According to dozens of experts surveyed by The Wall Street Journal, we're heading into a recession that will be the worst in 50 years, with at least three consecutive quarters of less-than-zero growth. Millions of homeowners face foreclosure, trillions of dollars have been lost in the stock market, and we're going to see a spike in joblessness -- perhaps a big one.

In a jaw-dropping story in yesterday's Washington Post, a news analyst even wonders whether we're seeing "The End of American Capitalism?" (Now there's a headline I never thought I'd see in a major U.S. newspaper.)

Remarkably, this desperate tumult was predicted in better times last year by the edgy Austin-based folk-rocker Eliza Gilkyson. She's been performing "The Party's Over" on the road for months and released it this summer on her record Beautiful World to rave reviews in the U.K. (I have yet to see a single review of this record in the U.S., but maybe that's because newspapers are so busy firing critics that they're not bothering to review records anymore.)

In any case, take a look at these lyrics (or listen to the song) and ask yourself, doesn't this (metaphorically) describe the nation today?

The party's over, we had a blast
Brought in the lawyers to cover our ass
Left a note for the children to clean up the mess
The party's over; it was a big success!

A contest to explain something that isn't true -- what a novelty. If I were running a contest, it would be, "What is a carbon cap and why should it not cover the transportation sector?" But I digress.

So I get an email from the Environmental Defense Fund asking me to direct my readers to this video/graphics competition:

Explain to America how a carbon cap will solve our oil addiction

Many scientists, economists, environmentalists and business leaders agree that a cap on carbon emissions is the best way to cure our addiction to oil. But, quickly and vividly explaining how a cap will solve our energy problems is a challenge.

We need your help conveying this concept to the American people in a clear, brief, convincing and memorable way to stick in the public's consciousness-like the well-known shot of an egg frying that depicted "your-brain-on-drugs."

Actually, I don't really know any scientists, economists, environmentalists, and business leaders who think a carbon cap is the best way to cure our addiction to oil. It is possible I hang out with the wrong crowd. But I think it is more likely that they all understand something I've written about on my blog many times -- a carbon price is a lousy way to drive oil savings.

On Wednesday, John McCain told Fox News' Sean Hannity that his VP pick Sarah Palin is "probably one of the foremost experts in this nation on energy issues," and reaffirmed his desire to put her in charge of energy policy in his administration.

But on Thursday, Palin once again mangled the facts about energy issues, wrongly asserting to a crowd in Wisconsin that there's some sort of congressional ban on oil exports.

A crowd member told her he had heard that 75 percent of Alaska's oil is being sold to China, and if that's true, he wanted to know why.

"No. It's not 75 percent of our oil being exported," Palin said, suggesting that some of Alaska's oil is going abroad, but not that much, according to the Associated Press.

"In fact, Congress is pretty strict on, um, export bans of oil and gas especially," she continued.

The AP reporter fact-checked the assertion:

No Alaska oil has been exported since 2004, and little if any since 2000, according to the Energy Information Administration and the Congressional Research Service.

And Congress has never imposed outright bans on oil exports. Congress prohibited exports of Alaska oil in 1973 when the Alaska oil pipeline was built. But that ban was lifted in 1996 when there were large volumes of Alaska oil coming down from the North Slope and U.S. demand was soft.

The Alaska ban has never been reinstated.

"They have a whole range of new tools from ... all sorts of technical terms that I do not know. But they're working very hard. And [former Goldman Sachs banker, now Treasury official] Neel Kashkari will be in charge of that. He's setting up shop and trying to hire as many people as possible."

-- White House press secretary Dana Perino, responding to a question about the tools left for the government to use to contain the financial crisis

This slide comes from a recent powerpoint presentation by FERC Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff -- hardly what you'd call a green radical (click for a larger version):

Note that the cheapest sources of new delivered electricity are also the cleanest. Happy news, right?

This is a guest post by Hope Shand, research director of ETC Group, a civil-society organization that tracks new technologies, monitors corporate concentration, and supports food sovereignty.

-------

Synthetic biologists, a brave new breed of science entrepreneurs who engineer life-forms from scratch, are holding their largest-ever global gathering in Hong Kong this week, known as "Synthetic Biology 4.0."

Although most people have never heard of synthetic biology, it's moving full speed ahead fueled by giant agribusiness, energy and chemical corporations with little debate about who will control the technology, how it will be regulated (or not) and despite grave concerns surrounding the safety and security risks of designer organisms. Corporate investors/partners include BP, Chevron, Shell, Virgin Fuels, DuPont, Microsoft, Cargill, and Archer Daniels Midland.

"Bankrolled by Fortune 500 corporations, synthetic biologists meeting in Hong Kong are promising a green, clean post-petroleum future where the production of economically important compounds depends not on fossil fuels -- but on biological manufacturing platforms fueled by plant sugars," explains Jim Thomas of ETC Group.

"It may sound sweet and clean, but this so-called sugar economy will catalyze an unprecedented corporate grab on all plant matter as well as destruction of biodiversity on a massive scale," warns Thomas. ETC Group and other civil society activists will speak on a panel during SynBio 4.0.

Last night, the PBS program Frontline hosted a sneak preview of its new global warming documentary, "Heat," which will air on Oct. 21. The film covers both the science and the politics of climate change, and we'll have more on that for you soon.

More interesting for political junkies, though, was the panel afterward, which featured Obama climate and energy adviser David Sandalow, who is also a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a senior policy adviser for John McCain. The two began their remarks by noting how great it is to have two presidential candidates who agree that climate change is real, human-caused, and needs to be addressed.

"We have in this presidential campaign two candidates, both of whom have publicly committed to a cap-and-trade solutions to carbon and greenhouse gas emissions to address global warming." said Holtz-Eakin. "That's a sea change for the United States, and sadly not too well understood by the public."

Plugging for his own candidate, Holtz-Eakin continued, "McCain has worked on this issue, introducing legislation on this issue beginning in 2003, with the Climate Solutions Act with Joe Lieberman [...] He believes deeply that we need to do this."

Sandalow also pitched his candidate: "For Sen. Obama, this is at the core of what he's going to be doing should he be elected president. We just heard in the last debate on Tuesday the priority he attaches to the energy issue, which is at the core of his climate-change program."

But then moderator Judy Woodruff asked, if they're both in agreement about this issue, what is the difference between their plans, and then the "Kumbaya" period was over.

"I guess I could sum that up in two words: Sarah Palin," said Sandalow. "I really do applaud Sen. McCain for getting out in front in 2003 on this issue, but, you know, just two months ago he chose as his vice president somebody who is in the papers within the past week questioning the validity of the science of global warming."

Food policy hasn't exactly been a hot-button issue in the presidential election. And it's not going to be. We're sure to hear more about a vague acquaintance of Barack Obama, or a bush-league politician's fantasy-world twaddle about energy independence, than farm subsidies or school-lunch policy.

Knowing that full well, Michael Pollan has published a serious article on food policy the upcoming Sunday's New York Times Magazine adressed not to the candidates but rather to the next president. Pollan deftly places food at the center of three key topics: climate change, energy, and healthcare. Anyone seriously interested in addressing those issues -- and we can only hope the next president will be -- should read his piece.

Pollan does a masterful job of framing his piece to appeal directly to the next Oval Office occupant. If that person is a thinking human being who cares about more than his own career -- and not a rage-addled twit -- it could actually have some influence.

Here's his pitch in a nutshell:

A few months ago, the "smart money" was pouring into all things agricultural. Corn was flirting with $8/bushel (up from less than $2 as recently as 2005), hedge funds were snapping up farmland everywhere from the Midwest to Africa, and that weird guy who babbles and blusters about stocks on cable TV -- Jim Cramer -- was bellowing the praises of fertilizer companies.

People like me lamented the consequences: gushers of agrichemicals onto farmland and into air and water, expansions of monocrop agriculture into environmentally sensitive areas, all without any real increase in food security or food access for the globe's billion poor people.

All of that indeed came to pass -- but the bloom seems to have faded on the industrial-ag renaissance. The ever-intensifying credit crisis has stoked fears of a global recession and sent investors fleeing all but the safest investments.

I keep saying this, possibly to the point of tedium, but I really want to drive it home: as long as going green is viewed as an expensive and vaguely altruistic undertaking, it will never be a top priority.

Evidence is everywhere right now. After several years of ceaseless focus on climate and pop culture green-is-the-new-black hype, we're seeing it all go out the window at the first sign of dropping oil prices and economic hard times.

Over on IHT, Daniel Altman (via Brad Plumer) says that in the face of economic downturn, "going green could begin to be seen as an unaffordable luxury." Over on Time, Bryan Walsh discusses how fears of recession are sidelining green concerns. AFP reports that financial woes may derail international climate talks, and the Guardian has uncovered papers which indicate that the EU Council is preparing to bail on green commitments. With oil down to around $88/barrel, the Big Three automakers, who have been shifting to high-fuel-economy vehicles, are panicking. Oh noes! Maybe we should go back to gas guzzlers!

What's to blame for the seeming fragility of green concerns? Here are some possible answers:

1. Too much climate: Despite the warnings of pleadings of bright greens, there's still been too little work done tying green measures to economic revitalization and national security. Economic rescue and stimulation are one thing. Energy independence is another. And climate is a third thing. In that taxonomy, climate will always come last. The goal should be a comprehensive vision of a clean economy that creates jobs, increases security, and reduces emissions. That way people are solving their own immediate problems along with far-off global problems.
2. Green = expensive: The political and intellectual establishment for the most part thinks of green initiatives as a big money suck. So when's oil prices are low, why worry? When oil prices are high, is now the time to increase costs more? This is a failure, as I said the other day, to place efficiency at the center of the green agenda -- efficiency lowers costs and makes them more predictable, just what we need in this day and age.
3. Status quo = safe: Any time we're told this or that green initiative is expensive, the question should be, "compared to what?" Oil supply isn't going to keep up with demand; coal's getting more expensive; natural gas is getting more expensive. Climate change is causing droughts, storms, displacements, and conflicts. Unless we do something to make our economies more resilient in the face of these trends, we can expect wild fluctuations and crises and general anxiety. The path we are on is only going to take us to worse and worse places. Green is the offramp.
4. Too few articles like this in the mainstream press, to drive this point of view into the public's consciousness.

What's your explanation for why green is always the first to go?

The current Consumer Reports has a quiz to help educate readers about those benign-sounding industry-funded front groups. As CR writes, "You think Americans for Balanced Energy Choices tout solar power? Nope."

Match the groups with their missions (click to enlarge, answers below):

Even better, CR has set up a website with the Center for Media and Democracy, Full Frontal Scrutiny:

... to focus public attention on the people and organizations who function in our society as hidden persuaders. You'll find them at work posting to blogs, speaking before city councils, quoted in newspapers and published on the editorial page, even sponsoring presidential election debates. All this while pretending to represent the grassroots when in fact they are working against citizens' best interests.

The site has a blog and a wiki. Kudos to CR and the CMD.

Answers:

An environmental action group founded by former vice president Al Gore is accusing ABC of censoring an advocacy ad the group paid to air on the network.

The Alliance for Climate Protection late Wednesday sent an e-mail blast to supporters with the ominous subject line, "ABC won't air our ad."

"Did you notice the ads after last night's presidential debate? ABC had Chevron. CBS had Exxon. CNN had the coal lobby," wrote Alliance CEO Cathy Zoi. "But you know what happened last week? ABC refused to run our Repower America ad -- the ad that takes on this same oil and coal lobby." The message sent readers to to a web page where they could send a form letter to the network.

The ad in question, which was aired by several other networks, is a 30-second spot that starts off with a call to "Repower America," with images of a little girl, windmills and solar panels. Then music in the ad gets more intense, as the narrator's voice asks, "So why are we still stuck on dirty and expensive energy?"

The offending image in the ad.

"Because Big Oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy," it says. "Lobbyists, ads, even scandals, all to increase their profits, while America suffers."

The Alliance had arranged to run the ad during the Sept. 26 airing of the news magazine 20/20, the same night of the first presidential debate. The group said it submitted the ad seven days before it was scheduled to run. According to representatives from the campaign, on Sept. 25 ABC sent an e-mail notifying them that the ad had been rejected. The network's stated reason? The one frame of the ad showing the Capitol building violated the network's guidelines.

"Per our Guidelines, national buildings may be used in advertising provided the depictions are incidental to the advertiser's promotion of the product or service," said the e-mail, which was provided to Grist by the Alliance. "Given the messages and themes of this commercial, the image of the Capital building is not incidental to this advertising. Please replace the image with one that is not of another national building or monument. Thank you."

Alliance communications director Giselle Barry told Grist it should be clear that the image of the Capitol building is pertinent to an advertisement about the lobbying power the fossil fuels industry has in Washington, D.C.

Grist's repeated requests for comment from ABC and Disney were not returned. Meanwhile, the Alliance said its letter-writing campaign had yielded more than 128,000 e-mails to the network within the first 24 hours of sending out their e-mail blast. The group is hoping that public pressure will convince the network to air the ad during tonight's episode of 20/20.

Speaking of studies on oil sands, there's another one out of the University of Toronto showing that oil sands will pollute the Great Lakes, reversing decades of cleanup efforts in the region.

"This expansion promises to bring with it an exponential increase in pollution, discharges into waterways including the Great Lakes, destruction of wetlands, toxic air emissions, acid rain, and huge increases in greenhouse gas emissions," [the report] says.

The report says that Ontario government is "remarkably unengaged" in the question of oil sands' environmental impact, and that state governments in the Great Lakes region are unaware of the pollution storm headed their way, and consequently totally unprepared.

But remember: it's renewables that are expensive!

A great frustration for those who (a) really care about reducing CO2, and (b) believe in the power of well-structured market mechanisms is that the current discussion around carbon policy has bastardized the language of environmental economics. There are tremendous economic and environmental benefits to be gained by a true cap-and-trade CO2 system. Unfortunately, all the plans that are currently being bandied about as cap-and-trade structures are really carbon taxes.

To understand why, we need to review a couple basic environmental economic concepts. There are essentially three ways that government can induce environmentally responsible behavior: mandates, taxes, and tradeable permits.

Mandates

The best example of a mandate is the Clean Air Act, and since we first started crafting environmental regulation, this has been the dominant approach. Thou shalt unlead thy gasoline. Thou shalt install a baghouse. Thou shalt comply with Best Available Control Technologies. In all cases, these are top-down, proscriptive approaches that mandate technologies and/or pollution limits. Their great advantage is that their environmental impacts can be known with some degree of certainty. (e.g., if you mandate a phase-out of leaded gasoline in five years, you can be certain that there will be no more lead emissions from tailpipes five years hence.) The disadvantage of these approaches are two-fold:

In Checkout Line, Lou Bendrick cooks up answers to reader questions about how to green their food choices and other diet-related quandaries. Lettuce know what food worries keep you up at night.

-----

Dear Grist,

I eat organic food; should my dog? What's the deal with organic dog food and what's the problem with conventional dog food anyhow? And most importantly, does organic dog food taste better? Not that my dog has ever been too picky about what he eats, but I've always wondered when I dump the same dry kibble in his bowl day after day if he actually likes it.

Best regards,
Tara

Dear Tara,

Are you familiar with the work of artist Stephen Huneck? In his book, The Dog Chapel, there is a woodcut print of a human hand reaching toward a grocery store shelf stocked with "The Really Expensive Dog Food." The accompanying text reads, "Be good to your friends."

Hats off to you for being good to your friend by at least considering the organic kibble. Your friend, after all, watches your every move with moist, adoring eyes, guards your car stereo with his life, and keens when you go to the movies. And what is the reward for this undying loyalty? Most likely, a couple of tethered walks each day, and kibble, ad infinitum.

A few days ago, NYT's John Tierney wrote a column making what is by now a tediously familiar argument: fears about nuclear are overblown, public sentiment is shifting, and we should build a bunch of nuclear plants. There's some absurdly tendentious material about California's electricity situation, but in effect the entire argument hinges on a single study from Gilbert Metcalf that estimates new nuclear power will be cheaper than renewables. (Other analysts are not so optimistic.) Somewhat amusingly, Tierney adds, "The outlook could change, of course, if new nuclear plants turn out to be more expensive than expected ..." That never happens, does it?

Tierney has since written two follow-ups, here and here. Between the two, Amory Lovins responds. Tierney promises to address it later (once he asks the appropriate AEI scholar what to say, presumably).

Anyway! I don't plan on getting sucked into this argument yet again. I just wanted to point out one thing at the end of the latest column. Tierney is discussing the fact that the only demographic in which a majority opposes building new nuclear plants is young people 18-31 (see the new Harris poll). He says:

Few qualities are more dangerous in a national politician than a lack of interest in -- or understanding of -- science. It represents a genuine risk to the health and well-being of the nation and the world.

We get to see something close to the real John McCain only when he lets down his guard somewhat in these town hall meetings. A stunning December 2007 video revealed The real, luddite McCain, who told a New Hampshire town hall, "The truly clean technologies don't work."

McCain made more revealing, shudder-inducing remarks in Tuesday's Nashville town hall debate:

[Obama] voted for nearly a billion dollars in pork barrel earmark projects, including, by the way, $3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois. My friends, do we need to spend that kind of money?

And he even came back to this would-be zinger:

The implosion of credit markets could mean severe problems for people looking to finance an investment in energy efficiency or solar. Frankly, financial innovation is as important as technological innovation when it comes to bringing solar into the mainstream. But now you don't have to take some guy on a blog's word for it -- you can take some guy on the Wall Street Journal's word for it.

One potential remedy has been pioneered by the city of Berkeley, with their innovative property tax assessment financing program. We've just posted a couple papers discussing how the model works, and what states can do to enable municipalities to follow their lead. Check them out here.

"I think I was right on that ... It's not whether or not we're going into a global warming period. We were. We're not now. You know, God's still up there. We're now going through a cooling spell."

-- Sen. James Inhofe, in an Oct. 7 debate with Democratic challenger Andrew Rice, defending his notorious assertion that climate change is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people"

A new study [PDF, via WSJ] from the Congressional Budget Office "discovers" something I guess I kind of thought was common knowledge: realistically, no price on carbon will ever be high enough to substantially curtail driving in the U.S. Even $200/ton carbon -- wildly outside the range of anything Americans will accept -- would only add $2 to a gallon of gas. That's not nothing, but gas has added $2 in just the last couple years, to no huge effect. The CBO reports says the fuel economy standards passed by Congress this year will have far more effect than any cap-and-trade program.

Again: no cap-and-trade system or carbon tax will solve the problem of transportation emissions in the U.S.

Given that transportation is the one of the largest sources of emissions in the U.S., it's clear that a price on carbon -- which has for years been enviros' raison d'etre -- is the beginning, not the end, of climate policy.

What would make a dent on transportation emissions? Here are a few of my favorites:

• public transit investment
• transit-oriented development
• feebates
• a junker credit
• a low-carbon fuel standard
• congestion pricing
• boost plug-in hybrid market via gov't procurement

What are yours?

(See also Ezra and Ryan.)

UPDATE: Hm, I just noticed Ezra's follow-up, in which a commenter of his says this:

Of course the implication of your point, then, is that including transport fuels in a carbon-tax/cap-and-trade scheme may do less substantive good than the political harm which comes from oil lobbyists and the GOP screaming about higher gas prices (we may not like them, but we ignore them at our political peril). A lower cap, as a % of emissions, focused on industrial and electricity generation, coupled with aggressive measures to increase the efficiency of the US vehicle fleet and eventually transition to electric vehicles may be a political winner without a marked substantive impact. But good luck convincing the environmental community of that.

Dunno that I'm part of the "environmental community," but I for one would be happy to accept that.