The environment thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/7/17/175641/206

Personally, I would have set the challenge at closer to 50% by 2020 and 90% by 2030. In particular, I'd like a few years for solar photovoltaics and concentrated solar thermal to mature a little more, to see what are the very best strategies and technologies.

 

I agree 100%. 10 years was WAY too drastic. My apologies for not remembering this quote right, but my Jr High volleyball coach once said something along the lines of "if you shoot for the sun, you'll get to the moon. if you shoot for the moon, you'll get to the street light". I think it was said more artful than that, but you get my point.

 

I say shoot for the sun and be happy with the moon.

[HuskyCaucasian]

By the way:

John Stossel had the quote of the year last night on Larry King Live. When trying to discredit and poo-poo Gores idea, he said this, and I am quoting "wind and solar energy pollute too!"

 

His first reason was a little odd: wind turbines kill birds. how does that pollute?

His second was a little more reasonable, but sill silly: Well, you have to transport solar panels and the requires polluting trucks.

 

He once said Oil Companies are Heroes:

[NorthSideSox72]

By the way:

John Stossel had the quote of the year last night on Larry King Live. When trying to discredit and poo-poo Gores idea, he said this, and I am quoting "wind and solar energy pollute too!"

 

His first reason was a little odd: wind turbines kill birds. how does that pollute?

His second was a little more reasonable, but sill silly: Well, you have to transport solar panels and the requires polluting trucks.

 

He once said Oil Companies are Heroes:

Why would anyone be listening to John Stossel anyway? Might as well get your new from Jesse Jackson or Ann Coulter.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Why would anyone be listening to John Stossel anyway? Might as well get your new from Jesse Jackson or Ann Coulter.

If I dont listen to Jesse Jackson he'll cut my nuts off!!

[Balta1701]

I agree 100%. 10 years was WAY too drastic. My apologies for not remembering this quote right, but my Jr High volleyball coach once said something along the lines of "if you shoot for the sun, you'll get to the moon. if you shoot for the moon, you'll get to the street light". I think it was said more artful than that, but you get my point.

 

I say shoot for the sun and be happy with the moon.

Here's the remarkable thing about Mr. Gore's speech though...let's say we set his goal. Let's say we shoot for a carbon free electricity generation system by 2020 capable of meeting the growing energy demands of this country. We've all been casually following the growing developments in wind, solar, and other sorts of electricity generation, and there's still an awful lot of low-hanging fruit left in terms of energy efficiency and energy recovery that hasn't even been touched in this country. Let's say we push hard. Let's say we clear some of the regulatory hurdles to wind farms in places (ahem, Senator Kennedy...), let's say we spend the hundred billion dollars we're going to need to spend to upgrade our transmission system in ways that focus on prepping for a carbon free generation system, let's say we put out the tax incentives, the government puts out major amounts of startup funding...etc. If everything were to go right starting on January 20th of 2009, do you think Mr. Gore's goal is achievable?

 

Honestly, I think I do. It will take a major, major investment, it will take everything being done right by a lot of very smart people, it will take locking a lot of oil executives and the Senators they've bought at Gitmo for 10 years, but I'm starting to think it could be done.

 

But let's say we fail. Let's say we get to 40, or 50, or 75, or 90% renewable by that day. Instead of the measly 5 we're at now. Let's say we put ourselves on a path that gets us there by 2025, or 2030. What happens then? Well, we dramatically improve our security by securing our energy grid and cutting down the amount of money we're dumping on foreign countries. We stimulate local growth by funding all the new energy infrastructure construction. We generate an enormous amount of technology jobs. We dramatically improve our environment. And, I'll let Mr. Gore's words speak on this one...

When I first went to Congress 32 years ago, I listened to experts testify that if oil ever got to $35 a barrel, then renewable sources of energy would become competitive. Well, today, the price of oil is over $135 per barrel. And sure enough, billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

 

And as the demand for renewable energy grows, the costs will continue to fall. Let me give you one revealing example: the price of the specialized silicon used to make solar cells was recently as high as $300 per kilogram. But the newest contracts have prices as low as $50 a kilogram.

 

You know, the same thing happened with computer chips – also made out of silicon. The price paid for the same performance came down by 50 percent every 18 months – year after year, and that’s what’s happened for 40 years in a row. To those who argue that we do not yet have the technology to accomplish these results

with renewable energy: I ask them to come with me to meet the entrepreneurs who will drive this revolution. I’ve seen what they are doing and I have no doubt that we can meet this challenge.

 

To those who say the costs are still too high: I ask them to consider whether the costs of oil and coal will ever stop increasing if we keep relying on quickly depleting energy sources to feed a rapidly growing demand all around the world. When demand for oil and coal increases, their price goes up. When demand for solar cells increases, the price often comes down.

The more renewables you develop...the more money you spend on developing them, the more energy you want from them, the cheaper they are. That is the key point here. The higher we aim on wind and solar, the easier it will be to get there, because the cheaper the transition will be.

[EvilMonkey]

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/26/gore-responds-to-drudge/

 

1) Gore’s family has taken numerous steps to reduce the carbon footprint of their private residence, including signing up for 100 percent green power through Green Power Switch, installing solar panels, and using compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy saving technology.

 

2) Gore has had a consistent position of purchasing carbon offsets to offset the family’s carbon footprint — a concept the right-wing fails to understand. Gore’s office explains:

What Mr. Gore ha

s

a

s

k

ed i

s

that every family calculate their carbon footprint and try to reduce it a

s

much a

s

po

s

s

ible. Once they have done

s

o, he then advocate

s

that they purcha

s

e off

s

et

s

, a

s

the Gore

’

s

do, to bring their footprint down to zero.

http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

 

Al Gore’s Personal Electricity Consumption Up 10% Despite “Energy-Efficient” Renovations

Energy guzzled by Al Gore’s home in past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month

 

NASHVILLE – In the year since Al Gore took steps to make his home more energy-efficient, the former Vice President’s home energy use surged more than 10%, according to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research.

 

“A man’s commitment to his beliefs is best measured by what he does behind the closed doors of his own home,” said Drew Johnson, President of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research. “Al Gore is a hypocrite and a fraud when it comes to his commitment to the environment, judging by his home energy consumption.”

 

In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.

 

In February 2007, An Inconvenient Truth, a film based on a climate change speech developed by Gore, won an Academy Award for best documentary feature. The next day, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research uncovered that Gore’s Nashville home guzzled 20 times more electricity than the average American household.

 

After the Tennessee Center for Policy Research exposed Gore’s massive home energy use, the former Vice President scurried to make his home more energy-efficient. Despite adding solar panels, installing a geothermal system, replacing existing light bulbs with more efficient models, and overhauling the home’s windows and ductwork, Gore now consumes more electricity than before the “green” overhaul.

 

Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month – 1,638 kWh more energy per month than the year before the renovations. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration. The cost of Gore’s electric bills over the past year topped $16,533.

 

In the wake of becoming the most well-known global warming alarmist, Gore’s film won an Oscar, and he won a Grammy and the Nobel Peace Prize. In addition, Gore saw his personal wealth increase by an estimated $100 million thanks largely to speaking fees and investments related to global warming hysteria.

 

“Actions speak louder than words, and Gore’s actions prove that he views climate change not as a serious problem, but as a money-making opportunity,” Johnson said. “Gore is exploiting the public’s concern about the environment to line his pockets and enhance his profile.”

 

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, a Nashville-based free market think tank and watchdog organization, obtained information about Gore’s home energy use through a public records request to the Nashville Electric Service.

[BigSqwert]

Proposed George W. Bush Sewage Plant Makes Ballot

 

SAN FRANCISCO - A measure seeking to commemorate President Bush's years in office by slapping his name on a San Francisco sewage plant has qualified for the November ballot.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

The measure certified Thursday would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.

 

Supporters say the idea is to commemorate the mess they claim Bush has left behind by actions such as the war in Iraq.

 

Local Republicans say the plan stinks and they will oppose it.

 

LINK

[EvilMonkey]

LINK

Don't they have more important things to worry about? This is childish and low class, even for San Francisco.

[lostfan]

Don't they have more important things to worry about? This is childish and low class, even for San Francisco.

I agree. It does have a mild chuckle factor though.

[BigSqwert]

Swiss man drives solar powered car across 40 countries.

[NorthSideSox72]

Swiss man drives solar powered car across 40 countries.

But... the technology doesn't exist yet!!! We can't do alternative energy because it won't help us NOW!!! More oil, please!!!

 

[Cknolls]

David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:

 

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

 

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

 

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

 

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

 

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

 

 

You really need to read the whole thing to get the full impact, but here are a few highlights:

 

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

 

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. ...

 

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...

 

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). ...

 

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ...

 

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. ..

 

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it.

 

 

The same will be said of any American government that ruins our economy is service of the global warming ideology.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

David Evans was a consultant to the "Australian Greenhouse Office" from 1999 to 2005. He is a former global warming alarmist; however, he is also a scientist who goes where the evidence leads him. In this important article in The Australian, he blows the whistle on the fraud that many of the world's governments are in the midst of perpetrating:

 

I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

 

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

 

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

 

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

 

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts.

 

 

You really need to read the whole thing to get the full impact, but here are a few highlights:

 

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

 

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. ...

 

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. ...

 

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). ...

 

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect. ...

 

The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion. ..

 

What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it.

 

 

The same will be said of any American government that ruins our economy is service of the global warming ideology.

 

LOL at #3. He's seriously trying to make a scientific argument about cooling, while looking at data since 2001?

 

[Balta1701]

LOL at #3. He's seriously trying to make a scientific argument about cooling, while looking at data since 2001?

They're right back to the classic "December was colder than last year, so let's ignore every other month and declare that the great Ice age of 2007 has begun" gambit.

[kapkomet]

They're right back to the classic "December was colder than last year, so let's ignore every other month and declare that the great Ice age of 2007 has begun" gambit.

Yet you all do the same thing when it fits your "warming" model.

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Yet you all do the same thing when it fits your "warming" model.

I don't know who you mean by "you all", but I haven't seen Balta or I use any sort of data that is so short term (6 years in this case) to prove anything. That is far too short a timespan.

 

[Balta1701]

Yet you all do the same thing when it fits your "warming" model.

B.S. 95% of the time you'll hear the phrase "You can never tell too much from one month" included in any line by any legit person who understands the stuff talking about the monthly composite numbers, and if you don't, it's probably because someone else is making too big of a deal of the 1 month numbers.

[kapkomet]

B.S. 95% of the time you'll hear the phrase "You can never tell too much from one month" included in any line by any legit person who understands the stuff talking about the monthly composite numbers, and if you don't, it's probably because someone else is making too big of a deal of the 1 month numbers.

To clarify, "you all" generally means the people who want to politicize the issue, not necessarily any of you specifically.

[Balta1701]

To clarify, "you all" generally means the people who want to politicize the issue, not necessarily any of you specifically.

Ok, that I can live with. I think you know me well enough to know that I cover my tail on that one by trying to be accurate.

[kapkomet]

Ok, that I can live with. I think you know me well enough to know that I cover my tail on that one by trying to be accurate.

Most of you around here do. My fault on the lack of clarity.

 

[Balta1701]

North Pole icecap note.

The North Pole has become an island for the first time in human history, with fears the melting ice cap has entered a "death spiral".

 

The historic development was revealed in satellite images that show melting ice has produced an opening in the famed Northwest and Northeast Passages, with water stretching all the way round the Arctic.

 

Until recently, both passages had been blocked by ice since the start of the last Ice Age. It is feared by some scientists that the ice cap will completely disappear in summer within five years as global warming continues to take its toll.

advertisement

 

Shipping companies are already planning to exploit the first simultaneous opening of the routes since the beginning of the last Ice Age 125,000 years ago. The Beluga Group in Germany said it will send the first ship through the Northeast Passage, around Russia, next year - cutting 4000 miles off the voyage from Germany to Japan.

[EvilMonkey]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122040089460493157.html

There's a lot more at the link, along with a map.

 

Wind Power May Gain Footing

Off Coast of U.S.

Federal Government

Prepares to Lease

Tracts for Turbines

By JEFFREY BALL

September 3, 2008; Page A4

 

Amid a national debate over offshore oil drilling, the federal government is preparing to unleash development of another offshore energy source: wind.

 

The Interior Department, the agency that handles oil-and-gas leases in U.S. waters, is preparing to lease swaths of the outer continental shelf to companies that want to erect massive wind turbines. With the public-comment period for the proposal scheduled to end Monday, competition is heating up to develop wind projects on the shelf, the same underwater formation largely covered by an oil-drilling ban that has become a contentious issue in the presidential race.

 

If you had to choose one, which method of offshore energy production would you support?The federal program signals the start of a broad push to develop offshore wind energy in the U.S. The country often is dubbed by renewable-energy experts as "the Saudi Arabia of wind" because of its vast, windy expanses, particularly in the Western plains. Now, rising interest in renewable energy is spurring exploration of the ocean, where the winds typically are heavier but the technological hurdles to tapping it are higher. That shift mirrors the oil industry's move to offshore wells decades ago

[NorthSideSox72]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122040089460493157.html

There's a lot more at the link, along with a map.

Good!

 

[EvilMonkey]

Good!

Maybe they should try and keep this secret from Teddy Kennedy so he doesn't try and stop it again. Wouldn't want to ruin his view, you know.

[NorthSideSox72]

Maybe they should try and keep this secret from Teddy Kennedy so he doesn't try and stop it again. Wouldn't want to ruin his view, you know.

I do think its a good idea to try to put them pretty far offshore, when practical. Out of view. But that shouldn't stop it from happening. I don't recall the exact situation for Teddy, but, if he just outright went against it without trying to work out a compromise, then that's just stupid.