Carbon emissions by region

Check out the yellow line in the chart (Eastern Europe). InBalance has a good post about its significance in the global climate change debate.

Green ethic integral to Nordic countries' economic success

At the IPI World Congress in Helsinki, Pär Nuder, former Minister of Finance for Sweden said he would explain the success of Nordic countries in six or seven points:

1. Open economies. Free traders in his genes. Free trade key since “back when”. No other countries -- except perhaps Netherlands -- have so many well-known international brands. Part of Nordic culture to be free traders.
2. Social democratic system. I believe in strong public finances. Much fight deficits and high inflation.
3. Human capital investment. Invest in people through education and R&D. We know we have to compete with more R&D.
4. Inclusive workforce. Natural conclusion. If you want a sustainable society, must mobilize whole work force, including women. Highest female participation in the labor force. World’s most generous parental leave. One percent of GDP (spent on childcare) delivers highest female participation in labor.
5. Green ethic. Back in the early 90s we introduced a CO2 tax. We lowered tax on labor, raised it on emissions.
6. Cooperation. Eternal conflict between work and capital. We are too small, we concluded to have labor conflicts. Our countries are very vulnerable to lack of peace on labor market, so we need organized, responsible, labor unions. We have social bridges for people to walk on. These social bridges mean that more people willing to accept the often painful adjustments of global market capitalism. You can have world's highest taxes if they promote not only equality and safety, but high growth. These could be adopted by other countries.

I had not known about point number five, the "green ethic." To think these guys had a CO2 tax back in the early 90s! Brilliant.

Read the whole panel discussion here.

Research and development for commercializing alternative energy

At the IPI World Congress in Helsinki Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, stressed the need for the right government policies and incentives. Ollila said:

. . . we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara addressed the question as to whether government or the private sector ought to conduct research and development aimed at the commercialization of alternative energy technologies:

Charles Kolstad: Price of carbon will have an impact. Without a price of carbon it's hard to get behavior change. In terms of R&D, we have not been successful in many areas. Compact florescent light bulb is most effective success of the past 30 yrs. Govt R&D succeeds best when the horizon is far away. When it comes to consumer technologies evidence isn't there (that governments can drive innovation).

See the full text of Charles Kolstad's talk (Pdf).

The IPI panel on climate change also included Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN). It was moderated by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion -- see "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"

___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

How much will it cost to cap CO2 emissions?

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki in early June, Charles Kolstad, Professor of Environmental Economics and Policy, Donald Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, UC Santa Barbara responded to a question about the cost of cap and trade.

Hindu Newspaper Editor: If you were to put a figure on costs, in terms of GDP how much will it cost to put a cap on emissions? How is the burden to be shared globally?

Charles Kolstad: The cost estimate is one percent of GDP -- around that. The Stern Review has figures as high as 7 or 8 percent in extreme case of costs being higher than expected. Look at the Ozone Treaty on CFCs: any extra costs were to be paid for by developed world. Such an approach seems more than reasonable. CFCs have become more targeted; carbon pervasive, of course. I suspect that the developed world, in any agreement, will agree to absorb much if not all of costs.

At the end of June 2009, Paul Krugman pointed to an estimate that the cost of cap and trade could be far lower than $1.00 a day. See Can we afford cap and trade?

The IPI panel discussion on climate change also included Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Nokia; Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Why cap and trade is preferable to carbon tax

It's the politics. At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila, Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara, and Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), addressed the question as to which was preferable, cap and trade or a carbon tax:

Question: There is talk about the "green paradox." [Jotman: The "green paradox" says that "policies of lowering carbon demand may aggravate rather than alleviate climate change"] Some areas using more energy, even as others use less. Do we need new taxation or market system to make greenhouse gas reduction more effective? [Jotman: i.e. should there be a carbon tax?]

Charles Kolstad: The green paradox, tax-wise, is that if you tax, producers could reduce the price of oil. Cap and trade gives you insurance on such price reductions by producers.

Jorma Ollila: In a perfect world, "cap and trade" and tax amount to the same thing. The question is, which system addresses the real world better? Industry prefers a cap and trade system to tax for two reasons. First, for SO2 reduction you can buy SO2 certificates. It works well. (Though implementation so far it has been confined and small). The system that was first implemented in Europe proved to have been too liberal in allocating certificates. Some "stupid Euro system" talk resulted in the US media. Second, the only problem with tax is that it is hard to do politically.

Ali Sayigh: A reward system is preferable than tax or punishment. Politicians can't be counted on, we need the media to educate the public.

These remarks were made during the IPI panel discussion on climate change, moderated by Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom."

Why has technology advanced so slowly in the energy sector?

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila explained that there was no "overnight" solution to the climate change crisis. Ollila is well qualified to address this subject, as I blogged previously:

There has been a lot of optimism -- especially in the US about the possibility of solving the climate change crisis with technology. Today's panel discussion focused on how this can be made to happen; on how technology can make for a green future. But this process will invariably take time. More time, in fact, than most people with a technology background who think about the problem tend to realize at first.

Longer, for example, than someone like Ollila had assumed when he first arrived at Shell. Ollila, it so happens, came to Shell from the telecom industry, where innovation happens in the blink of an eye. Today Ollila serves not only as chairman of Shell, but also heads Nokia. It's a clearly a testimony to the perceived importance of technology to the energy industry that Shell brought a former Nokia executive to the helm. Speaking with Ollila after the presentation he told me, "Shell has long been the most technologically-driven of the big oil companies." He added, "Shell invests 50% more in renewable technologies than any other big oil company."

The discussion might not have touched on this critical theme to such an extent were it not for an excellent question posed by Simon Li, formerly of the LA Times:

Simon K.C. Li: The Nokia/Shell gentleman is talking about success by 2050. Forty years! Now, if we look back forty years, observe how technology has changed our lives in portions of that period, say the last 20 years. Why in this matter do we project such slow technological change? First mobile phones cost $$$$, now same mobile phone costs $ -- for tiny phones! What is it about this kind of R&D that makes it so much slower; why must it take so much longer with respect to the energy sector?

Jorma Ollila: I asked this myself when I entered Shell from Nokia. It took a while. You have Moore's law in effect in telecom. When that exponentially kicks in you can do wonders with the products. But the energy laws of thermodynamics limit what you can do in this other area. Nobody can figure out how to get around these. Mr. Chu (scientist who is new US energy secretary) can do a good job, but he hasn't been able to go around these laws.

Bill Gates was saying to me that it's not a problem; that the sun radiates 18,000 times more energy than what we consume. But we can't figure out how to do it cheaply. Bill Gates became interested. So are many others. The Google founders are funding venture work in renewable energy. It's an intriguing problem for them.

Later in the discussion, Ollila made this remark:

Jorma Ollila: So where are we? With respect to biofuels? Wind? Solar? When will they be significant?

Today 80 percent of energy is carbon-based. (And if all goes as planned) we will only be down to 70-75 percent by 2030. However, by 2050 renewable would account for much more -- the renewables really kick in around then.

Another explanation for the slow progress is lack of investment. As Ollila pointed out -- during another segment of the talk (see here) -- investment in alternative energy is now declining!

Ollila noted that another obstacle to more a rapid reduction of carbon emissions is billions of dollars of investment tied-up in existing infrastructure and durable goods.

Jorma Ollila: Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Concurring with Ollila, environmental economist Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara agreed that the new alternative energy technologies that can save the planet would take years to emerge. However, the the bright side of such a gradual shift is that the transition that lies ahead need not be painful:

Allow me to close with the old "frog in water story" in which the frog is slowly brought to boil, but told differently (positively). If we slowly increase the pressure to reduce carbon, we will find ourselves in new world and not even miss old world.

Being speedy and in a hurry will increase costs. Don't prematurely phase-out infrastructure. [Jotman: I guess because it costs so much energy to produce the new infrastructure.... I suppose that's the calculation].

As for the economics: it will not be cheap or easy; but doable, and considering magnitude of the risks, justified.

The IPI panel discussion on climate change also included Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Investment in alternative energy has decreased

At the International Press Institute* World Congress in Helsinki, Royal Dutch Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila noted that there had been a steep decline in investment in alternative energy.

Jorma Ollila: Where are we with respect to technology?

We all agree we have the need to invest in renewable technologies. But look at what is happening this year with respect to investment in energy. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA) investment in alternative energy is down by 20 percent! Because of our other capacity. This year investment in renewable technologies is down by 40 percent compared to last year. Some mature technologies are about to be commercialized. Why down? Oil prices collapsed, so viability based on return of investment is different this year.

That's why we need public policy in order to get investment into renewables. Its a complex bind. I'm impressed with what US Energy Secretary Chu and President Obama have said with respect to their aims in terms of the stimulus package.

This was an excerpt from the IPI panel discussion on climate change that included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara, Ali Sayigh of the World Renewable Energy Network (WREN), and Curtis Brainard of the Columbia Journalism Review. Jotman live-blogged the entire panel discussion. See "Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?"
___
* "The International Press Institute is a global network of editors, media executives and leading journalists . . . dedicated to the furtherance and safeguarding of press freedom, the protection of freedom of opinion and expression, the promotion of the free flow of news and information, and the improvement of the practices of journalism."

Carbon credits: Is the US about to repeat EU's mistake?

In a perfect world, "cap and trade" and tax amount to the same thing. The question is, which system addresses the real world better? Industry prefers a cap and trade system to tax for two reasons. First, for SO2 reduction you can buy SO2 certificates. It works well. (Though implementation so far it has been confined and small). The system that was first implemented in Europe proved to have been too liberal in allocating certificates. Some "stupid Euro system" talk resulted in the US media. Second, the only problem with tax is that it is hard to do politically.

- Jorma Ollila, Chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, speaking in Helsinki, statement from the IPI panel discussion live-blogged by Jotman


How did Europe make a mess of cap and trade? Is the US about to make the same mistake? Peter Fairely discusses the European cap and trade debacle in the Jul/Aug issue of MIT's Technology Review:

In theory, limiting the supply of the pollution allowances helps to establish a price for the emission of carbon dioxide. That, in turn, is meant to provide industrial manufacturers and power producers with financial incentives to develop cleaner technologies. The reality has played out very differently, however. A glut of pollution credits, distributed without cost during both the first, transitional phase of the program and the current working phase, drove down the value of the EUAs. As a result, Europe's carbon dioxide emissions remain priced well below 20 euros per ton. With the price of pollution so low, economists say, industries that generate and consume energy have no incentives to change their habits; it is still cheaper to use fossil fuels than to switch to technologies that pollute less.

The article examines the failure of the EU's approach:

in May 2006, EUAs plummeted in value, to less than 15 euros. After recovering briefly in the summer of 2006, EUA futures settled at close to zero for the remainder of the trial phase. Emissions data released in May 2008 revealed that European states, relying on unreliable emissions estimates and under pressure from various industries, had handed out EUAs for 6,321 million tons of carbon dioxide during the first phase, exceeding total actual emissions during the period by 107 million tons.

Global recession is now undermining the second phase of the trading system, which started last year. The European Union set the cap for the 2008-2012 period at 6.5 percent lower than the cap for the trial period. Trading volumes initially exploded, according to Point Carbon. But the rally proved short-lived. The EUA price slid to an average of just 11 euros in the first quarter of 2009, as manufacturing slowed in the face of the recession.

The faltering trading scheme may be doing real harm. Free permits and weak carbon pricing have rewarded the heaviest carbon polluters while hurting Europe's consumers. Most EU states gave extra allowances to heavy industries such as cement and steel, because they didn't want to threaten the manufacturers' international competitiveness; by the same logic, states gaverelatively few allowances to producers of electricity, a commodity that must be generated close to consumers and thus is not forced into global competition.

The next part makes a lot of sense. If you give polluting industries something of long-term value for free, then you should offer the same give-away to non-polluting companies. Otherwise, the state discriminates against those who have invested in alternative energy:

But consumers aren't the only ones penalized by the trading scheme and its process of handing out EUAs. Power producers using relatively clean technology are also suffering. Perversely, coal-heavy utilities with the highest emissions benefit the most from carbon trading, since most states allot them more EUAs. This gives them an unfair advantage over producers generating power with natural gas or renewable sources, which release less carbon.

It seems to me that ideally, carbon credits would be distributed to every citizen. Citizens could then sell these credits to companies An equally fair but more efficient way to achieve the same ends would be for the government to auction off the credits, and then send rebate checks to taxpayers. This approach would help compensate citizens for any price increases resulting from the carbon tax (carbon trading, essentially being a tax on industry).

If any carbon trading scheme is to have an effect on climate change, carbon emissions have to be expensive:

How much higher? Surveys of business leaders suggest that they will not seriously reconsider the way they use energy until the price of carbon exceeds 30 euros per ton. The late Dennis Anderson, a professor of energy and environmental studies at London's Imperial College, concluded in 2007 that significant change will come only when carbon prices "move to the upper end" of a range that he put at 40 to 80 euros per ton. Anderson estimated that the 40-euro threshold would have to be met to make onshore wind farms and nuclear power a better investment than natural-gas or coal-fired power plants, while prices would have to approach 80 euros to make carbon capture and storage worthwhile. Even higher prices would be needed to make solar and offshore wind economical.

Economists at the International Energy Agency have recently calculated that holding global warming to a reasonable level would require an annual investment of $1.1 trillion per year. And it would require a $200 per ton price on carbon, said the IEA, to drive the necessary innovation.

The US does not appear to be headed in the right direction. It does not seem to be learning from Europe's mistake:

The U.S. bill, as it stood at press time, proposes to cut emissions to 17 percent below 2005 levels by 2020--essentially taking the U.S. back to (rather than much below) 1990 levels. And, as with Europe's trading system, a mix of offsets and renewable-energy mandates threatens to further undermine the carbon price. Analysts project U.S. carbon prices at a meager $15 to $20 per ton in 2020--barely a 10th of the price called for by the IEA. Most allowances, meanwhile, will be distributed without charge, despite the risk of windfall-profit taking and perverse market incentives. That move will also deprive President Barack Obama of revenues needed to fund the $150 billion, 10-year program of clean-energy R&D outlined in his 2010 budget proposal.

The prevailing wisdom among supporters of the Waxman-Markey bill is that Congress, wary of putting energy-intensive industries at risk, won't pass anything stronger. Best to get a carbon price established in the U.S. economic system now, supporters say, and tighten the system later. But this cap-and-trade scheme could be weak enough to send a dangerously wrong signal to financial markets looking to invest in new energy technologies. If you have any doubts about that, just take a look at the EU.

Can the dysfunctional US political system be expected to accomplish anything worthwhile?

Shell Chairman Jorma Ollila on climate change

I was present when Jorma Ollila, who serves as chairman of both Royal Dutch Shell and Nokia, spoke to delegates attending the IPI World Congress in Helsinki in early June 2009. In this post, I present my "jots" from Orilla's prepared statement. I was struck by Ollila's unequivocal support for meaningful action at the policy level. Ollila delivered a concise statement that reduced a complicated issue down to several key points. I thought his statement worth thinking about.

I live-blogged the entire panel discussion (see here) which included a lively question and answer session. The other panelists included Charles Kolstad of UC Santa Barbara; Ali Sayigh of WREN, and moderator Curtis Brainard of Columbia University.

Jorma Ollila: I will address the question as to whether it is possible to decarbonize in a viable way.

I will assume technological innovations can be successful. Let's assume that is the case. I'm clearly not wanting to minimize the vast challenges that lie ahead. In fact, the more daunting challenge is to manage how we produce energy and allow a raise in living standards.

Developed economies have used up the atmosphere's capacity to absorb CO2; now developing countries are entering a phase where their need for energy is becoming intensive.

Let's acknowledge three truths:

1. The demand for energy will continue to surge.
2. Energy supply will struggle to keep pace.
3. There will be increasing climate stress based on the current consumption pattern.

We need to obtain as much energy as possible from renewable sources -- and more. We need to strive toward fewer emissions in a "business as usual" pattern. Business-as-usual means that emissions would double by 2050. But in reality we can't continue to consume more than the current level. An 80 percent reduction from current levels is a reasonable goal. Thus, these two alternatives lie ahead. One is socially and morally unacceptable.

Therefore, policies and incentives must be put forward so we get it right.

Firstly, we need a cap and trade system that a puts a cost on emissions, that credibly commits us to a path of energy reductions by creating incentives to cut emissions.

Second, we need government support for changes. Government support is critical over the course of next decade -- to deploy by 2020s. We have it in the lab, we do not have commercial projects. This process is not viable without the right kind of government support.

Looking at the Obama government's actions, related to the stimulus package: I see significant and commendable R&D support. Europe took some significant decision earlier this spring -- the US will go there too I understand.

The points are mutually reinforcing, not exclusive. Emissions caps will become more popular as costs get reduced of meeting caps.

In addition to policy angle, there is a geopolitical angle: significant change with regards to emerging markets. Advanced economies must lead by example. This will necessitate resource transfers from developing to emerging markets. But transfers from govt to govt are problematic. Consider the position of a US political leader who proposed such a transfer. He would face political problems.

Cap and trade is a politically feasible way to make the transfers. CDM is a license to do arbitrage -- create opportunities between developed and developing economies. [Jotman: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) "is an arrangement under the Kyoto Protocol allowing industrialised countries to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries."] HFC reduction projects, for example. [Jotman: "by destroying the HFCs factories can earn carbon credits"]

Pace of change is limited by the trillions of dollars tied up in US capital investments. For example, a car lasts 20 years. A power plants last 40 years. To speed up the pace of change would mean premature scrapping of capital investments. In the recent Shell Energy Scenarios, that is. [Jotman: presumably, by scrapping investments prematurely you waste a certain amount of energy].

Blueprints: The projected climate outcome would require stabilization at 650ppm in the second half of century. Renewable energy would consist of about 60% of energy. CCS on all new power plants 2020 (West) and elsewhere (2030). That's based on Shell and MIT modeling. Clearly we need this kind of scenario at a minimum. We need better, but we face severe constraints.

Hence the need to increase pace of policy reform.

Ollila also responded to questions from the audience. See my post Technology and innovation: Climate change Rx?

Is the Supreme Court anti-environmental?

Lately the Supreme Court of the United States has sided exclusively with industry, observes Barbara O’Brien of mesothelioma blog:

For environmentalists, the recent Supreme Court term was a shutout — 0 for 5. That is, all five of the “green” cases argued before the Court this term were decided against the environmentalists’ positions.

The defeats were especially painful in that all five decisions reversed lower court decisions in favor of the “greens.”

One decision which the court overturned -- "riverkeeper" -- was by Sotomayor (I blogged about that here), another concerned the Court's support for the navy's use of sonar (here), and in a third, the court decided a mining company could poison an Alaskan lake (here).

In the fourth case (described in some detail by O'Brien), the court ruled Shell was not responsible for paying for the cleanup of wastes it sold to another company even though it had known that the waste was not being properly disposed of (so much for "corporate citizenship"). In the fifth case, the high court ruled "that environmental groups lacked standing to challenge certain U.S. Forest Service regulations."

How many dead lakes Sarah Palin?

Sarah Palin's policies as mayor of Wasilla likely contributed to the death of Lake Lucille and its fish.

But that wasn't the only lovey lake in Alaska to be sentenced to death under Sarah Palin's watch. Juneau Empire reports that

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Coeur Alaska and the state of Alaska on Monday, meaning tailings mine waste from the Kensington gold mine can be dumped into Lower Slate Lake.

It's the first time in 30 years a U.S. mine will be allowed to transform a natural lake into a tailings pond.

According to the Washington Independent,

At least one voice, however, is joining the mining industry to cheer the decision. Pointing to the 370 local jobs the mine will sustain, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) said yesterday that the ruling is “great news for Alaska.”

Juneau Empire noted:

Gov. Sarah Palin's statement talked about the state's support of Coeur and said the ruling was "a green light for responsible resource development."

Rosehips posted this video about the destruction of the Alaskan lake at CNN's I-Report:



The Washington Independent reported on the dubious US Supreme court decision:

The ruling extends from a 2002 rule change, with which the Bush administration redefined mining debris — even toxic mining debris — as “fill” rather than “waste.” That seemingly subtle change had the wide-sweeping consequence of shifting mine-waste disposal decisions from the Environmental Protection Agency to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — a switch that also helped fuel the popularity of mountaintop mining operations in the Appalachian states in the last decade.

The Obama administration has taken steps in recent weeks to reassert the powers of the EPA to protect waterways surrounding mountaintop sites, but those changes, up to now, are limited to Appalachian projects. Alaskan mines just aren’t subject to the new scrutiny.

That spells bad news for Tongass National Forest’s Lower Slate Lake. In 2005, the Corps had approved permits for the Alaskan gold mine company, Coeur Alaska Inc., to dump 210,00 gallons of waste per day into Lower Slate — waste containing aluminum, copper, lead, and mercury. It was those permits that the Supreme Court upheld 6-3 Monday, overturning an earlier ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The reasoning from the court’s majority goes something like this: Because (1) the dumping is expected to raise the bottom of the lake bed by 50 feet over the lifespan of the mine; (2) waste that raises the bottom elevation of waterways is defined as “fill;” and (3) the Corps has sole jurisdiction to issue permits to dump “fill” — then by the transitive properties of jurisprudence the 2005 permits are legitimate, and the EPA is powerless to step in despite the undisputed environmental damage set to be visited upon the lake.

Sarah Palin's dead fish

Nah, only dead fish go with the flow.

- Sarah Palin

UPDATED

Palin has been involved in a number of environmental controversies. These have included species such as Alaskan polar bears, beluga whales, and wolves. But fish?

Palin's decision -- back when she was mayor of Wasilla -- to open her small town to strip-mall development may have led to the death of fish in her town's lake. It's not just a rumor. Apparently the lake has long been considered "dead" by environmentalists.

An article in Salon described the situation.

. . . . the lake Sarah Palin lives on is dead.

"Lake Lucille is basically a dead lake -- it can't support a fish population," said Michelle Church, a Mat-Su Valley borough assembly member and environmentalist. "It's a runway for floatplanes."

Palin recently told the New Yorker magazine that Alaskans "have such a love, a respect for our environment, for our lands, for our wildlife, for our clean water and our clean air. We know what we've got up here and we want to protect that, so we're gonna make sure that our developments up here do not adversely affect that environment at all. I don't want development if there's going to be that threat to harming our environment."

But as mayor of her hometown, say many local critics, Palin showed no such stewardship.

"Sarah's legacy as mayor was big-box stores and runaway growth," said Patty Stoll, a retired Wasilla schoolteacher who once worked in the same school with Palin's parents, Chuck and Sally Heath. "The truth is, Wasilla is just plain ugly, it's not a pleasant place to live. It's not thought out. And that's a shame.

"Sarah fouled her own nest, and I can't understand why. I hate to think it was simply greed or ambition."

Among the environmental casualties of Wasilla's frenzied development was Palin's own front yard, Lake Lucille. The lake was listed as "impaired" in 1994 by the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, and it still carries that grim label. State environmental officials say that leaching sewer lines and fertilizer runoff caused an explosion of plant growth in the lake, which sucked the oxygen out of the water and led to periodic fish kills.

Sadly, we must add Lake Lucille fish to our list of animal species that Sarah Palin has failed to save. Once again, I will have to update the Palin Timeline.

UPDATE: As if it couldn't get any worse, Jot Green has just learned that as governor, Sarah Palin approved the execution of another lake.

International Space Station over errupting volcano

"A fortuitous orbit of the International Space Station allowed the astronauts this striking view of Sarychev Volcano (Kuril Islands, northeast of Japan) in an early stage of eruption on June 12, 2009. Sarychev Peak is one of the most active volcanoes in the Kuril Island chain, and it is located on the northwestern end of Matua Island."

Urban residents burn less carbon than rural folk

Another big study proves what is completely obvious to anyone with half a brain. Chicago Sun-Times reports:

. . . . a new study by the Center for Neighborhood Technology found that while cities produce more greenhouse gases per acre than suburban and rural areas, people who live in cities produce less.

This has been known for a very long time. In any case, I suppose it's good to be reminded of this fact, because of the policy implications:

. . . if gas were taxed at a level that kept it around $4 or $5 a gallon, more people would want to live in less car-centric places. "You'll see fewer people choosing their homes based on square footage and price," Adams said. Another factor people should consider is their time, Adams said.

True enough.