The New York Times and NPR have quoted me at some length in recent days on the limits to the oil spill’s ability to transform the politics of energy and climate legislation. My comments have been framed in opposition to a recent Tom Friedman op-ed, which called the oil spill Obama’s 9/11 and urged a massive and broad-based policy response. I thought it might be worth expanding a bit here on why I think it will be harder for Obama to use the oil spill to move comprehensive legislation forward than many think. Read more »

There is a persistent debate over whether forecasters are excessively optimistic or pessimistic in projecting trends in pretty much anything, including energy. A new World Bank working paper looks at 116 projections over a period of 36 years to try and answer the question. One of the more interesting findings is that projections of future renewable energy production are pretty much random. That doesn’t inspire much confidence in any of the projections we’re working off today. Read more »

Trevor Houser and his colleagues at the Peterson Institute have a sharp economic analysis of the Kerry-Lieberman energy and climate bill out this morning. Take a look here. (There’s a lot more in it – on emissions, oil consumption, and energy prices – than I discuss here.) This is the first analysis of any climate bill I’ve seen that actually tells a plausible story of the “green jobs” front. Their conclusion is that the bill would add modestly to job growth during the next decade, while depressing it slightly in the decade after, but still leaving a (tiny) net gain over the two-decade period. This is a big deal if it holds up. Read more »

The special election to replace the late Rep. John Murtha (D) was, as Politico notes, the only House race last night that really matterered to both parties. Democrat Mark Critz decisively beat Republican Tim Burns in a district that voted for John McCain in 2008. Good news for Democrats – but a bad sign on cap and trade. Read more »

I wrote about the proposed Chinese carbon tax on Monday. Xinhua reports (h/t Weathervane — the link is to a two month old article that I hadn’t noticed) that it might be partly aimed at avoiding any U.S. or European carbon tariffs: Read more »

My colleague Elizabeth Economy joined me and a few others on a trip to Mexico City last week. She posted this report on her blog, Asia Unbound, and kindly agreed to let me repost it here: Read more »

My excellent research associate is leaving soon. If you (or someone you know) might be a good candidate, please apply (or tell that person to). The job description is here. You’ll have a head start because of your highly refined taste in blogs.

Barbara Finamore at NRDC has a nice rundown of internal Chinese discussions about imposing a carbon tax beginning in 2012. A Chinese carbon tax would be a positive development. But it’s important for observers to understand what it would do and what it wouldn’t. Based on the numbers being discussed, this looks like it’s more about raising money (albeit money that might be earmarked for green “research and development investment”) than about directly altering Chinese emissions: the tax being proposed would be equivalent to about $1.50 per ton of CO2 in 2012 and would rise to a bit less than six bucks by 2020. Praise from the environmental advocacy community for this step is thus more than a bit ironic: it’s pretty much in line with what The Breakthrough Institute, Roger Pielke Jr, and Bjorn Lomborg have called for. Read more »

CFR.org asked me to write up some quick reactions on the nuclear “deal” announced by Iran, Turkey, and Brazil earlier today. I’m underwhelmed: deals that involve only one major party to a dispute tend to leave me cold. Perhaps the United States and Israel will announce their own deal on military options some time in the future. In any case, my take is here.

Bashing carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) is a popular game these days. The latest installment is a Robert Bryce op-ed in today’s New York Times. It presents the standard arguments against CCS with admirable clarity, which provides a nice opportunity to explain why they’re wrong. Read more »