Group items tagged

The request for Congress to lift the ban on offshore drilling must be answered with an unequivocal no. The stakes are too high for political faades to continue standing in place of progressive economic solutions. Of course, this argument is one that will surely be issued from both sides, but considering the lack of evidence in support of the drilling, it seems poorly suited for those with their eyes on coastal waters.

This illiteracy has caused us to focus on the wrong problems, and the wrong solutions ... and it's stalled the realization of any politically tenable carbon reductions.Ironically, while the goal of reducing carbon emissions has political allies and adversaries, the economic illiteracy is found on both sides. It has become self-reinforcing. The only solace is that the economists are just as guilty.

This article demonstrates that the large feed-in tariffs currently guaranteed for solar electricity in Germany constitute a subsidization regime that, if extended to 2020, threatens to reach a level comparable to that of German hard coal production, a notoriously outstanding example of misguided political intervention. Yet, as a consequence of the coexistence of the German Renewable Energy Sources Act (EEG) and theEUEmissions Trading Scheme (ETS), the increased use of renewable energy technologies does not imply any additional emission reductions beyond those already achieved by ETS alone. Similarly disappointing is the net employment balance, which is likely to be negative if one takes into account the opportunity cost of this form of solar photovoltaic support. Along the lines of the International Energy Agency (IEA 2007:77), we therefore recommend the immediate and drastic reduction of the magnitude of the feed-in tariffs granted for solar-based electricity. Ultimately, producing electricity on this basis is among the most expensive greenhouse gas abatement options.

America's energy independence will not be found in offshore oil drilling. Two federal bans exist to make that point. Relief from high oil and gasoline prices is a byproduct of conservation, a broader menu of energy options and increased efficiencies.

Or as Mr. Smith jokes: “It only took 40 years to become an overnight success.”

Now, oil production in northern Alberta is expected to quadruple to more than four million barrels a day by about 2020, if all the projects proposed go ahead.

The oil sands are seen as a crucial source in a world of increasingly tight supply, where many reserves are in politically volatile regions controlled by undemocratic states. Put another way: Should they disappear tomorrow, one industry expert estimates, the price of oil could jump a third to $130 a barrel.

The EU is unprepared for future conflicts over energy resources, according to a new report written for the meeting of EU leaders on 13-14 March. The report, seen by the Guardian, predicts that global warming might lead to energy wars, mass migration, failed states and political radicalisation. The report highlights the “scramble” over natural resources from the thawing Arctic region as a potential new conflict area with Russia.

It does not happen often that I agree with the American Enterprise Institute but Steven Hayward’s analysis of the “real cost of tackling climate change” in the Wall Street Journal of 28 April is spot on: an 80% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 will have dramatic implications for our way of life. Hayward has at least the courage (which cannot be said for our politicians) to tell the public what this 80% cut will mean for citizens’ daily lives. In not one political document have I ever seen a serious impact assessment of the 80% target. The fear of being the bearer of bad news is one which characterises all policymakers (even the ones who know that the climate crisis will hit hard).

Time to dispair? Not according to Monbiot: “We must confront a challenge which is as great and as pressing as the rise of the Axis powers. Had we thrown up our hands then, as many people are tempted to do today, you would be reading this paper in German. Though the war often seemed impossible to win, when the political will was mobilised strange and implausible things began to happen. The US economy was spun round on a dime in 1942 as civilian manufacturing was switched to military production(25). The state took on greater powers than it had exercised before. Impossible policies suddenly became achievable.