The environment thread

[bmags]

you do not want to get me started on how columbia missouri used their bike grant. UGH

[Balta1701]

We are now not only behind China, but also effectively behind 10 or more other countries in funding renewable energy technology. I just cannot emphasize enough what a lost opportunity this is becoming.

 

There are just so many hundreds of billions of dollars being spent on economic stimuli of various kinds that are far less likely to get us ahead in the future, and have far less positive future impact in multiple ways... it just makes me ill.

Drill baby, Drill.

[kapkomet]

In New Jersey, its actually pretty poor. Theres a difference between mtn bike paths and acceptable paths for road bikes, and that makes its usefulness for me pretty limited.

 

 

Yea, I'd like to see the paved paths. That way I can cart along the kiddos.

[kapkomet]

you do not want to get me started on how columbia missouri used their bike grant. UGH

 

Skater' Die, dude?

 

What'd they do?

[bmags]

since technically one of the stipulations was you could use the money for fixing curbs, they used seemingly all the money on that. At least the majority. And then would just paint a stripe with like 7 inches of room on the major roads, where cars go 55 mph and in bad weather are awful. So no biker still rides on those roads, but the city saved itself money by fixing the curbs with grant money!!!!!!!

[Balta1701]

Report from DB looking at the developed world's efforts on developing renewable energy. The word they use to describe the U.S. is "Dismal", while they again praise China and Germany.

t is clear from all this proposed legislative action that governments are at last understanding that they are in a race to secure a leading position in the emerging global low-carbon economy. Countries with more TLC - transparency, longevity and certainty - in their policy frameworks will simply attract more investment and will build new industries, technologies and jobs faster. We are confident of this because it's already happening in countries such as Germany and China.

 

As with any race, there will be winners and losers. Our report shows that the gap between competitors is widening. But the overwhelming majority of that global 2 Gt improvement mentioned above comes from new policies announced by just two countries: China and Brazil. This is a strong indication of the ambition of these nations to take a lead in reducing carbon emissions, and is confirmation that they are working hard to pull ahead of the pack. Germany, meanwhile, is already well established as the leader. And in this report we also put the UK on watch for an upgrade in its risk rating because of proposed legislation on micro-generation feed-in tariffs.

 

In contrast, the US contribution to planned emission reductions has been dismal. Very little significant regulation is happening at a Federal level while Congress continues to argue over what should be done. Most of the activity in America is currently taking place state by state. We have long argued that the states must continue to press ahead with climate legislation but the effect on the US policy structure as a whole is inevitably patchy and inconsistent. While Congress stumbles, America continues to fall behind.

[StrangeSox]

Well, look on the bright side. Conservatives will eventually lose the arguing point of "but why bother if China won't do something?!"

 

[BigSqwert]

[mr_genius]

you do not want to get me started on how columbia missouri used their bike grant. UGH

 

http://www.besportier.com/archives/world%E...-didi-senft.jpg

 

was worth it, IMO

Edited March 29, 2010 by mr_genius

[Balta1701]

Good news everyone!

 

There has been a long-running diplomatic dispute between India and Bangledesh about ownership of a small island just off of their coast.

 

Thanks to rising sea levels...the island no longer exists!

[NorthSideSox72]

Good news everyone!

 

There has been a long-running diplomatic dispute between India and Bangledesh about ownership of a small island just off of their coast.

 

Thanks to rising sea levels...the island no longer exists!

Something seems off here. Why would sea levels change more in the Bay of Bengal, than in the rest of the ocean or oceans? They should all level out over time. Isn't it much more likely the islands are sinking, than the sea is ONLY rising in the Bay of Bengal at that rate?

 

[Balta1701]

Something seems off here. Why would sea levels change more in the Bay of Bengal, than in the rest of the ocean or oceans? They should all level out over time. Isn't it much more likely the islands are sinking, than the sea is ONLY rising in the Bay of Bengal at that rate?

No, because there are other effects that can localize sea level changes. In this case, the Bay is warming particularly fast, so localized thermal changes are likely driving it.

[StrangeSox]

No, because there are other effects that can localize sea level changes. In this case, the Bay is warming particularly fast, so localized thermal changes are likely driving it.

 

In other words, when I pour a gallon of water into the ocean, the sea level doesn't instantaneously equalize that change around the world, right?

[Balta1701]

In other words, when I pour a gallon of water into the ocean, the sea level doesn't instantaneously equalize that change around the world, right?

No. Especially if that water is fresh water at a different temperature than the ocean, such that the densities are different.

[mr_genius]

Good news everyone!

 

There has been a long-running diplomatic dispute between India and Bangledesh about ownership of a small island just off of their coast.

 

Thanks to rising sea levels...the island no longer exists!

 

India doesn't believe in global warming, so they probably don't care.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/i...rs-1817968.html

[Balta1701]

Nissan sets the price of its first all electric car, the Leaf, in dollars. $32,000. There's a $7500 tax credit to go with it.

[BigSqwert]

Obama all of a sudden a big fan of off shore drilling. Asshole.

[NorthSideSox72]

Obama all of a sudden a big fan of off shore drilling. Asshole.

Its not that he's a big fan. Its that he is willing to do that, and nuke power, in order to get more money for the real, sustainably energy projects he is primarily interested in. Its the only way to get anywhere with this, unfortunately.

 

[Balta1701]

Obama all of a sudden a big fan of off shore drilling. Asshole.

I wouldn't mind it...if I thought we were actually going to trade it for something useful, as opposed to trading it for nothing.

[NorthSideSox72]

I wouldn't mind it...if I thought we were actually going to trade it for something useful, as opposed to trading it for nothing.

Won't happen. Obama is doing here what he tried to do on health care - offering olive branches to the GOP. If they burn the branch in his hand like they did on health care, then he won't give anything. This has been his approach thus far, and I don't think he'll change it.

 

Also, unlike the health care mess, I think you'll see some minor GOP support for alt energy, so this stuff will pass a lot easier.

 

[Balta1701]

Also, unlike the health care mess, I think you'll see some minor GOP support for alt energy, so this stuff will pass a lot easier.

:lolhitting

 

Isn't tomorrow April first? You typed this post a day too early.

[NorthSideSox72]

:lolhitting

 

Isn't tomorrow April first? You typed this post a day too early.

November is coming. The GOP has already cemented the Party of No crowd by trying to block health care, but they also realize they ultimately failed. They can allow some members to sign onto an energy bill, if it includes offshore drilling and nuke power, and make it look like they can compromise, as well as tout to the Drill Baby Drill crowd. Its the winningest scenario available to them politically, so I'd be they take it.

 

[Balta1701]

so I'd be they take it.

I have a sudden urge to play cards with you.

[NorthSideSox72]

I have a sudden urge to play cards with you.

Next time you're in town, I'll be happy to take your money.

 

[BigSqwert]

With 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, the U.S. cannot drill its way to energy security -- Barack Obama on the campaign trail in 2008

 

 

The New York Times has an obligatory list of Good Things that Obama's expansion is supposed to accomplish:

The propo

s

al i

s

intended to reduce dependence on oil import

s

, generate revenue from the

s

ale of off

s

hore lea

s

e

s

and help win political

s

upport for comprehen

s

ive energy and climate legi

s

lation.

Will the proposal actually reduce dependence on oil imports? The new areas are said to contain two years' worth of recoverable oil, based on data that is 30 years old in some cases. (Recoverable oil is sketchier than proven oil.) Leases off the Virginia coast could begin as early as next year, but elsewhere "drilling would begin only after the completion of geologic studies, environmental impact statements, court challenges and public lease sales."

Will the proposal actually generate revenue from the sale of offshore leases? Again, the NYT responds: "Much of the oil and gas may not be recoverable at current prices and may be prohibitively expensive even if oil prices spike as they did in the summer of 2008."

 

Will this Bush-sized expansion really help with the climate bill? The NYTimes accurately notes that there's no guarantee it will sway Senators who favor oil, and it could cause a backlash.

 

Note that the drilling boundary is set between Delaware and New Jersey. Last week, ten Senators warned against a big expansion of offshore oil drilling. Along with both Oregon Senators and six New-Jersey-and-northward Senators, the letter was signed by Bill Nelson (D-FL) and Ted Kaufman (D-DE). Perhaps there's a blunt political calculus that Nelson and Kaufman will come around, or that the loss of their unimportant votes on a climate bill will be offset by gaining the prized votes of Murkowski, Landrieu, and other oil-slicked Senators. If so, that's a bizarre calculation (proverbs about birds in the hand come to mind).

 

Will the climate bill even be a climate bill? Even if the offshore drilling expansion causes 38 Republican Senators to swoon with adoration (Inhofe will hold out) and trip over each other rushing to vote on the Kerry-Graham-Lieberman bill supposed to be unveiled by Earth Day, it's time to face the facts. Oil drilling for minimizing carbon pollution is like f&cking for virginity, to be crass. Any bill that expands offshore drilling so much is no longer a climate bill. It's an energy bill without any environmental integrity. A climate bill would transition the United States away from fossil fuels. This decision keeps us addicted to those same fuels.

 

Are there any bright spots? A few obscured by the haze of pollution. Bristol Bay will become a permanent sanctuary, and the Pacific Ocean (Washington state-downward) is spared through 2017. The LA Times story emphasizes the long term nature of all this activity; the Atlantic and Arctic areas will be studied until 2013 at the earliest. And there will still be a period of months to ignore consider public comments.

 

via

Edited March 31, 2010 by BigSqwert