Jeff Masters has the amazing story:

An unusual event is happening over the next 48 hours, as the first tropical cyclone with hurricane-force winds, and major hurricane-force winds at that, is approaching the Gulf of Oman, to strike the eastern coast of Oman, curve northward, and make landfall on the coast of Iran. In the tropical cyclone best tracks and the modern era of weather satellites, there is no record of such an occurrence.

Hmm, I wonder if the climate is changing. Regular updates available here.

The current issue of The Economist has a “15-page report on how business is tackling climate change.”

The articles are worth a read — especially since the magazine has made them available for free online. They start with an overview:

Cleaning up: How business is starting to tackle climate change, and how governments need to help. Factoid: “Global investment in renewable power-generation, biofuels and low-carbon technologies rose from $28 billion in 2004 to $71 billion in 2006.”

Good piece, except that The Economist advocates stabilizing “CO₂ concentrations at around 550 parts per million (widely reckoned to be a safeish level).” Used to be, but not any more. 450 is the new 550.

Here are the articles from the report (with interesting quotes and factoids excerpted for those who don’t have the time to read each article):

Read more

NRDC’s David Hawkins writes me:

Two comments. These provisions are more than “flaws.” The vehicles provisions are a wholesale attack on EPA and state authority to control GHG from vehicles under the Clean Air Act. It is astonishing that we are facing the prospect that a Democratic-controlled House may actually consider weakening existing law as its first step on global warming.

Second, the attack is not limited to restricting state authority. The draft bill would repeal EPA’s authority (just affirmed by the Supreme Court) to control GHG from vehicles and would narrow EPA’s authority over fuels.

The Economist gets the hydrogen car story right. From its big 15-page cover story on climate solutions, an article on “The drive for low emissions” notes:

But hydrogen fuel cells have been just around the corner for a long time…. The fuel cell, says Shell’s Duncan Macleod, was ‘overpriced and over-promised at the front end.’ … It is an expensive business…. Hydrogen cars cost around $1m each to build, according to Mr Macleod. At the pump the hydrogen costs $5 a kilo–about the same, in terms of mileage, as current petrol prices. How much does it cost Shell to make? “A lot more than $5,” says Mr Macleod, laughing.

I could not agree more. More on The Economist shortly.

An energy bill is emerging from the House Energy and Commerce Committee, but it has some “unacceptable” provisions, according to leading energy and environmental experts.

Rick Boucher (D-VA), chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality, has a draft bill online along with summaries of key provisions. The bill has a variety of important provisions aimed at promoting energy efficiency in electricity and vehicles — and some useful provisions to promote low carbon fuels.

But it has at least two serious flaws.

Read more

Their analysis by Andy Revkin seems to find some glimmers of hope in Bush’s proposal, with a variety of favorable quotes.

Their editorial is far more skeptical, noting the obvious — the proposal rejects mandatory targets and “his real goal is to leave the heavy lifting to his successor.”

Who’s right? Not a tough question.