temperatures beyond those to which our civilization could adapt, we need to reduce emissions 80 percent by 2050. (No one suggested we stop there, but that goal was advocated as a way to avoid tipping points.)

There were voices from the beginning arguing that this was too slow a phase-out. But as Joe Romm has argued, the consensus-seeking nature of the IPCC process tends to downplay and ignore real dangers. It has become obvious that we need to reduce emissions faster than the conventional wisdom of a few years ago suggested.

For example, the rate at which the oceans absorb CO2 has slowed drastically as they become saturated. This suggests another tipping point looms: when the oceans begin to release the CO2 they contain, they'll become a source rather than a sink. At any rate, if the ability of nature to absorb our emissions has dropped, we have to cut emissions more than we would have.

Similarly, the ice caps are melting at a much faster rate than mainstream predictions suggested. Because water reflects less heat than ice, this is another cooling mechanism that has been reduced. Again, we have to cut those emissions faster than we planned.

How fast do we need to cut emissions?

Cataloging the unintended consequences and effects of gene tinkering

Here's a new database, Nontarget.org, that catalogs the unintended (nontarget) effects of the uncontrolled experiment being conducted with all life on earth: that is, GMOs.

When foreign genes are introduced into an organism, creating a transgenic organism or GMO, the results are almost always unpredictable. As the site says, "The intended result may or may not be achieved in any given case, but the one almost sure thing is that unintended results -- nontarget effects -- will also be achieved ... These facts have been, and are being, widely reported in the scientific literature. While they are correcting our understanding in important ways, they are not at all controversial."

New kids' book teaches about climate science without being scary

Ms. Frizzle is nowhere in sight, but this kids' book about climate science is doing just fine. How We Know What We Know About Our Changing Climate: Scientists and Kids Explore Global Warming, by Lynne Cherry and Gary Braasch, has netted a slew of awards, including being deemed one of the best middle-grade science books of the year by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

The book, which features Braasch's photography, encourages kids to observe their surroundings and participate in climate science research -- without drenching them in doom. It offers upbeat real-life tales of students in three U.S. states and Puerto Rico tracking their local weather and connecting that to the Earth's atmosphere, as well as tips on how to live more greenly, like avoiding bottled water and eating less meat. Grist board member Bill McKibben called it "empowering!" -- and the man doesn't lie.

Peek inside the book here. And keep your eyes out for a series of related short videos, being produced by Lynne Cherry, that put the spotlight on kids shrinking the carbon footprint of their communities.

Green Corps

I once bought Nancy Skinner (then executive director of the Climate Group, now my state assemblywoman) a coffee in exchange for hiring advice. Her latte's worth of wisdom: Don't stop interviewing until you find a campaigner -- someone who knows how to rally people behind an idea and make change happen.

If you want to be that kind of person, I can think of no better path than to join Green Corps. Some of the best campaigners I know came out of their training program -- Vote Solar's Claudia Eyzaguirre and Bernadette Del Chiaro of Environment California immediately come to mind. Their alumni parties are like the who's who of the progressive movement. Applications are due soon, so get on it ...

A closer look at current U.S. CO2 pricing

Kevin Drum over at Mother Jones blogged on my recent Grist post, joining my mom in the list of people who publicly praise my math skills. Thanks!

Much more interestingly, he raises this question:

Are we wiling to charge [a price for CO2 emissions] openly, with the carbon charges going to the public, [or] inside a complex giveaway to a favored corporation?

(The question is in response to my estimate here that the recently passed Illinois Clean Coal Portfolio Standards Act represents an implicit $300-$500-per-ton payment in the name of CO2 reduction.)

It's a great question because the truth is that under current federal and state policy, we do pay people for their actions to reduce CO2. But we do so in a horribly inconsistent way, providing not only inconsistency between technologies and "favored corporations," but also wild disparities in price.

For instance, suppose you're getting $0.03 per kWh from your state renewable portfolio standard. Those kWh displace -- on average -- 1,300 lb per MWh of U.S. power, and you are therefore being paid $46 per ton of CO2 you reduce. CO2 reduction is not the only justification for RPS policies, but would we ever have an RPS if we didn't care about CO2? I doubt it.

The good news there is that people are, today, being paid in the U.S. for reducing CO2. But is there any rhyme or reason to their price? And is it at all consistent with what others are getting for the same environmental service?

More math below the fold.

The idiocy of crowds or, rather, the idiocy of (crowded) debates

Once again, three climate activists who are not terribly good at debating agreed to participate in a decidedly unscientific format against people who mostly make stuff up. And what a shock, it had a bad outcome -- although this one seems to be partly a result of gaming the vote as much as anything else.

In 2007, it was the now-infamous climate science debate, broadcast by NPR on the proposition "Global warming is not a crisis." The pro-science side lost to the anti-science make-stuff-up side (Michael Crichton, Richard Lindzen, Philip Stott) on that one.

So you can imagine what happened when the debate proposition moved over to economics, "Major Reductions in Carbon Emissions Are Not Worth the Money" -- especially with the 'pro' (i.e. delayer) side handled by three world-class economist-loving liars make-stuff-uppers: Bjorn Lomborg, Peter Huber, and Stott (details here, transcript here [PDF] and, for true masochists, NPR audio here).

(Note No. 1 to all pro-climate-action debaters: It is very hard to win a staged debate with people who make stuff up. It is next to impossible to do so if they are skilled debaters. And you are guaranteed to lose if it isn't a one-on-one debate. Why? The only way to out-debate somebody who makes stuff up is to call them out on it. And if they keep doing it, you have to keep calling them out. Even the most skilled debater has difficulty publicly questioning the honesty and integrity of opponent again and again (which is why you rarely see anyone attempt it). But you'll never convince an audience that multiple 'experts' are making stuff up.)

The final result of this absurdly unscientific and meaningless activity was preordained. It was also so bogus that even the organization that put on the pointless debate actually acknowledged in its own press release (here) that part of the audience (the conservatives, of course) gamed the system:

Deep thought

Reliance on oil brings a stream of calls to "break our addiction" and find "alternative sources." Reliance on coal brings a stream of paeans to the importance of coal.