Good question — but don’t expect many useful answers from the Washington Post, even though “The Post asked politicians, academics and others whether the health-care debate has made it unlikely that climate change legislation will be passed in the near future.”

The Post isn’t really interested in asking people who might offer an objective opinion.  The first answer they print is from Steven Hayward and Kenneth Green of the American Enterprise Institute.  Hmm.  I wonder if they’ll take the opportunity to diss the bill and environmentalists.  Last year, Green gave a speech in which he asserted such standard right-wing denier falsehoods as:

We’re back to the average temperatures that prevailed in 1978….

No matter what you’ve been told, the technology to significantly reduce emissions is decades away and extremely costly.

[AEI seems to have removed the speech from their website (excerpts here) -- apparently they think people believe they are a center-right organization and don't know they spout far right-wing nonsense when they think they won't be caught.]

The second answer the Post prints is from a member of Congress — the only member actually featured in the print edition of the paper.  One guess which member they chose.  Yes, it was the uber-denier Senator James Inhofe (R-OIL).  Seriously what exactly is the Washington Post thinking?  Inhofe has spouted more disinformation on global warming than perhaps any other politician in the entire world.  Does the Post really need to give him a platform to rail against the bill?

Read more

Why will meeting near-term U.S. greenhouse gas targets be so damn cheap and easy?  Because we live in The United States of Waste.  The U.S. economy is incredibly energy inefficient, a key reason even strong climate action has such a low total cost “” one tenth of a penny on the dollar.  Indeed, as McKinsey recently showed, the U.S. can meet entire 2020 emissions target with efficiency and cogeneration while lowering the nation’s energy bill $700 billion!

As but one more example, the NYT has a little story today that shows even the Department of Energy, like pretty much every major company I have ever worked with on greenhouse gas reduction, fails to take advantage of even the most cost-effective energy strategies:

The Energy Department strives to be a leader in championing energy efficiency. Its Web site lists energy-saving tips, while Secretary Steven Chu calls conservation one of the department’s most important goals.

But at many of the agency’s buildings, even at national laboratories where talented scientists seek technological breakthroughs to save energy, the department has failed to use one of the most effective tools available to any ordinary household: thermostats that automatically dial back the temperature when nobody is around.

A recent audit found that the department could save more than $11.5 million annually in energy costs by properly employing these “setback” controls to adjust the heat and air conditioning at night or on weekends.

Seems obvious.  The larger point is that even at an organization devoted to energy, there is very little institutional effort behind achieving savings or reducing waste — something I found out myself when I was there in the 1990s (see “Energy efficiency, the low hanging fruit that grows back“).

This story has many fascinating nuggets in it:

Read more

If imitation really is the sincerest form of flattery, organizers of those town hall meetings protesting any overhaul of health insurance can take this next story as a big fat compliment.

Big oil and coal companies are using their trade associations to organize what would appear to be grass roots protests against the climate bill working its way through Congress. I said appear to be. Marketplace’s Steve Henn has more.

A good story from NPR’s Marketplace (audio here, text below).

Read more