Yes, OPEC is now “pledging $750 million for research into climate change technology” (while opposing a cap and trade system).

[Note to President Bush, Newt Gingrich, and Bj¸rn Lomborg -- it ain't a good sign when your climate strategy is the same as OPEC's.]

OPEC, however, seems a tad confused on just what a technology-based strategy could do for oil:

OPEC is worried that a new international accord could cramp fast-growing Middle East economies, where oil use is rising more than 4 percent a year. And the oil cartel is concerned that a broader cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gas emissions could place heavy costs of petroleum products and reduce consumption.

While declaring its opposition to such plans, OPEC said it took climate change seriously. Saudi Arabia pledged $300 million for research, citing the potential for carbon capture-and-storage [CCS] technology. Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar each promised to give $150 million.

Well, CCS might save coal, since coal is used at large-scale power plants, where separation, capture, and storage is at least plausible. But most oil is used in small, mobile platforms (cars, trucks, planes) where separation, capture, and storage of carbon dioxide is wildly implausible. So I seriously doubt whether $750 million in research, or even ten times that, could avoid the need for a dramatically reduced consumption of fossil-based oil in a carbon-constrained world.

[Note to Reuters: Given OPEC's Bush/Gingrich-esque opposition to a central part of the solution -- a cap and trade system -- you really need a better headline for this story than "OPEC summit to Back Climate Change Fight".]

Go here and click on “Climate change politics.”

Lot’s more details — news stories and blog coverage — at Grist.

Okay, I’m just kidding about Spears — not about her lack of mothering ability, of course, but that we need a study on the subject.

But an Australian publication really did print a story with the headline “Climate change ‘serious threat’ to coastal towns.” And there really is a new study: “The Victorian Coastal Strategy … predicts a bleak future for many coastal towns as they come under stress from climate change and population growth.”

Why is the painfully obvious still news? Well, this is Australia, after all, the only other industrialized country besides you-know-who that failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The grim reality of climate impacts is only starting to sink in on Australia: Too little water inland (leading to mega-wildfires), too much along the coast. Hmm. Sounds like Hell and High Water….

[One final thought: Spears has finally been banned from driving with her kids -- when will we banned from building traditional coal plants?]

In my third of three blogs (Part I here and Part II here) in response to the Businessweek article about Aspen Skiing Company’s work (“Little Green Lies“), I’ll end with a discussion of where we might go now at Aspen Skiing Company to address climate change.

First, some context. Thinking about the challenges corporations face in trying to reduce CO2 emissions, I emailed my colleague Randy Udall, who until recently ran an energy efficiency nonprofit near Aspen. I asked about Suncor, which used to have an incredible corporate program to address carbon dioxide emissions, but then ended up blowing it all by developing Alberta’s tar sands. Randy noted that there are some things you simply are not going to “green,” and tar sands (and snowmaking) are pretty near the top of the list. [JR: Well, tar sands is at the top of the list -- snowmaking is a ways down.]

The raison d’etre of business is to make money. Making money means using energy. Growing your company generally means using more energy.

I pointed out that realistically, we’re not going to “green” business, though we’ll hopefully make some headway. We’re going to have to green the whole system so that business isn’t as damaging. Or, we’re simply going to fail.

Randy agreed, pointing out that this is also why a focus on emissions is the wrong way to think about this problem. You have to transform the energy system and find another way to fuel prosperity. Just trying to reduce emissions tends to blind you to what is really needed.

One blogger was very insistent that we stop making artificial snow early in the season. His point was that we need to get radical. Ignoring the fact that we no longer operate snow guns unless it’s appropriately cold out–ie, below 20 degrees F, let’s say we did that. Let’s say it would cut our carbon footprint 5%. And let’s say every ski resort in Colorado did the same thing. Bottom line–it wouldn’t do anything. We’d still be out of business in 50 years. We need to implement these aggressive actions, but we need to think bigger. Below is the climate strategy for ASC moving forward: Read more