The environment thread

[NorthSideSox72]

A man that refuses toe the line for either party. What a radical concept.

I like it. I just don't think he should expect to get the royal treatment from either party if he chooses that route.

 

[YASNY]

I like it. I just don't think he should expect to get the royal treatment from either party if he chooses that route.

 

We could use a lot more of that type. McCain fits into that mold as well. Yet McCain scares me. So, I don't know. I find myself fluctuating on McCain and Hillary ... as much as I hate to admit re: Hillary. The only thing I am sure of is I don't want Obama any where near 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[EvilMonkey]

Top 10 Early Contenders for the Automotive X Prize. Some of them look pretty cool.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive....html?series=19

[NorthSideSox72]

Top 10 Early Contenders for the Automotive X Prize. Some of them look pretty cool.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive....html?series=19

This sort of thing is fantastic. When devising an alternative energy policy, this sort of results-driven, business-oriented system should be looked at for grant money and loan guarantees.

 

[BigSqwert]

Young Environmentalists Protest Anti-Bicycle Policy At Their High School

 

Here at Treehugger we've seen lots of examples of activism in high schools as part of our Go Green School of the Week Series (for instance, here, here and here). The following story about a group of high school students in New Jersey, however, truly stands out for the quality of their activism, as well as the intransigence and narrow-mindedness of the principal involved in the incident. The students are members of an environmental club at their high school that had raised $2,000 and wanted to use the funds to donate a bike rack to the school. However, they were told that the school did not want to promote cycling due to safety concerns, and thus the gift was rejected. Ironically enough, the rejection came on Earth Day.

 

Fortunately, these enterprising high schoolers didn't just sit on their heels. No, they came together and organized the following protest: "more than 50 students rode their bikes to school, commuting in pairs and groups. After studying up on state biking laws -- and carrying copies with them -- the students legally tethered their bikes in conspicuous clusters around lamp posts, trees and other poles dotting the circular drive in front of the school." The students also delivered a letter to the principal. So what was his response?

 

Well, it wasn't very positive. In a letter he wrote "In as much as the district provides courtesy busing to students who live within walking distance of the high school, because of the danger on Garretson Road, it does (not) make sense, in my opinion, to promote the riding of bicycles to school." Really? So instead of encouraging youth to walk or bicycle, they should take the loud, dirty diesel buses that are provided for free (read that: subsidized by taxpayers)? Here's an idea: why not re-design the streets around the school to make them safer for pedestrians and cyclists (shouldn't the streets around a school be safe anyway?) and save the courtesy buses for those that live farther way from campus.

 

Oh, and maybe the school should re-consider its policy of providing a parking spot for every senior that drives, while not accepting a free bike rack that can cut down on the need for parking spaces.

 

LINK

[EvilMonkey]

Way too many factors involved there for it to be so simple. Moving streets around costs a heck of alot more than the fuel to run the busses. Likely the streets were there first as well, and if they are a major thru road, not going to be easy to move. And the moment one of those bike riders got hit by a car on the way to school, you know that the shark-like lawyers will be right there to sue the pants off the school. Hey, here's an idea, instead of the school/state changing ebverythign around to fit you (the student) why not just move closer to the school so you can just walk? Oh wait, because then YOU would have to pay for that. Solutions are easy, until you have to pay the bill (directly).

[bmags]

Kids are fat nowadays, though.

[iamshack]

Way too many factors involved there for it to be so simple. Moving streets around costs a heck of alot more than the fuel to run the busses. Likely the streets were there first as well, and if they are a major thru road, not going to be easy to move. And the moment one of those bike riders got hit by a car on the way to school, you know that the shark-like lawyers will be right there to sue the pants off the school. Hey, here's an idea, instead of the school/state changing ebverythign around to fit you (the student) why not just move closer to the school so you can just walk? Oh wait, because then YOU would have to pay for that. Solutions are easy, until you have to pay the bill (directly).

 

While I am not going to be as harsh about the article as you, I do feel as though these small-time actors take a bit of a beating from the media when it comes to stories like this. What is some school principal supposed to do when something like this comes up? He is already under all these competing interests from his school district, the state, the federal government, parents, teachers, others in the community, etc. It's extremely difficult for a teacher or a principal to make the correct decision when there are so many parties he/she has to placate. It would've been admirable had he/she accepted the donation for the bike rack, but you're right- just wait until the first kid gets whacked crossing the street on a bike- and then the principal is getting chewed out for not having more crossing guards or something. It's difficult for these school administrators.

[EvilMonkey]

While I am not going to be as harsh about the article as you, I do feel as though these small-time actors take a bit of a beating from the media when it comes to stories like this. What is some school principal supposed to do when something like this comes up? He is already under all these competing interests from his school district, the state, the federal government, parents, teachers, others in the community, etc. It's extremely difficult for a teacher or a principal to make the correct decision when there are so many parties he/she has to placate. It would've been admirable had he/she accepted the donation for the bike rack, but you're right- just wait until the first kid gets whacked crossing the street on a bike- and then the principal is getting chewed out for not having more crossing guards or something. It's difficult for these school administrators.

I was only harsh considering the tone of the article (understandable considering the source). Oh sure, just move a road, it's easy! How dare you not want us to ride bike and are worried about our safety? The article was just so holier-than-thou in its format that it almost demanded sarcasm in return. Maybe if the students, after hearing the principle's explination for turning down the bike rack tried to find ways to fix that problem instead of going for the easy photo-op, it could be a different story. But hey, kids today are taught that THEY are the inportant ones, and that they are NOT to be denied what they want. Wouldn't want to hurt their self esteme or anything by telling them 'no'.

[NorthSideSox72]

McCain outlines his main points on the environment in a speech. Overall, I like his approach - set the bar, and create an economic environment that encourages new technology. But where he sets the bar, how he does the encouraging, and how serious he really is, remain to be seen. Right now, I like it.

[StrangeSox]

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one...because frankly, I'm not sure where exactly the people in this article are getting their data. To quote them directly:

Except...I can go to the NASA Goddard Space studies data with a simple Google search (frankly I'm too lazy to do all 4) and it shows no such thing.

Here's the temperature graph they include for the global picture (there are others at the link, none of which show a .7 degree C Drop.)

If you look at the graph on the left, we are .6 degrees C above the zero line. The article 2k5 links to says that the temperature last year dropped by .7 degrees C. In other words, they're saying that the 2007 point on that graph should come in at -.1, not at .6. I have no idea where they come up with that claim.

 

I wanted to revisit this post since I just dug a little deeper into the numbers. It looks like the people claiming that there is a cooling trend are just looking at Jan. '07 vs. Jan '08 numbers (as opposed to yearly averages), citing the difference, and saying "cooling trend!"

[Balta1701]

McCain outlines his main points on the environment in a speech. Overall, I like his approach - set the bar, and create an economic environment that encourages new technology. But where he sets the bar, how he does the encouraging, and how serious he really is, remain to be seen. Right now, I like it.

Tying together this subject with another recent subject... (Biased lefty blog source alert).

In December, McCain himself failed to show up for a key vote that would have extended the wind power production tax credit, which has been a key driver of wind power in this country — allowing it to compete with our better-subsidized power sources (like nuclear) in this country, and to partly offset the much bigger subsidies other countries have for renewables. The vote would have shifted money from subsidies to the oil industry, which hardly needs it given record oil prices and record oil profits

 

McCain’s vote could have broken the conservative filibuster blocking the effort to support renewables, since the clean energy tax package failed 59-40, but his spokesperson said that “he would not have supported breaking the filibuster.” This was but one recent example of a series of missed votes or anti-renewable votes McCain has cast in recent years.

 

In 2003, the same Danish company who's plant McCain spoke at today canceled a plan to build a wind turbine manufacturing plant in Portland, OR and laid off 500 or so workers (the plant would have employed another 1000) because of uncertainty over that tax credit.

[Balta1701]

McCain outlines his main points on the environment in a speech. Overall, I like his approach - set the bar, and create an economic environment that encourages new technology. But where he sets the bar, how he does the encouraging, and how serious he really is, remain to be seen. Right now, I like it.

One particular issue with the cap and trade program of the variety Sen. McCain has outlined so far...if I'm understanding things right it is set up in the same way as the much maligned European system, where instead of starting off the program with an auction that would raise funds from the people who are the biggest emitters, his proposal would hand out the credits to the current polluters, thus allowing them to be the ones who auction them off, determine the price, and earn money from selling them. This is actually a pretty key issue, as one could argue that this difference is largely responsible for the ineffectiveness of the current systems in the world. Policy summary of the issue here.

[Balta1701]

Here's a quality summary of why the auction/giveaway concept that I noted above is so important in getting a system that works well.

Environmentally speaking, it doesn't matter whether you auction permits or give them away. What matters is the cap. If you cap total emissions at 90% of current levels (and enforce it), then that's what you'll get no matter which kind of system you use. And since both systems allow permits to be traded between companies, they each provide similar levels of economic efficiency. Our ox lurks elsewhere.

 

Here's the difference. If you auction permits, then power plants and other GHG emitters have to buy permits to operate, and this raises their cost of doing business. This will get passed along to consumers and energy prices will go up. The revenue from the permits will go to the government, just like a tax.

 

If you give away permits instead, common sense suggests that since there are no additional costs to emitters, they won't raise their prices. But it turns out this isn't true. Thanks to the opportunity cost of the permits, they'll raise their prices just as much as if they'd bought the permit in an auction. (This isn't just a theory, either. That's how the European cap-and-trade system worked initially, and prices really did go up. If you want the gritty detail on why it works this way, read this paper.) So: power plants end up raising their prices, but since the emission permits are free their costs don't change. Result: a huge windfall profit for GHG emitters. Some get more and some get less, but the overall net result is lots of extra profit, with the biggest polluters getting the biggest profit.

More info @ link.

[Balta1701]

Nature this week is publishing what seems to be a fairly important and very detailed study of the actual effect of humanity on the Earth through humanity's impact on the climate. I'll give you the bullet point summary here, and link to the actual article in Nature here if you have subscription access. If someone really wanted to read it they could maybe let someone at a university know and it could be sent to them in PDF form.

Scientists examined published reports dating back to 1970 and found that at least 90% of environmental damage and disruption around the world could be explained by rising temperatures driven by human activity.

 

Big falls in Antarctic penguin populations, fewer fish in African lakes, shifts in American river flows and earlier flowering and bird migrations in Europe are all likely to be driven by global warming, the study found.

 

The team of experts, including members of the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) from America, Europe, Australia and China, is the first to formally link some of the most dramatic changes to the world's wildlife and habitats with human-induced climate change.

 

In the study, which appears in the journal Nature, researchers analysed reports highlighting changes in populations or behaviour of 28,800 animal and plant species. They examined a further 829 reports that focused on different environmental effects, including surging rivers, retreating glaciers and shifting forests, across the seven continents.

 

To work out how much - or if at all - global warming played a role, the scientists next checked historical records to see what impact natural variations in local climate, deforestation and changes in land use might have on the ecosystems and species that live there.

 

In 90% of cases the shifts in wildlife behaviour and populations could only be explained by global warming, while 95% of environmental changes, such as melting permafrost, retreating glaciers and changes in river flows were consistent with rising temperatures.

 

"When we look at all these impacts together, it is clear they are across continents and endemic. We're getting a sense that climate change is already changing the way the world works," said lead author Cynthia Rosenzweig, head of the climate impacts group at Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York.

 

Most of the reports examined by the team were published between 1970 and 2004, during which time global average temperatures rose by around 0.6C. The latest report from the IPCC suggests the world is likely to warm between 2C and 6C by the end of the century.

 

"When you look at a map of the world and see where these changes are already happening, and how many species and systems are already responding to climate change after only a 0.6C rise, it just heightens our concerns for the future," Rosenzweig said. "It's clear we have to adapt to climate change as well as try to mitigate it. It's real and it's happening now."

 

A large number of the studies included in the team's analysis reveal stark changes in water availability as the world gets warmer. In many regions snow and ice melts earlier in the year, driving up spring water levels in rivers and lakes, with droughts following in the summer. Understanding shifts in water availability will have a big impact on water management and be critical to securing supplies, the scientists say.

 

By collecting disparate reports on wildlife and ecosystems, it is possible to see how disruption to one part of the environment has knock-on effects elsewhere. In one study rising temperatures caused sea ice in Antarctica to vanish, prompting an 85% fall in the krill population. A separate study found that the population of Emperor penguins, which feed on krill in the same region, had also fallen by 50% during one warm winter.

 

A loss of krill, also a dietary staple for whales and seals, was cited as a factor in recent accounts of cannibalism among polar bears in the Arctic. In 2006 Steven Amstrup, a world expert in polar bears at the US Geological Society, investigated three cases of the animals preying on one another in the southern Beaufort sea. A lack of their usual prey may have prompted the bears to turn on each other.

 

Other reports show how the early arrival of spring in Europe has far-reaching effects down the food chain. The warmer weather causes trees to unfurl their leaves earlier, which causes a rise in leaf-eating grub numbers sooner in the year. Blue tits that feed on the grubs have largely adapted to the shift, by giving birth to their young two weeks earlier.

[EvilMonkey]

Nature this week is publishing what seems to be a fairly important and very detailed study of the actual effect of humanity on the Earth through humanity's impact on the climate. I'll give you the bullet point summary here, and link to the actual article in Nature here if you have subscription access. If someone really wanted to read it they could maybe let someone at a university know and it could be sent to them in PDF form.

I have a question about one of those bullet points you listed.

A loss of krill, also a dietary staple for whales and seals, was cited as a factor in recent accounts of cannibalism among polar bears in the Arctic. In 2006 Steven Amstrup, a world expert in polar bears at the US Geological Society, investigated three cases of the animals preying on one another in the southern Beaufort sea. A lack of their usual prey may have prompted the bears to turn on each other

From what I understand, the polar bears are experiencing a population explosion, and are not 'endangered', despite being put on that list for political reasons, and part of the problem is that there are just too many bears competing for the same food. Claiming that there isn't enough food for them because of climate change is not right, when it appears that there are just too many of them for the food base to feed. If I can find the story again, I will link it.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have a question about one of those bullet points you listed.

From what I understand, the polar bears are experiencing a population explosion, and are not 'endangered', despite being put on that list for political reasons, and part of the problem is that there are just too many bears competing for the same food. Claiming that there isn't enough food for them because of climate change is not right, when it appears that there are just too many of them for the food base to feed. If I can find the story again, I will link it.

I'd like to see the evidence that Polar Bears are actually exploding in population - that's new to me.

 

If its true, then one thing to ask is, why is that happening? There may be something else occurring in the balance of things that is causing that temporary increase. Sometimes that can happen for complex reasons, then the population plummets. Or, it could be they are actually beating out some other predator for prey. Or, it could be that there is no danger to them at all. I don't know. But it seems really unlikely to me that they'd be protected, if they are doing well.

 

[EvilMonkey]

I'd like to see the evidence that Polar Bears are actually exploding in population - that's new to me.

 

If its true, then one thing to ask is, why is that happening? There may be something else occurring in the balance of things that is causing that temporary increase. Sometimes that can happen for complex reasons, then the population plummets. Or, it could be they are actually beating out some other predator for prey. Or, it could be that there is no danger to them at all. I don't know. But it seems really unlikely to me that they'd be protected, if they are doing well.

This is one of the stories I read, and took this line away from it.

In fact, the decline in polar bears has not been uniform across the arctic; the overall population has increased since the 1970’s, when most hunting was banned by treaty. More recent trends, however, have been troubling. Of the 19 separate polar populations, five are declining, two are increasing, five are stable, and there is insufficient data for seven more, according to the Polar Bear Specialist Group, a team of scientists dedicated to preserving the bears.

http://scienceline.org/2007/02/05/health_d...larbears/print/

And here

http://scienceline.org/2007/02/05/health_d...larbears/print/

But global warming is not killing the polar bears of Canada's eastern Arctic, according to one ongoing study. Scheduled for release next year, it says the number of polar bears in the Davis Strait area of Canada's eastern Arctic – one of 19 polar bear populations worldwide – has grown to 2,100, up from 850 in the mid-1980s

But this one is telling

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?b...96-f686349df35a

The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, up from as low as 5,000-10,000 bears in the 1950s and 1960s. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.” The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future.

It is these 'predictions' about what 'may happen' that have landed it on the list.

 

[Balta1701]

I'd like to see the evidence that Polar Bears are actually exploding in population - that's new to me.

 

If its true, then one thing to ask is, why is that happening? There may be something else occurring in the balance of things that is causing that temporary increase. Sometimes that can happen for complex reasons, then the population plummets. Or, it could be they are actually beating out some other predator for prey. Or, it could be that there is no danger to them at all. I don't know. But it seems really unlikely to me that they'd be protected, if they are doing well.

Compared to the 1960's and 1970's there has, from the stuff I'm reading, been a non-trivial recovery in the Polar Bear population, because its hides were traded by native peoples and because hunting polar bears from aircraft or on the ground was considered quite a sport at some times. The problem is, it's not easy to estimate their total population in any area, because it's essentially a needle in an ice-stack problem, you can't trap all of them and tag them, but without doing so you're left trying to account for the ones you've missed. Techniques naturally have improved as tracking capabilities have improved in the last decade or so (GPS).

 

In 1973, there was a treaty signed banning the hunting of Polar Bears. At the time, their population had probably dwindled to below 10,000. Today it's somewhere in the neighborhood of 20,000.

 

There are some complex looks at their populations in studies here and here if you want to know more. What I will add is that the thing that is really expected to hurt the Polar Bear didn't really seem like it was starting to cascade out of hand until last year, where there was a gigantic and dramatic decrease in the amount and thickness of arctic sea ice beyond anything predicted by models or seen before, so given the 2 competing effects (population recovery after a period of heavy hunting) and degradation of their environment, it's reasonable to assume that the 2 effects will push in opposite directions with varying strength until one wins out.

[Balta1701]

Well, I know that every time I'm in a national park, I keep thinking "Man, if only the air wasn't so clean". Thankfully, we're finally doing something about that.

[BigSqwert]

Well, I know that every time I'm in a national park, I keep thinking "Man, if only the air wasn't so clean". Thankfully, we're finally doing something about that.

Heh. Read that earlier today. Amazing.

[EvilMonkey]

I saw this and wasn't sure where to post it. Since it used solar power, I figured here. So, here is is, solar power blimp.

 

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/05/16/so...ere-its-needed/

[HuskyCaucasian]

My apologies if this was posted before...

 

$2 Billion Wind Turbine Order Is Largest Ever

Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens has placed an the largest ever order for wind turbines: he ordered 667 wind turbines from GE, each costing $3 million dollars, making the total order $2 billion. Pickens plans to develop the world’s largest wind farm in the panhandle of Texas.

 

The $2 billion order is just one quarter of the total amount he plans to purchase. Once built, the wind farm would have the capacity to supply power to over 1,200,000 homes in North Texas. Each turbine will produce 1.5 megawatts of electricity. The first phase of the project will produce 1,000 megawatts, enough energy to power 300,000 homes. GE will begin delivering the turbines in 2010, and current plans call for the project to start producing power in 2011.

[Balta1701]

After last year's unexpected and dramatic decline in Arctic sea ice, there are more than a few people watching that area with some concern this year. First report from the beginning of summer doesn't sound good.

Scientists travelling with the troops found major new fractures during an assessment of the state of giant ice shelves in Canada's far north.

 

The team found a network of cracks that stretched for more than 10 miles (16km) on Ward Hunt, the area's largest shelf.

 

The fate of the vast ice blocks is seen as a key indicator of climate change.

 

One of the expedition's scientists, Derek Mueller of Trent University, Ontario, told me: "I was astonished to see these new cracks.

 

"It means the ice shelf is disintegrating, the pieces are pinned together like a jigsaw but could float away," Dr Mueller explained.

 

According to another scientist on the expedition, Dr Luke Copland of the University of Ottawa, the new cracks fit into a pattern of change in the Arctic.

 

"We're seeing very dramatic changes; from the retreat of the glaciers, to the melting of the sea ice.

 

"We had 23% less (sea ice) last year than we've ever had, and what's happening to the ice shelves is part of that picture."

 

When ice shelves break apart, they drift offshore into the ocean as "ice islands", transforming the very geography of the coastline.

[Balta1701]

This sort of plays in somewhat with recent events. Did you know that the U.S. government produces a "Climate extremes index", calculated by the taking some average of the percentage area of the country that is seeing abnormally extreme events of either temperature, wind, or precipitation? So the more areas in extreme drought conditions the higher it goes, the more areas receiving huge and rapid doses of rain, the higher it goes, etc.

 

Here's how it looks lately.