The environment thread

[BigSqwert]

I was being sarcastic Tex.

[lostfan]

They'd all be sexual harrassment and divorce jokes anyway...

Well played

[Texsox]

I was being the Sarcastic Tex.

fixed

I believe that is the only Tex

[Balta1701]

Just a random note...I'd like to say how amazed I was over the weekend at how press reports gobbled up the idea that after removing the last cap, the fact that oil was now leaking uncontrolled from the well was suddenly a big deal again. Really, no it wasn't, it's the difference between maybe 40,000 barrels leaking a day and 60,000 barrels a day. Either way, the number leaking was still monstrous and the fact that the leak was somewhat larger without the cap isn't as big of a deal as the fact that there's been a monstrous amount pouring in every day.

[mr_genius]

BP just capped the oil well?

[kapkomet]

BP just capped the oil well?

 

 

Yea, and they said that they think that this will allow them to capture ALL of the oil until the relief well hits.

[FlaSoxxJim]

Here's hoping. . .

[lostfan]

I don't know if that qualifies as "good news" since everything is already f***ed up.

[Balta1701]

I don't know if that qualifies as "good news" since everything is already f***ed up.

If it actually works, yeah, that would be genuine good news.

[NorthSideSox72]

If it actually works, yeah, that would be genuine good news.

Yeah I agree, stopping most or all of the flow would be very good news.

 

[Balta1701]

Yeah I agree, stopping most or all of the flow would be very good news.

I wouldn't say "Stopping", I'd say "Capturing".

[NorthSideSox72]

I wouldn't say "Stopping", I'd say "Capturing".

Sorry. meant STOPPING the flow INTO THE OCEAN. Capturing works too.

 

[Balta1701]

Sorry. meant STOPPING the flow INTO THE OCEAN. Capturing works too.

Yeah, "Stopping" comes if and when a relief well is successfully used to cement the first well, that's why I noted the difference.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There's no global warming....

NASA: First half of 2010 breaks the thermometer — despite “recent minimum of solar irradiance”

Following fast on the heels of the hottest Jan-May — and spring — in the temperature record, it’s also the hottest Jan-June on record in the NASA dataset [click on figure to enlarge].

 

It’s all the more powerful evidence of human-caused warming “because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance is having its maximum cooling effect,” as a recent must-read NASA paper notes.

 

Software engineer (and former machinist mate in the US Navy) Timothy Chase put together a spreadsheet using the data from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (click here). In NASA’s dataset, the 12-month running average temperature record was actually just barely set in March — and then easily set in April and topped out in May.

 

It still seems likely that 2010 will be the hottest year on record, but NOAA now predicts that “La Niña conditions are likely to develop during July – August 2010.” If the La Niña comes fast and deep (as in 1998 and 2007), that could make it a close call in the NASA dataset — and even more so in the satellite record, which is much more sensitive to ENSO ( El Niño Southern oscillation).

 

Interestingly, June was tied for the third hottest on record for NASA, but was essentially tied for the hottest June in the RSS satellite record (and second hottest in the constantly tweaked UAH satellite dataset).

 

Although I’m sure it’s just another coincidence, but Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab again reports a record low snow cover in the entire northern hemisphere for the month of June (what appears to be a long term trend)

[Balta1701]

So, it seems like the Senate is cobbling together the basics of a dirty energy bill that is so bad that it can actually get Republican support.

A senior Senate source emails with this preview of what to expect in the chamber’s energy bill, which is expected to take shape in the coming weeks.

 

The legislation, which is still being cobbled together from a number of pending proposals, will, according to the source:

 

- “help expedite cleanup of and recovery from the oil in the Gulf of Mexico, ensure that the polluters are held liable for damages caused, and put better systems in place to regulate deepwater drilling.

 

- “create jobs and save consumers money through residential and commercial renovation incentives and by setting higher energy efficiency standards for new homes, products and appliances.

 

- “set a national renewable electricity standard and provide new financing options for clean energy investments, including low-carbon power generation.

 

- “improve the nation’s electricity grid and make it more likely that remotely generated renewable power will get to market.

 

- “decrease oil consumption by several million barrels per day and help electrify the transportation sector, as well as convert heavy duty fleets to cleaner fuels like natural gas

 

- “eliminate major oil and gas subsidies and expand and extend incentives for consumers and businesses that want to invest in energy efficient buildings, clean power, alternative fuel vehicles, and domestically produced biofuels”

 

The source says “a large portion” of the bill will be pulled from the legislation authored by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.), which was approved by the Senate Energy & Natural Resources Committee last summer.

 

Here's a decent writeup from a couple months ago about how much solid quality there is in that Bingaman bill.

the American Clean Energy Leadership Act, which Sen. Jeff Bingaman's Energy & Natural Resources Committee passed last year. The senators who have made reference to an "energy-only" bill, which they argue would be easier to pass than a comprehensive bill, are generally referring to ACELA.

 

So, what's with ACELA? Does it stand up to the complementary policies in ACES?

 

No. It's important to state this bluntly: ACELA sucks. As a standalone bill, it does virtually nothing for renewables, boosts efficiency a middling amount, and dumps a bonanza of subsidies on offshore drilling, nuclear power, tar sands, oil shale, and natural gas. It also weakens the Renewable Fuel Standard. It's a minor deviation from the awful energy status quo and would be a depressing end indeed to the year-long Obama-era effort to finally address America's energy problems.

 

According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (PDF), ACELA would increase the deficit by $13.5 billion by 2020. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists (PDF), the renewable energy standard in ACELA would require less clean energy than is expected under business as usual. According to the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (PDF), the efficiency provisions in ACELA would save half as much energy by 2020, and a third as much by 2030, as ACES. In exchange for these wan gestures at clean energy, it dumps billions on dirty energy incumbents.

Basically, it sounds like we get some additional regulation on oil drilling, some serious additional coal/gas/nuclear subsidies, extensions of some current energy efficiency tax breaks, and a national standard for renewable energy production...which I'm going to guess will be designed in a way that states are prohibited from enacting more strict standards. The dirty energy subsidy expansion then winds up overwhelming everything else.

 

I like that phrase..."Less clean energy than expected under business as usual". That's what you have to do to get Republican support. Here's the original UCS press statement on that bill. It includes the word "Pitiful".

[Texsox]

Could someone in a nutshell explain to me, besides that it's a Dem® President doing it, that forcing BP to put $$$$$$ up to pay for damages is a bad thing?

[BigSqwert]

Could someone in a nutshell explain to me, besides that it's a Dem® President doing it, that forcing BP to put $$$$$$ up to pay for damages is a bad thing?

Something to do with Nazis or socialism I think.

[NorthSideSox72]

Could someone in a nutshell explain to me, besides that it's a Dem® President doing it, that forcing BP to put $$$$$$ up to pay for damages is a bad thing?

I've seen a few different arguments to that effect...

 

1. The court systems should be handling it, and/or BP themselves

2. Government interference in business

3. Obama is just covering for his delayed and lame response to the incident in a punitive way

 

[Texsox]

Fine, let BP go through the courts and perhaps get a refund. But geez, it sounded to me like a great idea and if the GOP wanted to make points, claim it was too damn little. I can't believe this is going to help them with voters. I think they misplayed this one. In fact, this could have been a great time to stand behind the Pres and show how they will always do the right thing and pout politics behind them. Saving pelicans and sea turtles and the jobs along the coast seems like an easy thing to get behind.

[Balta1701]

Fine, let BP go through the courts and perhaps get a refund. But geez, it sounded to me like a great idea and if the GOP wanted to make points, claim it was too damn little. I can't believe this is going to help them with voters. I think they misplayed this one. In fact, this could have been a great time to stand behind the Pres and show how they will always do the right thing and pout politics behind them. Saving pelicans and sea turtles and the jobs along the coast seems like an easy thing to get behind.

BAN OIL!

[Balta1701]

Bobby Jindal's hundred million dollar artificial islands are falling apart.

Two months ago, against the advice of many coastal scientists, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal began furiously campaigning for the construction of six artificial islands to hold back the advancing oil. The federal government quickly granted Jindal his wish, and construction on the islands has been continuing apace.

 

But images taken of one construction site near the northern edge of the Chandeleur islands appear to show the sea washing away a giant sand berm over the course of about two weeks.

 

The first image, at top, was taken on June 25. The second and third, below, were taken from roughly the same vantage point on July 2 and 7. All three images were first published yesterday by coastal scientist Leonard Bahr on his blog, LACoastPost.

[kapkomet]

Could someone in a nutshell explain to me, besides that it's a Dem® President doing it, that forcing BP to put $$$$$$ up to pay for damages is a bad thing?

 

Because the executive branch doesn't have that kind of authority. Also, as imperfect as it is, for 220 years, the judicial system is the way that claims of this nature are handled. Whine about Exxon Valdez all you want, but that's a hell of a lot better then a dictate from one man telling blackmailing a company.

[StrangeSox]

Whine about the reality of the judicial branch f***ing over real people all you want, but it's a hell of a lot better than having BP agreeing to pay out legitimate claims!

 

Also, blackmail typically doesn't involve the person being blackmailed causing tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars worth of damage. Hope that helps.

[KipWellsFan]

Because the executive branch doesn't have that kind of authority. Also, as imperfect as it is, for 220 years, the judicial system is the way that claims of this nature are handled. Whine about Exxon Valdez all you want, but that's a hell of a lot better then a dictate from one man telling blackmailing a company.

 

Then BP shouldn't have paid. Politicians have put political pressure on people and organizations for eternities, and always will. That, and most Americans wanted Obama to be hard on BP. It's a no-brainer.

[Balta1701]

Then BP shouldn't have paid. Politicians have put political pressure on people and organizations for eternities, and always will. That, and most Americans wanted Obama to be hard on BP. It's a no-brainer.

Kap just wants all of the victims of this who lose their jobs and their health to wind up on government assistance for 5-10 years while the courts sort things out, where they belong.