Just because one energy source yields fewer emissions than another doesn’t mean it’s overall better for the environment. “The environmental benefits of an energy diet low in carbon emissions might be diminished by increased water consumption (or waste), and the unforeseen tradeoffs between the two resources can hurt us in the long run,” writes Environmental Defense Fund’s Kate Zerenner. Zerenner (hilariously) says coal is the chili cheese fries of energy and nuclear is high-sodium processed turkey. [Forbes]

The UK is going to send insulation and energy efficiency squads from house to house looking for ways to reduce energy consumption and carbon dioxide emissions. House-to-house sweeps sound pretty exciting, but a search for weather-stripping opportunities is slightly less compelling than an FBI manhunt. [The Guardian]

Meaningful reforms to Mexico’s energy sector will require amending article 27 of the country’s constitution – the article that makes oil and gas exploitation “the sole preserve of the Mexican state” – which may prove tough. “‘It’s like changing the ten commandments, it’s a very sacred thing,’ said Ewell Murphy, an expert on Mexican energy law from the University of Houston Law Center.” [Reuters]