stop warming!

Efficiency is not an option

2005-08-08T22:32:00.000-04:00

Well as Bush signs the new energy bill, maybe the next debate will be on nuclear power. Personally, I don't (nor do I think "most environmentalists" do) see nuclear energy as "irredeemably evil." One of the huge problems with this article is the same that plagues countless other articles attacking nuclear (or other alternative fuels) as being less cost-effective than efficiency. Well, yes. But the government has made it clear they're not going to spend money on efficiency. I and others have written about the benefits of efficiency. When discussing alternatives to energy production, it is important to concentrate on actually producing energy. Somewhere down the road, we need to plug in our TVs. The debate about alternatives is often unfairly characterized as "X energy vs. efficiency," when it should be "X energy vs. fossil fuels." Efficiency is not an "alternative" – it is a must. It needs to be debated in its own right.

Meanwhile, this blog is going to go into hibernation mode, as I will be spending most of the next four weeks in the land of nuclear power. No, not North Korea – France. I'll make sure to tell the pilot to fly a little lower than usual on the way over, and if anyone wants to put me up or buy me dinner, let me know.

BP at least sounds okay

2005-08-05T14:06:00.000-04:00

The head of BP announced that it's time to take action on climate change. A novel idea. What they do is another question, which is why I'm not going to recommend we all switch to BP. Skipping ExxonMobil will do for the time being, thanks.

The latest on the global warming and hurricanes debate, courtesy of National Geographic. I always like NOAA's pictures.

It's too bad global warming didn't kill off the sloths. That kind of has a nice ring to it.

A change in the Executive

2005-07-31T01:30:00.000-04:00

Why don't we just do what we've been itching to do for years now? Replace Dick Cheney, our Vice President who is traditionally in charge of energy policy, with a robot that runs on crude oil and simply spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Isn't that where our policy has been headed anyway? It will increase demand for oil and accelerate, rather than mitigate, climate change. In this situation, no one loses. Except everybody.

So the ridiculous energy bill passed Congress, as expected. $12.3 billion. Garbage. I'm at least proud of my Florida senators, but what the hell was Joe Lieberman thinking?

But our new clean development club will be the savior of us all. Or not.

Zero congressmen read this blog

2005-07-28T10:46:00.000-04:00

On NPR this morning, the guest (not quite sure who at the moment) referred to the pending energy bill as a large cake of oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies with a little bit of frosting of the good stuff (alternatives and efficiency) on top.

The bill is clearly moving us in the wrong direction. A common question is whether this bill, from an environmental standpoint, is better than nothing. I would have to say no. By structuring the bill how it is, we are further increasing our oil dependence, and keeping alternatives from developing to their potential. The major thing lacking – which was put forward in the Senate – is increased support for efficiency. Didn't the House learn anything from Efficiency Week?

Business-as-usual scenarios for the U.S. rules in the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. If you ask me, there's a 98% chance that the word "Clean" is only modifying "Development" – not climate. Details expected later today.

I really like puffins.

Energy compromise

2005-07-27T11:32:00.000-04:00

When I forecasted a failure to compromise on an energy bill, as happened the last time Congress tried, it was mostly because of the large disparities in the House and Senate bills. Well a compromise was reached. With Barton at the helm, the House proposal seems to have clearly won out. While there are incentives for cleaner and alternative fuels, there is a focus on developing more domestic oil (can someone say "Alaska"?).

"Republicans will vote for it because it pays off their constituents in the oil, gas, coal, electricity and nuclear industries," he said. "Democrats will vote for it because they're afraid of Republican TV spots in next year's campaigns attacking them for voting against a bill labeled energy." -Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust

The most striking thing to me is that the bill "deters unfair foreign competition from undermining U.S. energy security." In other words, the government is going to be able to veto the Unocal purchase by the Chinese National Overseas Oil Company? Hm.

And I'll try to keep abreast of what looks like the beginnings of a new climate pact "to rival Kyoto." The question is whether it will be something useful or a nice coal-sharing plan between the U.S., Australia, China, and India.

There have been a lot of "odd years" recently

2005-07-26T17:39:00.000-04:00

Sure, it could just be an "odd year." But we can't settle on calling it that. Marine ecosystems have been disrupted, which is exactly what has been predicted. Personally, I don't know what it is, and I wouldn't make a claim to. I'm not a marine scientist. Yet they don't know either, which is perfectly acceptable. It only highlights the need for more research, from both the private sector and, more importantly, the U.S. and other countries' governments. From this rather serious change to the more ridiculous ones I like to highlight, the effects of climate change are and will be far-reaching and important.

And the less I look for global warming-flying fish connections, the more often I come across them.

Cicerone starts off strong

2005-07-22T14:57:00.000-04:00

New NAS President Ralph Cicerone testified before several senators from a Commerce subcommittee, and according to the Post, they had "concerns." 'Bout time. I like the use of the Pentagon's report on climate change from last year. If Bush will listen to anyone, maybe it will be the Pentagon. Or Karl Rove.

So I've been reading a lot of the Post. David Ignatius wrote a good column on the recent Joe Barton saga, and he mentions about the same conclusion that RealClimate came to; even if Mann et al. were wrong, it "wouldn't change the scientific picture very much."

And more global warming ridiculousness - ducks, this time.

ExxonMobil cares

2005-07-21T23:07:00.000-04:00

If there was one thing I thought I could count on ExxonMobil for, it was an ad saying they were concerned about global warming. I am awfully glad they came through. Then I strolled over to their website and found a speech by the ExxonMobil President entitled "The Role of Energy in the 21st Century." The phrases "global warming" and "climate change" were absent (no-brainer). However, I loved this line the most, which was addressing the challenges faced:

...we are working to produce oil in the Caspian Sea, which is both relatively remote to major fabrication facilities and ice-bound during several winter months. This area is only slightly more hospitable than the conditions we face in developing our project offshore Sakhalin Island in the Far North East of Russia. And offshore Africa, we routinely discover oil in many thousands of feet of water.

Nevermind that whole warming the earth and global destruction thing.

I was also made aware of ExxonMobil's links to Michael Crichton, who may be a decent fiction writer but should keep his mind on fiction, instead of spouting his worthless anti-environmentalist ideas.

Dear all B-list movie directors

2005-07-20T12:30:00.000-04:00

Not that I doubt that this is completely true, nor am I taking away from the gravity of the situation, but you have to admit that the title "Global Warming Hits Italy: Infectious Seaweed Closes Genoa Beaches" is kind of funny. Infectious seaweed... it's right out of a bad movie.

On the heels of Clinton's visit to South Africa and discussion of climate change, there was a good editorial in the Mail & Guardian discussing it as what David Dickson calls "an American farce."

Back in Congress

2005-07-18T14:35:00.000-04:00

Whether the petition helped or not (sign if you haven't!), the harrassment of climate scientists by Representative Joe Barton (R-TX) is getting attention in Congress, even from those in his own party. Chair of the House Science Committee, Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), condemned Barton's request for an inordinate amount of information from climate scientists. Seeing action from within the Republican party is... well, unexpected.

The hurricane debate, as it may be dubbed, continues while Emily continues through the Gulf of Mexico.

And if you haven't already checked out ExxposeExxon, spend a few minutes over there.

Global warming shown to stunt growth in turtles

2005-07-13T13:04:00.000-04:00

The perils of global warming keep coming by the day. Oysters. Plankton. Humans. No one is safe. I seriously would not be surprised if I wake up tomorrow and the news headline is "Global Warming to Destroy Everything We Know Of." Of course, if it were my local paper, it would be on page 12B.

And we have a nice juxtaposition to Mark's recent post about the supposed ocean temperature and hurricane frequency correlation. Johnson says, "I am no scientist. But I can read and think." We need more people like her in this country. That thinking thing always gets us.

Anyone using Firefox should update. Anyone not using it should get it. Trust me - you'll thank me later.

U.S. Mayorial Agreement on Global Warming

2005-07-12T21:27:00.000-04:00

"Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is leading an effort to get US mayors to sign on to the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. Over 150 mayors representing 35 million Americans have signed the agreement, and the US conference of Mayors unamiously approved the agreement at their conference this summer. The agreement is non-binding, but encourages cities to meet or beat Kyoto, to urge state and national governments to meet or beat Kyoto, and urges US Congress to pass the Climate Stewardship Act."

See if your mayor has signed on - if not, contact him/her.

Update courtesy of Energy Action.

Willful ignorance

2005-07-11T13:40:00.000-04:00

This is just a great example of the choice that many - including Bush and most industry - has made: willful ignorance of global warming, and standing by the "uncertainty" of climate science. Ratcliffe, the CEO of the electric utility Southern Co., cannot elect to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in his professional role, because it will certainly raise costs. Yet he remains concerned. His conclusion is the same as the one at which I keep arriving:

Any actions must be mandatory, economy-wide and federal in scope.

The problem? That puts the ball in the court of Bush and other lawmakers, who themselves are answering to others whom they are supposed to please. As Ratcliffe must answer to stockholders, the President and congressmen of the U.S. have to answer to their financial backers.

The expected result

2005-07-08T15:38:00.000-04:00

Something is almost always better than nothing. The G8 reached an agreement, one that actually affirms that climate change is occurring. Didn't take too long, considering Kyoto was eight years ago. And fortunately they've agreed to talk about it again next year. Something tells me that Bush is really happy with this agreement, and everyone else really isn't.

Bush is still holding out for his "techno-fix". I'm sorry, Mr. President, and most of the country (and the world) - lifestyles are going to change. To wrap up Efficiency Week, let's start there.

Way to go China.

Did someone mention "global warming"?

2005-07-07T09:55:00.000-04:00

...because words such as "deadlocked," "split," and "stands alone" are now being used in headlines about the G8 conference.

Way to go North Carolina. I knew some governmental body would start studying the effects of climate change at some point or another. And North Carolina is pretty close to Washington, D.C. Maybe it will rub off a little bit.

Efficiency Week

2005-07-06T09:21:00.000-04:00

It was originally going to be Book Review Week, but it turns out I read a little too slowly.

China's using its imagination, and their workers are comfortable too. Just crank up the A/C a few degrees and you're saving a lot of energy.

An article by Mark Hertsgaard paints Bush's plan to ramp up nuclear production as a pointless alternative to efficiency - being that spending on efficiency is seven times more cost-effective than nuclear power. As many know, I'm a strong supporter of nuclear power as an alternative to fossil fuels, and I believe that France's nuclear program has worked pretty well. Hertsgaard's argument is predicated on the fact that the money that would be spent on nuclear power would instead be used to, say, insulate the houses in hundreds of neighborhoods. Efficiency is not an "alternative" to fuel - rather, it is something for which everyone needs to strive.

It's immensely difficult to spend public money on efficiency, aside from funding research. In most cases, however, the technology already exists, and it's up to corporations to decide to (or be mandated to) use it. In turn, consumers will always get their money's worth by opting to make their homes and appliances more efficient by reducing their energy costs.

Hertsgaard's first suggestion, for G8 leaders to "endorse binding emissions cuts and early deadlines so corporate ingenuity and marketplace discipline can accelerate progress," tells me he doesn't know Bush very well. He makes the point that Bush does not equal America, but he is the one who happens to be negotiating with the rest of the world.

Waste not

2005-07-05T12:28:00.000-04:00

You have to use your imagination. Using waste bananas for energy is just one way of doing it. Eliminate inefficiency and waste, and you're helping.

One of the knocks on most alternative energy sources is that the power output is relatively low compared to traditional energy sources. A coal-burning power plant can supply power to a huge area, while a wind or solar farm can only power a fraction of that. It's a matter of changing the way we think, and integrate the idea of energy production into our everyday lives. Change the perception of windmills on a beach from an "eyesore" to just part of the landscape, like a lighthouse. Solar panels need not appear as a distraction - rather, just think of them like regular roof tiles. It's just a different way of looking at things, and, in the long term, probably healthier.

Climate change is real (officially)

2005-07-04T13:09:00.000-04:00

Something tells me that the whole G8 thing (which continues to be hidden from the front page of most newspapers) is going to make me very not proud to be an American. Actually, this usually happens whenever world leaders meet face-to-face. Bush preempted anyone who had false hopes about coming to a useful agreement about limiting GHG emissions. Also gave Blair a slap in the face, in my opinion. Though recognizing there is a problem is always the first step.

US President George Bush is now ready to concede that climate change has scientific basis, and that collective action is required over global warming.

Are we going to do anything about it? Hell no. But at least we know it's a problem.

It's good to see, though, more concentration on the efficiency issue. Targeting industry, as always, is an effective way to do things.

Happy Fourth of July to all.

G8 compromises

2005-07-01T14:02:00.000-04:00

Much as the White House has forced the EPA to slash mentions of climate change from its reports, the communiqué on global warming is being watered down to not include any goals in order to convince the U.S. to sign on. I would look for it to say something along the lines of, "We recognize climate change is occurring, and we should take action." Whether the word "urgent" is there (it is an ongoing debate) and whether the statement recognizes that human actions have caused climate change remain to be seen. Though if the U.S. agrees to anything with respect to global warming, I suppose it's a step in the right direction.

The UK is in no doubt about the strength of scientific evidence on climate change. But the theology is less important than action.

Efficiency first

2005-07-01T11:09:00.000-04:00

Something that we all - myself included - too often forget is that our goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and there are multiple ways of doing it. Not all of us need solar panels on our roofs; high-efficiency appliances cut the energy you use, saving money and fuel. We must all remember to do the simple things: turn off the lights and TV when you leave the room, don't run the air conditioning when you're not home, and (the most ridiculous of all in South Florida) don't heat your pool in the summer. Here's a nice article that reminded me of the "little things" we can do.

It's not even noon and it's a big day in the news: Sandra Day O'Conner resigns (uh oh), Schroder lost his vote of confidence, and, uh... "Now global warming is a mortal sin." I love it.

Desert migratory patterns

2005-06-30T13:33:00.000-04:00

Aside from the devestating consequences, the idea of sand dunes moving around seems pretty cool. I mean, being from a subtropical environment, you don't really consider how dunes are just going to move around the desert. It's another one of those consequences - that those who are most to blame for global warming general suffer the least, and those who are bystanders, for the most part, get the worst.

Not perfect, but one of the cleanest power plants yet.

Burn dirty coal

2005-06-29T16:41:00.000-04:00

...just kidding. Though apparently our protective layer of soot has caused the world to warm less than it should have. That ring shield thing is looking like a good idea. Or not. I can't wait for Tom DeLay to get up in the House and talk about how coal and oil kickbacks are good because they're gonna fix that global warming thing.

And a lopsided planet? That's a no-go. I'm a stickler for aesthetics.

Let the money talk

2005-06-29T11:53:00.000-04:00

This is the type of study I like - not because its findings are anything surprising, but because it quantifies the effects of global warming. Insured losses would raise by billions as a result of more destructive weather occurrences. More Hurricane Andrews - something anyone in South Florida can understand.

Despite realizing that most of the numbers presented are much more iffy than the "uncertain" evidence of global warming, talking in money terms is something that everyone gets. In the U.S., we reject Kyoto because it would be "bad for the economy," something I've heard that all too often. Showing how much climate change will actually cost is a step in the right direction.

In the spirit of optimism, here's an uplifting article from Business Week, courtesy of ClimateArk. Let's just hope the ball that is finally moving gets a little more momentum.

What's a G8?

2005-06-29T09:19:00.000-04:00

Stephen Byers: "That is why I think at the G8 next week [...] George Bush will recognise the responsibility of the United States and that we can then move constructively and positively to take practical steps to tackle climate change and global warming."

Does he realize who he's talking about? Am I the only one who thinks that the headlines on Iraq over the past couple days, which have completely overshadowed any talk about the upcoming G8 conference, are slightly more than a coincidence? I mean, we've been at war for two years and they pick right now to tell us (or not tell us) how much longer it'll be.

In fact, of the 5-10 people I mentioned "G8" to over the past couple days, none of them knew what I was talking about. Maybe I shouldn't really be using my life and my friends/family as a case study, but you won't find information about the G8 unless you go looking for it. It makes me sad... angry... betrayed.

Ready, Set, Fusion

2005-06-28T12:27:00.000-04:00

Now that France has been picked as the site for the first fusion reactor, we can all start dreaming up what unforeseen catastrophies may occur. I'll try and avoid any terrible Spiderman 2 references (the science in that movie was just terrible). But really, the British engineer giving it a 50:50 shot of succeeding sounds pretty good to me.

And as expected, the Senate passed their energy bill. Though as I've said, it's going to be a long journey before we get some sort of compromise bill between the House and the Senate. Not to be overly pessimistic, but don't be surprised if we don't get a suitable compromise at all.

More bad news, especially if you're from Wisconsin.