$8 billion for U.S. High Speed Rail

2010-1-27 – 3:16 pm
Official portrait of Vice President of the Uni...
Image via Wikipedia

What OnEarth logo

A re-post of HuffPo contribution by Environmental Journalist Scott Dodd.

President Obama is hitting the road following tonight’s State of the Union address — but what’s really on his mind is rail.

White House officials told reporters on Wednesday that Obama and Vice President Joe Biden will visit Tampa, Fla., on Thursday for a major economic announcement: $8 billion in grants for high-speed rail infrastructure.

Thursday’s awards will include projects on 13 major corridors, as well as smaller awards to improve parts of existing lines, The Wall Street Journal and many other news outlets reported. The grants are part of the administration’s planned $13 billion investment in high-speed rail.

“This is in keeping with the White House’s articulated jobs strategy,” writes business reporter Derek Thompson for The Atlantic. “It’s not just about jobs now. It’s about jobs that last, and jobs that build something that lasts even longer.”

Biden, perhaps the nation’s most famous Amtrak commuter, wrote about “Why American Needs Trains” earlier this month on The Huffington Post: “With delays at our airports and congestion on our roads becoming increasingly ubiquitous, volatile fuel prices, increased environmental awareness, and a need for transportation links between growing communities, rail travel is more important to America than ever before.”

A year ago, in OnEarth’s Spring 2009 issue, author Craig Canine made the case for why high-speed rail, long available in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, is finally coming to America (and why America needs it). In “On the Fast Track,” Canine writes:

With its speed and convenience, high-speed rail could revolutionize travel in the United States by offering an attractive alternative to cars and airplanes for regional trips. Several states are improving existing rail lines with the goal of offering “medium-fast” (around 110 mph) service within the decade … but California has pulled into the lead as the probable site of America’s first true high-speed (top operating speed: 220 mph) system. Supporters hope it will be whizzing passengers between Los Angeles and San Francisco by 2020. Once the technology has a foothold in the United States, its rapid spread will become more and more likely as the economic, environmental, and practical benefits sink in. State-of-the-art high-speed rail systems don’t come cheap, but the price of not building them will be astronomical, in both economic and environmental terms.

“As far as the planet’s climate is concerned,” Canine says, “high-speed rail can’t come fast enough.”

And in the current economic and political climate, the jobs associated with high-speed rail should be a welcome message for the Obama administration to roll out following tonight’s highly anticipated speech.

This post originally appeared at OnEarth magazine. Read more about high-speed rail here.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in development, economics, transportation | Tagged | Comments (2)

Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study

2010-1-21 – 6:32 pm

NREL (National Renewable Energy Laboratory) released a two-and-a-half year technical study of future wind power. The Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study analyzes the economic, operational, and technical implications of shifting 20% or more of the Eastern Interconnection’s electrical load to wind energy by the year 2024.

Supply curve for wind power
As in much of the coastal areas of the world, the large wind power resource for the US East Coast is over ocean rather than over land. As the shift in colors for graph indicates, there is increased cost for off-shore installations.

Both Climate Progress and Green Car Congress reported upon release of the study; and both articles cite David Corbus, who oversaw the study for NREL that looked at various combinations of onshore and offshore wind development to serve an area extending from the western border of the Great Plains to the eastern seaboard. Key findings reported by GCC include:

  • The integration of 20% wind energy is technically feasible, but will require significant expansion of the transmission infrastructure and system operational changes in order for it to be realized;

  • Without transmission enhancements, substantial curtailment of wind generation would be required for all 20% wind scenarios studied;

  • The relative cost of aggressively expanding the existing transmission grid represents only a small portion of the total annualized costs in any of the scenarios studied;

  • Drawing wind energy from a larger geographic area makes it both less expensive and a more reliable energy source—increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable;

  • Wind energy development is a highly cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions—as more wind energy comes online, less energy from fossil-fuel burning plants is required, reducing greenhouse gas emissions;

  • Carbon emissions are reduced by similar amounts in all scenarios, indicating that transmission helps to optimize the electrical system and does not result in coal power being shipped from the Midwest to New England States; and

  • Reduced fossil fuel expenditures more than pay for the increased costs of additional transmission in all high wind scenarios.

In addition to analyzing wind resources, future wind deployment scenarios, and transmission options, the Eastern Wind Integration and Transmission Study identifies operational best practices. While predictable, some of the GCC commentary still was noteworthy. The first comment was by gloomy Treehugger, who observed that an ambitious increase of 20% by 2024* “will barely cover the increase of consumption of electricity of the country in the same time line (I think it almost double every 30 years), [which] means we will still burning as much coal as today.”

* Editor’s note: While indeed ambitious, Corbus believes “that there are multiple scenarios though which it can be achieved.” But, “we need to start planning” immediately for the complex upgrades to the eastern U.S. electrical transmission system, including some 22,000 miles of new high-tech lines and tens of billions of dollars in capital investments.” And, we need to ensure that we have the proper infrastructure to make effective use of this clean energy.

Yet most of the commentary supported the idea expressed in the Climate Progress article that wind power for the Eastern Interconnection — a service area in which more than 70 percent of the U.S. population lives — is a core climate solution. GCC commentator stomv responding to Treehugger:

It’s true that growth would erode the “gain” — but it’s also true that California has been able to bend their electricity curve — actually decrease total consumption despite growing population and GDP. I suspect that the rest of the country could follow suit with improved building codes, zoning codes, and energy efficiency requirements and incentives.

So it’s true, just getting to 20% wind power by 2024 doesn’t solve the problem… but no one solution will. This could be a key part of the solution, and it reinforces that wind can be used as base load with sufficient geographic diversity of turbines and distribution system.

Interstate Transmission Superhighways
An expanded and smarter electrical grid is necessary for the transmission of electricity from Renewable Energy Resources.

GCC commentator HarveyD added that “Labrador and Hudson Bay very long shores have very high quality untapped wind potential.” This blog also had noted the Neil Howes scenario whereby North America could obtain 50% of its power from wind by 2030, plus recent mention of the Long Island shore and recurrent mention of the Delaware Bay as key locations.

There are many untapped places along the Eastern Seaboard, some with excellent 7 to 9 wind quality, and many of those untapped locations are close to major transmission lines. Replacing coal-fired electricity with significant amounts of wind generated power to the eastern grid “goes a long way towards clean power for the whole country” and “increasing the geographic diversity of wind power projects in a given operating pool makes the aggregated wind power output more predictable and less variable.”

Resources

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in analysis, economics, energy, mapping | Tagged , , , | Comments (1)

Of Shifting Baselines and Non-linear Threshold Behavior

2010-1-16 – 5:58 pm

The World Meteorological Organization and NOAA have reported that 2000-2009 is the hottest decade on record. 4 NASA scientists now want the public to know that 2005 was the hottest year on record, rather than 1998. Such an assertion by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, and Ken Lo is based upon a belief their dataset is better than the Hadley / CRU dataset.


An assertion of dataset superiority by NASA is most welcomed by Joe Romm, who recently issued a series of critiques about Hadley / CRU data. (See “Why are Hadley and CRU withholding vital climate data from the public?” and Finally, the truth about the Hadley/CRU data: “The global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming”).

In an email inviting critique of their draft paper, the 4 NASA scientists expressed concern that people would be so ready to accept a false assertion, “that the world is really experiencing a cooling trend.” Professor Romm referred to such acceptance as “a gullibility problem.” Such gullibility “probably has a lot to do with regional short-term temperature fluctuations, which are often substantially larger than the trend in the global average temperature over time.”

Dean was the first to comment on the specific Climate Progress post and elevated the discussion by observing an all too human characteristic:

One reason that some people are confused is that what seems normal already has been influenced by global warming. (My emphasis) I heard that despite its length and the intense coverage, the recent cold snap that covered most of the US set very few low temperature records. This would have been a normal cold snap some decades ago, but now it seems extreme. By contrast, the heat wave we had here last July didn’t just set specific-day high records, many cities had all-time high records set.

The concept of shifting baselines, writes CP commentator Wit’s End, is a very useful way that explains how most people miss slow changes and judge current standards by yesterday’s condition (weather), not that of many seasons ago (climate).

American Progress Cartoon

Another factor unmentioned in the discussion is a desire by human beings to lessen discomfort. People sense that something is amiss. They reflect upon their own perceptions, their anecdotes to others and others to them. And, for whatever reason, whether they side with either the ‘wingnuts’ or the scientists, the public has begun to note an increased, unsettling buzz, which they really would prefer to ignore since it probably means something unpleasant.

The feedback that this blog might have to offer Hansen, Ruedy, Sato, and Lo would most likely prove unhelpful in convincing the general public to heed observed, and quite worrisome, changes in climate. What is disquieting for this blog, a disquietude which it believes more should have, an unease exacerbated as one model after another is discarded as observed trends are worse than predicted, what is especially worrisome is a consensus. Climate scientists agree that we have yet to see the total effect of GHGs already in the atmosphere.

GLOTI (Global Land – Ocean Temperature Index) might be convincing to those who like to read charts and graphs, others may see only a small gradually increasing trend in global warming, not disturbing in the least. Either way you read the chart, there is reassurance that time marches forward, one day follows the next, one year after another, my gosh, another decade already.

OTOH (On The Other Hand), what resonates in this blog’s disquietude is the proposition of non-linearity. The phrase “nonlinear threshold behavior” is much more ominous than an argument over datasets and whether 2005 or 1998 was the hottest year on record.

Non-linearity implies that things will be different. How they will be different and how different will they be is unknown. It is, after all, the future. Yet many in the general public might be willing to accept the premise that the past could be a predictor of the future.

Temperature and CO2 plots from the Vostok ice cores
The most compelling feature of a paper about the plight of the world’s coral reefs was the same data, plotted a different way: temperature vs. CO2, rather than temperature and CO2 over time.

Of course, there could arise discussions about which past to consider and various assertions about what The Past was like. Nonetheless, whether you say 6,000 or 6 million years ago, you are likely to agree that when dinosaurs ruled the Earth is different than the current dominance of Exxon-Mobil.

So while the nature of those conditions are arguable, it is generally agreed that conditions were different. And, that is why Temperature versus GHG charting seems such a strong argument for a critical change in course, which must be accomplished by a reduction in emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels.

How so? Because higher concentrations of CO2 back then, when oil was starting to be made just for us to use, correlated to higher temperatures, whereas we have yet to see the same correspondence between Temperature and levels of CO2. So if you accept that the past could be a predictor of the future, and you accept the validity and reliability of measurements of CO2 in the atmosphere, then you might conclude that the small gradual increase in the Global Land – Ocean Temperature Index (Cue the timpanist and cymbalist, or insert iconic representations that carry particular meanings for you) could be an indication of nonlinear threshold behavior.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in behavior, chaos, climate, denial, patterns | Tagged , , , | Comments (4)

Makes One Wonder

2010-1-16 – 12:53 pm

Recognizing that energy companies are major polluters of our watersheds, it makes one wonder why scientists like Dr. Donald Kennedy, the former editor in chief of Science and the Bing Professor of Environmental Science and a former president of Stanford University, would expect that more data would alter the behavior of the forces of MTR (Mountain Top Removal) mining. Nevertheless, Dr. Kennedy, who has served as chairman of the Sierra Club’s Climate Recovery Partnership since 2008, gives it the good, old, Treehugger college try.

bank-zombie-3
The proposed climate bills in Congress are loaded with goodies for special financial and corporate interests, observes another well respected scientist, Dr. James Hansen. Our Congress critters appear intent on choosing a path defined by corporate greed. It is a horrifying tale.

The people of the Appalachian Mountains have had a long history with coal mining – both as a source of employment, and as the initiator of one troublesome environmental impact after another. Both of these relationships arise from government regulations of the mining industry, which have permitted a wide array of technologies to be employed for the extraction of coal. In fact, surface mining is now the primary agent for altering land use in the central mountains of Appalachia.

Special concern has arisen over the technique of mountaintop removal coal mining, which involves deforestation and the use of explosives to break up rocks to access buried coal. The mining waste is then pushed into the valleys where it buries and contaminates streams. The very destructive nature of this mining makes one wonder how it became a routine approach for this industry, but regulatory reform – tightening of the rules regarding the issuance of mining permits – has been slow to develop.

Thanks to a paper published this month in Science, the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, there are now compelling data to support a serious effort to make the nation’s mining rules adequate for the twenty-first century. The distinguished authors of the study expose the links between downstream impacts on river quality and human health and the processes used in shaving off mountain tops and dumping the debris into valleys and waterways.

Yellow boy in a stream receiving acid drainage...
Image via Wikipedia

Many of the watersheds in West Virginia are over ten percent disturbed by mining waste, meaning that the effects of mountaintop removal coal mining are far reaching to waterways and to the people that depend on them. The clear cutting at higher elevations removes quality stands of Appalachian deciduous forests – themselves places of high biodiversity – which increases runoff and danger of downstream flooding. So-called “remediation” efforts have largely failed to show significant regeneration of woody plants. Waters that flow through mine fill emerge enriched with a number of toxic solutes which alter stream ecology – especially as the mining process produces selenium. In 78 streams near mountaintop removal coal mining operations, 73 were found to have levels of selenium well above the toxic threshold.

In these areas, it is not surprising that groundwater flows have been affected: domestic wells have high levels of mine-related pollutants, even months after mining “reclamation” is finished. State advisories are in effect to restrict consumption of fish caught in affected stream waters because of high selenium levels. Human health data show increased hospitalization rates for lung disorders and hypertension, and death rates are higher for lung cancer and chronic heart, lung and kidney disease than in non coal-producing areas. But these patterns are exhibited by women as well as men, ruling out the possibility that they are the result of occupational exposure of mostly male coal miners.

Pending permits for new mining would result in the outright destruction of hundreds of miles of streams, the leveling of more than 60,000 acres of diverse hardwood forests, and a new round of blasting, flooding, and water contamination for Appalachia. Once these streams are buried and natural areas destroyed, they will never fully recover. The Clean Water Act was intended to prevent the destruction that has gone on for the last three decades. But if these permits go forward, the agencies involved will send a signal that the commitment to science, the letter of the law, and balancing economic growth with good environmental stewardship does not apply in Appalachia. To prevent further irreparable damage, the EPA must change Clean Water Act rules to stop allowing companies to fill streams with mining waste.

Of course the product of this mining – coal – also results in negative health effects. Coal, per unit of energy produced, emits more carbon dioxide than any other fuel and is the single biggest contributor to global warming. The Environmental Protection Agency has the authority to regulate these emissions in the interest of public health, and it may well do so if the Congress fails to act. But in the meanwhile, there is a powerful argument for ending mountaintop removal coal mining in Appalachia immediately for the benefit of the region’s communities and waterways.

Mountaintop removal site, Kayford Mountain, West Virginia (2005)When Bobby Kennedy Jr. looked at the scalped mountain he said “if any foreign nation had done this to us, we would have declared war on them.” Instead, in Washington our elected representatives get their power, literally and figuratively, from such an abominable practice.

Related Posts from Other Sources

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in advocacy, emotion, environment, health, policy, politics, standards, waste, water | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments (1)

Roll to Roll Processing Rolls into 2010

2010-1-15 – 7:57 pm

Thin film solar cells made of the CIGS semiconductor, which is composed of copper, indium, gallium, and selenium, have long been considered a potential challenger to conventional solar cells. The hope has been that an inexpensive printing process (Roll to Roll) would lead to electric power from photo voltaic system that would compete in cost per watt with other sources. But developing manufacturing processes that maintain the high efficiencies has proven difficult.


Via Peak Energy we get from Technology Review an update on Nanosolar, which has been at the forefront of TFPV technology. Their 640 MW per year fully automated manufacturing facility for CIGS solar cells in Germany is now operational (though only producing 1MW per month of panels initially).

Last year this blog reported TFPV (Thin Film Photo Voltaic) technology was on the fast track due in part to the synergistic semiconductor development in the Silicon Valley as well as in Germany and Japan.

Nanosolar solar cells still aren’t as efficient as laboratory cells–the best of them convert 16.4 percent of the energy in sunlight into electricity, as opposed to over 20 percent in the lab. And on average, the company’s solar panels convert just 11 percent of that energy into electricity, says Martin Roscheisen, Nanosolar’s CEO. But that’s high enough to compete with conventional solar panels, he says, due to modifications that improve performance and lower installation costs. He estimates that in sunny locations, power plants made using these panels could produce electricity at five to six cents per kilowatt hour, based on Department of Energy methods for calculating the amortized cost of solar panels over their lifetimes. That’s near the cost of electricity from coal and significantly less than most solar power, which costs about 18 to 22 cents per kilowatt hour.

solyndra foodtown photo
photo: Solis Partners

The latest installation of Solyndra systems is on six Foodtown supermarkets in New Jersey. Solis Partners has installed four of the planned six systems. The combined system consists of about 2,700 individual panels, which are expected to produce over 600,000 kWh of of electricity annually.

And, from NYC Treehugger Matthew McDermott we learn about development by another Silicon Valley company: Solyndra.

In case you haven’t heard of them, Solyndra solar panels consist of tubes which have been coated with thin-film PV material and assembled into a flat, modular panel. These units require no mounting hardware beyond some brackets which prop them up slightly from the roof surface, and they just snap together at the edges. The combined weight and resistance of the unit keeps them stable. The main roof modification is making sure the roof is light colored so sunlight gets reflected back onto the bottom and sides of the individual tubes.

solyndra image
image: Solyndra

Cylindrical Panels Capture Direct and Reflected Light

It’s been nearly 18 months since Solyndra’s innovative solar panels first debuted and, after a whole bunch of sales announcements, a half billion dollar loan from the DOE, we’re starting to see some projects being completed.

More Treehugger Posts about the Solyndra product

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in architecture, development, energy, manufacturing | Tagged , , , | Comments (2)

A Retrospective of Anthropogenic CO2 Concentrations

2010-1-15 – 4:14 pm

As After Gutenberg readers not yet driven away by discussions concerning “moral clarity” may recall, there is a concern (unknown whether a consensus) among oceanographers that Earth’s oceans are losing their ability to absorb carbon dioxide, the most significant (due to the quantity generated) of the human-generated greenhouse gases believed to drive global warming.

Human activity—from coal-fired power plants to car tailpipes—is responsible for nearly 30 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide wafting into the atmosphere yearly. We know that roughly 15 billion metric tons remains in the atmosphere for a century or more. A portion of the rest ends up in the ocean—acidifying saltwater and making the oceans inhospitable to calciferous marine life.

Francois Primeau
UC Irvine photo by Steve Zylius

Francois Primeau and colleagues used real-world measurements and computer modeling to create a kind of three-dimensional profile of ocean absorption of CO2 since 1765.

When this blog last took looked in depth at ocean acidification, the conclusion was that the world is much closer to the ocean acidification tipping point than we want to recognize. In a paper published in November in the science journal, “Nature,” an oceanographer from the University of California at Irvine, Francois Primeau and co-authors draw much the same conclusion from their studies.

Direct measurements of ocean chemistry go back roughly 20 years, allowing the scientists to map out how carbon dioxide has been absorbed, carried into the depths and stored there for decades or longer, then returned to the surface.

The more carbon dioxide held in the upwelling water, the less it can absorb from the atmosphere.

The scientists used these measurements to extrapolate backward in time, revealing how carbon dioxide moved through the oceans.

The scientists also relied on data from bubbles trapped in ice cores and other “proxy” measurements, which reveal the composition of the atmosphere in the deep past — including concentrations of carbon dioxide.

The oceans normally act as a giant sponge, mopping up excess carbon from the atmosphere; reducing that ability could, under some scenarios, hasten the planet’s rise in temperature. The implications for climate change are dire.

Carbon Cycle
There are two major natural carbon sinks: the oceans and the land “biosphere”. They are equivalent in size, each absorbing a quarter of all CO2 emissions. With the oceans unable to take up as much CO2 as in the past 200 years, and a diminished ability to take up CO2 by the biosphere, the atmosphere inevitably must take up more, which will accelerate global heating and climate change that is becoming catastrophic.

“If we keep burning fossil fuels at the same rate, a bigger fraction will accumulate in the atmosphere,” said UC Irvine physical oceanographer Francois Primeau. “The ocean becomes more acidic, diminishing the ocean’s ability to take up the carbon.”

Using the computer model to match these concentrations with ocean circulation patterns revealed how well the oceans were able to absorb carbon dioxide between 1765 and 2008.

“In the 1950s, there was a sharp rise, corresponding to the time when we started burning a lot more fossil fuels,” Primeau said.

The critical finding: that increase flattens out significantly starting in the 1980s, and most dramatically in the 2000s.

“That kind of suggests that the fraction of what we’re emitting that goes into the ocean is decreasing,” Primeau said.

Ocean acidification, which results from excess carbon dioxide being absorbed, also could have grim implications for sea life, perhaps interfering with the ability of coral to form skeletons, or tiny marine creatures to form shells.

There are uncertainties in the modeling — for example, the assumption that ocean circulation patterns in the past were the same as they are today. The assumption is likely safe going back a couple of centuries, Primeau said, which covers the era of climate-altering human emissions.

This video produced by Columbia University’s Earth Institute
shows concentrations of industrially produced CO2 increasing
in the world’s oceans over the past 2 1/2 centuries.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in climate, energy, environment, forecast, model, patterns, research | Tagged , , , | Comments (3)

It’s a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad State Anyway

2010-1-15 – 1:43 pm

Subtitle: From Seward’s Folly to Biden’s Bonanza

T. Boone prompted this post by issuing a communique:

Army,

I’m going to get straight to the point of this email.

We imported 4.35 billion barrels of oil in 2009 at a cost of over half a million dollars per minute.

Yes, you read that correctly.

4.35 BILLION barrels imported in 2009.

Over $500,000 dollars spent per MINUTE on foreign oil.

That’s another $265 BILLION siphoned out of America’s struggling economy, and we still haven’t adopted a real energy plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

New Yorker cartoon man with a large carbon footprint
Sarah? Lisa? Ever notice that women in politics in Alaska are attractive, and er, em, a bit quirky?

Well, speaking of a real energy plan to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, if you look for recent AG posts tagged petroleum + politics, then the tags converged upon a policy analysis post that was, even with Janet liking those bad boys, in the kindest sense a bit recondite.

The title of the previous post implied that it was an analysis of a federal policy of sustainability. The title was misleading, instead of talking negawatts, the author delved into the deep waters of “moral clarity.”

Actually there have been references to a basis for moral judgment in 2 recent posts, a dangerous trend for this blog. So, while this post suggests that the blame rests with Pickens, it is, at least in part, also an admission of guilt. The seeking of justification for passing moral judgment stems from fear. It is fear of “nonlinear threshold behavior” and it is fear of the mad moment.

A possible opposite to the mad moment is rational reflection. Raw Thought commentator Anand Jeyahar asks what is rational reflection and what does it take for a human to reflect rationally before making a decision. Even if we all agree on what constitutes rational reflection, presuming that it is other than cognitive biases such as the ones previously noted in the post that were considered by Nate Hagens, and presuming that such cognitive biases can be overcome, then Anand Jeyahar further suggests that we need to consider the reaction time available in the situation and the time required if a decision is to be made from rational reflection.

O.K. so much for a digression into whether there are any adult Republicans remaining, back to the email to the troops from General Pickens. Because of the warning sounded, T. Boone is excluded from the Momma Jones Is Miffed at You list. Should this blog then be a brave soldier and join other Americans contacting their Members of Congress ‘in support of the NAT GAS Act?” Even if it means poisoning my own drinking water for T. Boone’s profit?

Or, if this blog expresses opposition to hydro-fracking, then is it encouraging the very conditions most feared? What indeed could happen if climate tipping points and their consequent security threats coincide with all the brave soldiers and all the King’s men saying No More Big Oil Tour?

O.K., so instead of fretting about the War Machine stopping and imploding upon an economic and morally bankrupt, some would say wicked, Empire, how about some concrete policy recommendations, eh? Other than gutting the Environmental Protection Agency, that is.

Well, this blog has one! Let’s sell the Chinese Alaska.

Joe Biden could negotiate the deal and ensure that the sale includes development of high speed rail nationally and internationally; the oil companies could drill to their heart’s content and it would no longer seem like a false promise to the youth vote, instead it would be a matter of foreign Investment policy; and, there would be enough money in the Treasury for more bonuses and to be able to buy some CFLs for government offices. Maybe, even some flash cash for Wu and Holdren to throw around to placate those sourpuss scientists.

World leaders attending the Progressive Govern...
Image via Wikipedia

Editor’s note: The title comes from a wild, frequently funny, epic “comedy to end all comedies,” that explores the worst of what can happen if people stumble upon the opportunity to get a lot of money for free. The basic story involves a fortune in buried (read, below ground) money, and how human greed of the people involved made it a hilarious, if unnecessary race for something for nothing.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in analysis, economics, energy, ethics, fear, policy, politics, security, transportation, water, world | Tagged , , , | Comments (2)

Nonlinear threshold behavior

2010-1-14 – 2:45 pm

The battle of Arctic Sea Ice Extent continues.

Boxing Ring
“In a further warmed climate, however, we find that a critical threshold associated with the sudden loss of the remaining wintertime-only sea ice cover may be likely.” “Nonlinear threshold behavior during the loss of Arctic sea ice” (PDF)

In this corner, in the blue state trunks, weighing 156 tons of CO2 annually, we have Joey “Blutarsky” Romm

[APPLAUSE]

And, in this corner, in the white trunks with lime green piping, weighing 154 tons of CO2 annually, we have Andy “Popeye” Revkin

[APPLAUSE]

Fair and Balanced Officiating by After Gutenberg Alright, boyz, I want to see good clean prose, no typos and no use of vernacular.

“Well, surely, the green blogosphere has been looking forward to a re-match between these 2 climate middleweights.”

“Yes, Bob, and I think we are going to see a change in Revkin’s tactics. He’s going to go more for the head. And, stop calling me Shirley.”

“Well, Sugar, ‘a little distrust, doubt, confusion or disengagement goes a long way’ (reading from teleprompter):

On Monday, the BBC published an online opinion column by Richard Betts, a climate scientist at Britain’s Met Office, in which he described the perils of climate overstatement and amplified on his thoughts on Dot Earth, discussing the mix of factors contributing to a big retreat in sea ice in the summer of 2007 as reason for care.

On his Climate Progress blog, Joe Romm on Tuesday chided Dr. Betts for falling into the mindset of “anti-science disinformers” by focusing on Arctic ice extent, which has recovered somewhat, rather than focusing on the volume of ice, including its thickness.

Dr. Betts stressed that there was a definite declining trend in Arctic sea ice. His point was that both the big retreat in 2007 and the subsequent years’ slight expansion of ice were in fact distractions from the important trend that a host of Arctic scientists say is related to the warming climate. That didn’t stop Dr. Romm (who is a physicist but not a climate scientist) from trying to undercut Dr. Betts’ credibility.

“Do you think he made a mistake by responding to Romm with a blog comment.”

“Yes, Bob, and that’s why Revkin called for this rematch. And, it’s Ray, just plain Ray, O.K.?”

Well, we’re about ready to go ringside, but first a word from our sponsors…

We need to consider short term changes in a larger context. There has be much talk on the net about the recovery of Arctic sea ice since 2007 as well as discussion of southern hemisphere ice. According to the NSIDC, the monthly sea ice trends over the past 30 years in the southern hemisphere range from +0.4% per decade during austral winter to +4.7% in austral summer, but none of these sea ice trends in the southern hemisphere are significant at the one sigma level (~67% confidence), let alone the two sigma level (~95% confidence). In constrast, the northern hemsphere trends, range from -2.5% during the northern hemisphere winter to -11.2% during the northern hemisphere summer. All of these trends are significant losses at the 2 sigma level (~95% confidence). There is net loss of ice during the northern hemisphere winter when there are 6 months of darkness and no solar irradiance to drive melting. This loss comes from melthing due to warming of the near surface by Pacific inflow and loss due to flushing of ice by the Trans Polar Drift as discussed in the post. If the Arctic sea ice is to make a long term recovery, there must be above average growth sometime during the year and for a prolonged period of time. At present, the amount of ice is decreasing relative to the long term average during all months. For a useful discussion of many of the skeptical arguments that have been raised here, I suggest consulting skeptical science:

http://www.skepticalscience.com…

American Progress Cartoon

Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in chaos, climate, conflict, journalism, thermodynamics, world | Tagged , , , , | Comments (1)

But, seriously, and I’m not making this up

2010-1-13 – 3:12 pm

Since our “elected” representatives are making such a mockery of their duty to act in the interests of our country and life on the Planet as we know it, this blog mercilessly gave Brooklyn Treehugger Brian Merchant a hard time in the last post for promoting Senate Call In Day.

One might surmise that this blog was discouraging citizen engagement in climate policy. Au contraire (which is Norwegian for “It’s to laugh”), you can call your Senator whatever you like. This blog has a penchant for “ear tagged.”

In any case, the Brooklyn Treehugger and this blog concur much more frequently than disagree. For instance, take his report… please, of a GOP ‘Expert’ Witness who testified before Congress that he would be willing to eat coal ash on cereal.

coal_ash_spill.jpg

Somebody get the man a spoon.

This blog appreciated the illustrated snarky comment, particularly after having suggested that each Clean Coal Congress critter be given a pail and sand shovel, a one-way ticket to Roane County and no health coverage.

The man in question was Donald McGraw, M.D. The testimony occurred December 10, 2009. As Joe Romm had remarked:

You won’t believe this until you see it with your own eyes — and maybe not even then. From the GOP witness to the December 10 hearing on “Drinking Water and Public Health Impacts of Coal Combustion Waste Disposal” — a medical doctor (!):

If you want to avoid evoked disgust, Joe College, then Brian provides a brief synopsis:

During last month’s Congressional hearing over the health impacts of the massive Tennessee ash spill–the one that covered hundreds of acres and people’s homes in toxic, mercury and arsenic-ridden coal ash–big coal-backing GOP dug up an ‘expert’ witness to testify to Congress that coal ash is perfectly safe. There’s nothing wrong with it at all–in fact, he’d eat it. In a bowl of cereal.

Eat coal ash on his cereal? The man must be mad.

Johnny Depp as The Mad Hatter
“19-year-old Alice returns to the magical world from her childhood adventure, where she reunites with her old friends and learns of her true destiny: to end the reign of terror of The Red Queen, whose favorite retort is ‘Off with their heads,’ and who has a moat filled with bobbing noggins.”

Mad, you say? Mad as a Hatter, perhaps…

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in analysis, chemistry, critique, denial, energy, enforcement, environment, ethics, health, intervention, investigation, monitor, policy, politics, risk, waste, water | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments (1)

Hoo-hah! That’s a Good One

2010-1-13 – 10:45 am

Brooklyn Treehugger Brian Merchant has a real corker to get you out from those post-holiday doldrums. My skill set is other than telling jokes, so I will let Brian tell it.

senate climate call-in photo
Photo via United Families International

Hoo-hah! “The Senate is set to debate” Priceless “put our democracy to work” Ow, ow, my sides hurt

We have the power to do more than pick apart the latest climate legislation, cover global climate summits and make fun in the world of green politics. I promise. The Senate is set to debate its clean energy reform legislation in just a couple months. And the forward-thinking group 1Sky is in the middle of a Senate Call-In Day that allows you to contact your Senator’s office to tell him or her that you support strong climate legislation, free of charge. It just takes a couple clicks.

All you have to do is head over to Sky1’s Senate Call-In Day page, fill out three or four text bubbles, and Sky1’s system will place the call to your Senator for you, free of charge. They’ll provide a brief script for you, if you want to keep it short and sweet.* Or just feel free to let them know why you feel it’s important that Congress help lead the American people in tackling climate change, reducing our dependence on foreign oil, and spurring innovation in our sciences.

It’s quick and painless, I promise–and every call counts even more than every letter or email. Every call is someone that the office has to consider, deal with, and talk to–some staffer can’t just move an email to the spam folder or toss the letter in the trash bin. They have to hear your voice.

So especially if you live in a state where your senator is on the fence about clean energy reform, please take thirty-five seconds and place a call. I don’t ask much as your friendly neighbor green political blogger–but go ahead and put our democracy to work. Tell your Senate representative how you feel.

Chapman as Brian Cohen in Life of Brian
Image via Wikipedia

Ah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

“Seriously, call!”

Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
Stop, stop, Brian, you’re killing me (and life on the Planet as we know it).
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

“Seriously–I just got off the phone from calling Sen. Kate Gillibrand (D-NY). Help steer our nation to a cleaner, safer, more prosperous future.”

Oh-oh-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha
This is better than the Life of Brian, Brian
Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

O.K., O.K. let me just catch my breath. Whew!

*O.K., now I’ll be a good sheeple and call my ear tagged Senators so that they can say they have a mandate from the people to do what their fossil fuel masters tell them to do.

Related articles by Zemanta
Enhanced by Zemanta
By jcwinnie | Posted in advocacy, climate, critique, energy, environment, policy, politics | Tagged , , | Comments (18)

Bad Behavior has blocked 4165 access attempts in the last 7 days.