The environment thread

[Balta1701]

Um, no, I didn't make that claim. All I claimed is that there was a large amount of volcanic activity under there and that it could have a significant impact.

Yes you did. For volcanic activity to have a significant impact on the temperature of the arctic ocean, that's what's required. Go through and do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Either you've got an unprecedented scale of volcanism up there in the last 4 billion years of earth history, or it's insignificant. Take your pick.

[EvilMonkey]

Yes you did. For volcanic activity to have a significant impact on the temperature of the arctic ocean, that's what's required. Go through and do the math yourself if you don't believe me. Either you've got an unprecedented scale of volcanism up there in the last 4 billion years of earth history, or it's insignificant. Take your pick.

I get headaches trying to proof my son's math homework, no thanks. Unless it is figuring out how much to mark up a job before I sell it, I'll pass.

[EvilMonkey]

In the market for a car with good gas milage? How about a supercar with the best milage?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V82So-yIsuM

[Balta1701]

The BLM has responded to the combination of public anger and ridicule by lifting their 2 year ban on new solar project construction. This is not the end of the problem however, as there's still a large backlog of projects waiting for BLM approval that simply need more time and people to approve them.

[southsideirish71]

sure would make a nice talking point for Obama

 

"I want to push renewable energies while Bush/McCain bow to big oil"

 

Pushing for renewable energies is a great idea. However, that switch is going to take a bit. You realize that there are 150 to 200 million cars in the US that happen to use gas correct. Even if they say came up with a new type of car that ran on hydrogen, and they did solve the distribution system. Thats a lot of scratch for the average person to spend to buy a new car. The old car of course, would have little resale value due to the new infrastructure. How long exactly do you think its going to take to get that cutover to happen. So what is Obama going to do with the oil issue that will still be here in the next couple of decades as we cut over.

Edited July 4, 2008 by southsideirish71

[Balta1701]

Pushing for renewable energies is a great idea. However, that switch is going to take a bit. You realize that there are 150 to 200 million cars in the US that happen to use gas correct. Even if they say came up with a new type of car that ran on hydrogen, and they did solve the distribution system. Thats a lot of scratch for the average person to spend to buy a new car. The old car of course, would have little resale value due to the new infrastructure. How long exactly do you think its going to take to get that cutover to happen. So what is Obama going to do with the oil issue that will still be here in the next couple of decades as we cut over.

Detroit would be pretty happy about that.

 

Seriously...yes it is a lot of money to spend on a new car. But if the other option is paying $4000, $5000 a year for gasoline because the world simply doesn't have enough and other countries still want it...which would you choose/

[southsideirish71]

Detroit would be pretty happy about that.

 

Seriously...yes it is a lot of money to spend on a new car. But if the other option is paying $4000, $5000 a year for gasoline because the world simply doesn't have enough and other countries still want it...which would you choose/

 

Well I don't worry about me. I have the funds, and I am currently looking at the plug in hybrids for my next car. But lets rewind, and think about people like my parents who bought a "new" car with 87k miles on it for 2500 bucks. Those are the people that are going to have a problem with moving to the new types of cars.

 

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Blog entry from SF Mayor Gavin Newsom. As much as Daley has tried to "green" Chicago I still he's got a lot more that he can do.

 

As President George Bush has steadily rolled back environmental protections -- his shocking commitment to open up our beautiful coastlines to offshore drilling is only the latest outrage -- the responsibility to protect our environment has fallen to cities, states and many dedicated individuals.

 

San Francisco is one of the greenest cities in the country today because we did not wait for Washington. We are taking action now to green our environment and our economy from the ground up. But we are making so much progress because we are working with so many talented people.

 

One of our most visionary partners in protecting the environment is Van Jones. Van is the founder and president of Green For All. He is combining solutions to America's two biggest challenges -- social inequality and environmental destruction -- by creating and promoting green collar jobs.

 

I am proud to announce that I will be introducing Van at Netroots Nation on Sunday in Austin, TX. For details click here.

 

With the help of people like Van we are establishing a new green economy in California while reducing our dependence on foreign oil, slashing the amount of greenhouse gases being released into the environment, and promoting clean and renewable energy. We are ensuring that the neighborhoods that were locked out of the pollution-based economy are locked in to the new green economy.

 

In San Francisco, we are moving aggressively to combat climate change because we believe we can be a model for other cities.

 

We have already attained carbon emission reductions that bring city and county levels nearly to 1990 levels, and city government emissions are already below 1990 levels.

 

San Francisco has the highest recycling rate in the nation at 70%. And we have just committed to 75% by 2010.

 

On July 1st San Francisco launched the nation's largest solar incentive program providing solar rebates to local residents and businesses ranging from $3,000-$10,000, making solar a reality for every home in San Francisco that wants it.

 

We have converted the City's entire diesel vehicle fleet to B20 biodiesel -- that's a total of 1,500 cars, trucks, buses, and other vehicles.

 

We have also introduced the most comprehensive green building ordinance in the country. It imposes green building requirements on newly constructed residential buildings, newly constructed commercial buildings over 25,000 sq ft, and renovations over 5,000 sq ft. And we have made this commitment hand-in-hand with private businesses and developers. They understand that building "green" isn't next year -- it's right now.

 

We are aggressively advancing local renewable energy generation -- tidal, wind, wave, solar and geothermal. And this is just the beginning. With the help and encouragement of people like Van, we are going to light our neighborhoods with renewable power.

 

If you are at Netroots Nation, I hope you will stick around on Sunday morning to see Van Jones speak. He has been an inspiration to me, and I know his commitment to a fairer, cleaner future will inspire you too.

Edited July 17, 2008 by BigSqwert

[HuskyCaucasian]

Gore sets "moonshot" goal on fuels, climate change

Al Gore is challenging the nation to produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other globe-friendly energy sources within 10 years.

 

It's an audacious goal he hopes the next president will embrace. The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president has praise for both Barack Obama and John McCain, saying they're "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change.

 

In an Associated Press interview previewing his address on global warming today in Washington, Gore says the cost of switching to so-called clean electricity sources could be as high as three trillion dollars over 30 years in public and private money. But he says it will also "pay itself back many times over."

 

He adds he's "never seen an opportunity for the country like the one that's emerging now."

[southsider2k5]

Gore sets "moonshot" goal on fuels, climate change

 

What's the little kids song that has a verse about "and let it begin with me"?

[BigSqwert]

What's the little kids song that has a verse about "and let it begin with me"?

Well if the nation were to be off carbon based energy like he is proposing then wouldn't that, in turn, force him to utilize the same non fossil fuel energies? It's not like he's proposing that everyone in the US should use alternative energies while he should still be granted the ability to use fossil fuels.

[StrangeSox]

Well if the nation were to be off carbon based energy like he is proposing then wouldn't that, in turn, force him to utilize the same non fossil fuel energies? It's not like he's proposing that everyone in the US should use alternative energies while he should still be granted the ability to use fossil fuels.

 

Shouldn't he be leading by example anyway?

[BigSqwert]

Shouldn't he be leading by example anyway?

Sure. His message is still a good one though.

[BigSqwert]

We should all ignore the Pope too since the Pope-mobile isn't a hybrid.

[southsider2k5]

We should all ignore the Pope too since the Pope-mobile isn't a hybrid.

 

We do this all of the time in this country. Heck look no further than the Jesse Jackson and Barry Bonds divides in this country. People who say one thing and do another tend to get marginalized.

[BigSqwert]

We do this all of the time in this country. Heck look no further than the Jesse Jackson and Barry Bonds divides in this country. People who say one thing and do another tend to get marginalized.

I'd be surprised if you could name one human being that wasn't a hypocrite about something at one point in their life.

[StrangeSox]

I'd be surprised if you could name one human being that wasn't a hypocrite about something at one point in their life.

 

Here's a big difference: Al Gore has literally made millions of dollars off of this movement, yet he doesn't seem to follow it himself.

[southsider2k5]

Here's a big difference: Al Gore has literally made millions of dollars off of this movement, yet he doesn't seem to follow it himself.

 

^^^

 

You want another good example try the Catholic Church with the sex scandals. Saving people's souls for eternity is a pretty good cause, but it doesn't make them immune from critizisms.

[HuskyCaucasian]

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.

[BigSqwert]

Here's a big difference: Al Gore has literally made millions of dollars off of this movement, yet he doesn't seem to follow it himself.

Ok but that doesn't change the fact that we are facing an energy crisis on a global scale. With populations increasing drastically in the upcoming decades we should get our asses in gear. Granted Gore's a douche for being a hypocrite but his message is still on point.

[Balta1701]

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.

Unfortunately, after studying the issue, I'm pretty much convinced that virtually every carbon offset market out there right now is pretty much a failure because none of them have been designed well at all. Either they're just a money-laundering scheme (The private ones in this country) or they're only really set up to benefit polluters because it's the biggest polluters who are given the credits that they can sell off (This is so far either the European scheme and the McCain scheme).

[HuskyCaucasian]

Gore sets "moonshot" goal on fuels, climate change

In a statement released after Gore's speech, Barack Obama chimed in:

"For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President. It's a strategy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and cannot be outsourced, and one that will leave our children a world that is cleaner and safer."

[southsider2k5]

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

 

Mr. Gore, how do you feel about 90 percent?

Blogosphere responds reservedly to Gore's call for 100 percent renewable electricity in 10

Posted by Sara Barz at 6:01 PM on 17 Jul 2008

Read more about: climate | politics | climate change mitigation | Al Gore

Tools: print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit | + stumbleupon

 

Al Gore stood up in Washington today to call on Americans to join a crusade for 100 percent renewable electricity use by 2018.

 

The blogosphere's response? A golf clap and general round of nitpicking ...

 

Some see the renewable energy goal as a touch impractical, and his beating of the carbon tax drum (1993 ... anyone? anyone?) irked plenty of conservatives -- no surprise -- and congressional Democrats on the grounds of poor timing as the American economy limps along.

 

A roundup of reactions:

 

At the New York Times's DotEarth blog, Andy Revkin posted the text of Gore's speech with his comments. Where other bloggers were willing to look past Gore's scientific claims, Revkin challenged the validity of his climate change associations to Arctic sea ice loss and severe weather. In response to the tornado comment:

 

Why mention tornadoes? There's been no evidence of an increase in dangerous tornadoes since careful records have been kept (great graphic at this link). It's really no different stressing "strange" weather in a push for limiting greenhouse gases than doing so to fight the same policy shift.

 

While acknowledging the renewable energy goal as admirable, Revkin also questioned the ability to ramp up renewables in 10 years:

 

The price differential between renewable energy sources and coal burning is shifting, but a 10-year transformation is hard to foresee given the incredibly small base from which solar is growing ... and the long timeline for boosting geothermal generation, among other issues. An Energy Department review of geothermal sources last year said we might be able to generate as much electricity by 2050 that way as is now produced with nuclear plants. But currently nuclear generation is less than 20 percent of the national electricity pie. Sure, that might be accelerated, but 10 years?

 

A similar sentiment was echoed at DailyKos by Jerome a Paris, who received Gore's call more warmly than Revkin, but with still an eye of skepticism:

 

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a lot of sense economically.

 

Joseph Romm, the lead blogger of Climate Progress (who also blogs at Gristmill), delighted in Gore's ambitious "moonshot" goal, but added:

 

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. And I'm not certain all the money in the world can get us a substantial amount of "clean coal" (presumably coal with carbon capture and storage) in a decade. So all that speaks to adding another decade. Also, I don't know why we would want to shut down the combined cycle natural gas turbines, which is why I'd be more than happy to see this country with a 90% fossil-free grid in 2030.

 

Wholly in the Gore camp, Grassroots activist and HuffPo blogger Christine Pelosi considered the speech "a phenomenal call to service for a generation of Americans hungry for change."

 

And talk about strange bedfellows: Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr showed up in person for Gore's speech, as reported in the Austin American Statesman:

 

He called Gore's plan important for moving the country away from its dependence on foreign oil. He also criticized fellow candidates Barack Obama and John McCain for not showing up for the event, saying their absence showed "they don't really care about the issue."

 

Speaking of Obama, the Democratic hopeful stopped short of completely supporting Gore's call:

 

I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as President.

 

Rep. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the influential member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, was much more excited by Gore's call to action:

 

Congress must take this clarion call from our nation's climate sage and act, swiftly and fairly. Climate legislation can grow our economy, assist low and middle income families and workers, and transition us to a stable, clean energy future, but we are running out of time.

 

However, as the Hill reported in a preview piece to Gore's speech, some of Markey's colleagues diverged over the timing of the speech:

 

"It depends on how it's presented," said Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who emphasized he did not want to "pre-empt" Gore's speech by telling him what to say.

 

"I think the American public will be much more receptive to arguments about climate change when gas prices aren't so critical," said Rep. Zack Space, a freshman Democrat who represents a mostly rural district in Ohio.

 

In other lackluster reactions to the Goracle, the Wall Street Journal's blog Environmental Capital also considered the timing in poor taste with respect to the toll gas prices are taking on Americans' wallets:

 

Don't look now, but with gasoline approaching $5 a gallon, even many Californians are coming around to the idea of offshore drilling, the WSJ reports today.

 

But the WSJ blog did praise Gore's recognition of a much-needed new transmission grid as well as Texas' efforts to expand its own grid.

 

And speaking of Texas, one would expect T. Boone Pickens -- the oil billionaire who found wind -- to be a natural cheerleader for Gore's effort. But some habits die hard, and Pickens the longtime supporter of conservative causes came out blasting at the former veep:

 

We import 70% of our oil and that number is growing larger every year. Vice President Gore's plan does not address this enormous problem, it is clear that he and I have two different objectives and our plans should be viewed with that in mind."

 

However, Boone's criticism rang hollow considering that if the United States moved forward with Gore's call for total renewable energy, oil imports would be implicitly reduced. Boone did take issue with Gore's reliance on a carbon tax to fund this change to total renewable energy and the scant mention of the role of private investment. "The Federal Government should provide the leadership to clear the way for action and private enterprise should build the infrastructure to get it done."

 

For the most part, there was a remarkable absence of conservatives in the online reax to Gore's speech (at least here in the early running). Town Hall, RedState, Michelle Malkin and other mainstays of the Right's blogosphere of note were quite subdued or silent post Gore's big day. Even Newt Gingrich who has made the airwaves frequently as of late with his petition to drill offshore had little to say on Gore's moony vision.

 

The exception was Planet Gore on the National Review Online. Iain Murray couldn't resist noting Gore's choice of transportation to and from the speech:

 

Of course, we saw plenty of hypocrisy -- especially the fact that Gore didn't ride his bike or take public transporation to the event. He didn't even take his Prius! Instead, he brought a fleet of two Lincoln Town Cars and a Chevy Suburban SUV! Even worse, the driver of the Town Car that eventually whisked away Gore's wife and daughter left the engine idling and the AC cranking for 20 minutes before they finally left!

 

Ed Frank, blogger for Americans for Prosperity, echoed Murray's thoughts as well as posted a video regarding his aforementioned transportation tackiness and Gore's carbon tax. The video claims Gore's plan would bump gas up to $8 per gallon.

 

Kevin Williamson, who writes the Media Blog on National Review, challenged Gore on the hyperbolic tone of his speech:

 

The future of human civilization is at stake ... if we don't conform to Mr. Gore's preferences as to how we produce electricity. No, it probably isn't. Is anybody keeping score on this? Al Gore and his minions have become the contemporary equivalent of that guy walking around with a sandwich-board reading "The End Is Near." How near? Anybody want to put any money on Al Gore's ability to call the date?

 

Taking offense at the New York Times' unquestioning reportage of Gore's urgent tone, Williamson asked whether Dan Quayle would have received the same acceptance had he delivered such a hyperbolic climate address.

 

That depends. Would there have been a spelling contest?

[Balta1701]

Just for the fun of it...I'm going to point out that the Gristmill article you used is a wonderful example of what we call "quote-mining"...taking a quote out of context in order to prove a point. Here's an example:

A similar sentiment was echoed at DailyKos by Jerome a Paris, who received Gore's call more warmly than Revkin, but with still an eye of skepticism:

 

The short answer is: while 100% is probably unrealistic, it's not unreasonable to expect to be able to get pretty close to that number (say, in the 50-90% range) in that timeframe, and it is very likely that it makes a lot of sense economically.

 

Now...the problem is...he wasn't talking about 100% renewable. He was talking about specifically 100% wind power...saying nothing about solar. He used natural gas fired furnaces to fill in the rest in his analysis, but he specifically notes in his article that he was writing only about wind energy, not about solar, not about nuclear, etc. But hey, never let reality get in the way of a good thesis.

[NorthSideSox72]

OK, so here is the rare instance where I have to disagree with some environmentalists. There has been a groundswell, lately, of people wanting to try to save endangered species, by moving them. I can't find the article now, but someone was proposing an area of eastern AZ and western NM as a sort of 2nd African savannah, where they wanted to transplant a bunch of species that are being killed off overseas, to the US.

 

Now, I am strongly in favor of taking actions to save species that are endangered... in place (and for a lot of reasons - well beyond just wanting not to kill certain animals). I am also a proponent of reintroduction, as long as its into an ecosystem that the species in question was present in the recent past. But to take species and move them to an entirely different ecosystem to save them is, I think, dangerous and stupid. You try to save one species, but you put at risk every species in that ecosystem, including humans. Look at the record we've had of doing this sort of thing. Lake Michigan is a great example - the huge failures of programs ranging from alewifes to salmon, have created a situation that took a huge negative toll on the lake in many ways.

 

Better to try to protect ecosystems as they are, or as they recently were, then to try to introduce invaders.