Archive for the ‘energy’ Category
Don’t worry, Sarah’s got it under control
A lot of us have been growing increasingly concerned over the past few decades that our national energy policy has not kept up with technology and scientific advances. Well, worry no more. Sarah Palin, America’s favorite half-term governor, has the solution:
And in case you missed a part of that, here’s the full transcript:
And finally we should create a competitive climate for investment in renewables and alternatives that are economical and doable, and none of this snake oil science stuff that is based on this global warming, Gore-gate stuff that came down where there was revelation that the scientists, some of these scientists were some playing political games. I sued the Feds over this, I sued the Feds over this as Governor for some bogus listing on the ESA, just about got run out of town, of course, by the environmentalists, but now we feel a little bit vindicated because we’re realizing through Gore-gate that there was some snake oil science involved in the data collection there.
The great energy innovation that will replace conventional resources is just not here yet. But it will be some day, and until that day we need our domestic resources to meet our needs and that alternative, when it’s discovered it will be here and it will be Americans who find it. Americans will invent this next source.
Because we invented the modern oil well. We invented the telephone. We invented the airplance and the personal computer. We put a man on the moon. We invented the Internet, unless that was just another Gore-gate thing too.
But it is American ingenuity that made this country the envy of the world. We have the ingenuity and it will be Americans pioneering a new era in energy. We have the resources, we have the ingenuity, we have the best workers in the world. Now all we need is the policital will.
So, in other words, there’s nothing stopping us from achieving energy independence that a good old fashioned election can’t fix.
Filed under climate change, energy, politics : Comments (0) : Apr 11th, 2010
A plea for reason
In the U.S., the raging debate over climate change continues to devolve. Throughout the winter, skeptics repeatedly reminded us that it was cold out, disproving “global warming”. When severe snow storms battered the east coast, a Senator Inhofe (R-OK) built an igloo and labeled it “Al Gore’s new home”. The discovery that a 3000 page report contained a transposed digit (that created an order-of-magnitude error for the year in which the Himalayan glaciers would melt) drew accusations of scientific malfeasance.
Never mind that zero climate change models predict the disappearance of winter in the northern hemisphere any time soon.
Never mind that climate change models explicitly predict increased precipitation like we’ve seen all year.
Never mind that the handful of errors discovered within the thousands of published studies represent immaterial corrections to the underlying models.
We’ve completely lost the distinction between science and politics; reason and faith; logic and emotion. Given the catastrophic economic and environmental consequences predicted by climate change models, it’s terrifying that so many Americans are willing to dismiss it outright as a scam or conspiracy. We need a national plea for reason.
There are two explanations for how we got to this unfortunate position:
A) A world-wide group of nefarious characters (lead by Al Gore) have created the largest and most convincing conspiracy in world history to convince thousands of scientists and most political leaders throughout the world that climate change is real and a major problem.
B) The very powerful industry lobby for carbon-intensive companies and their representatives in congress are waging a successful disinformation campaign to create doubt and obfuscation among the American public about the validity of climate change science.
Which of these two seems more plausible?
One of these groups is backed by billions of dollars in resources, an army of lawyers, PR firms, lobbyists, and sympathetic politicians.
The other group is infamously inept at PR, has no unifying organization to speak of, and defers to the norms of scientific inquiry that errs on the side of caution when publishing results or predictions.
One of these groups has spent the better part of a century investing in technologies, infrastructure, and business models that will do not fit in the carbon-constrained world required to slow the effects of climate change.
The other group predicts a future in which we must radically change our technology, infrastructure, and human habitation models to fit a carbon-constrained world.
One of these groups appeals to the large swath of Americans who are falling behind due to a shifting global economy and see their standard of living stagnating or even decreasing.
The other group finds broad appeal internationally and strong support within the American upper-class who are educated and affluent enough to allow a graceful transition to a carbon-constrained world.
Only one explanation can survive a serious test of logic and reason; unfortunately the opponents of climate change don’t care much for either.
Filed under climate change, culture, economics, energy, politics : Comments (2) : Mar 20th, 2010
This one’s a little dark. You’ve been warned.
I’m amazed at how little attention is paid to climate change in the U.S. Sure, we talked about the Copenhagen summit for a news cycle, and we loved chirping about the dastardly U.K. scientists and their suspicious emails. But given the potential costs of climate change, it’s alarming how little attention it gets. Future historians will be utterly bewildered as they sift through the clues we leave behind and wonder how we so willingly brought collapse upon ourselves. We have completely failed at weighing the relative costs and benefits and have likely sealed our own fate.
Climate change critics generally start by [drastically] overstating the level of disagreement within the scientific community regarding the anthropogenic causes of climate change. I won’t waste much text here, but to be clear, there is no disagreement. Climate change is happening and humans are causing a large part of it; the only debate remaining is whether our share of the blame is 95% or 96%.
Once the seed of doubt is placed, the critics then scare us with dire predictions of a possible future. Dealing with climate change would require significant changes to the way we live, it would require significant investment in new infrastructure and technologies, and would alter the institutions we’ve been familiar with for the past century. Therefore, the theory goes, we should do nothing.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume there is a legitimate debate within the scientific community (remember, there’s not). I’ll even be so generous as to assume a 50/50 split. If that were the case, how should we respond?
The costs of unmitigated climate change are immense. The path we are on leads to massive population displacement, food shortages caused by flooding and draughts, accelerated species extinction, and (eventually) economic and civilization collapse. Yes, collapse.
What about the costs of attempting to stem the tide of climate change? These, too, would be large. The standard of living for developed nations would be altered forever. Air travel would no longer be available to the public. Nor would personal automobiles. Meat would be a luxury instead of a staple. Our cities and towns would contract and the massive suburban developments would transition back to agricultural land. The number of farmers would increase 10-fold (at least). Many industries would cease to exist and those that remained would look completely different. Our national wealth would have to go into buying things like wind turbines and solar panels instead of HDTVs and fancy cars. Make no mistake, life would be very very different. But we would have a real fighting chance at staving off the total collapse of our civilization.
When presented in these terms, is there really any question of which path to take? I’m so tired of hearing about the “energy tax” and the costs of transitioning to a carbon neutral energy mix. Money won’t buy you much if the global economy fractures under the strain of climate change.
[ . . . ]
Easter Island (the place with the giant stone heads) was once covered in thick forrest. Poor resource management and fanatical obsession with erecting the giant stone heads lead to 100% deforestation of the island. At some point, some one cut down the very last tree left standing. What do you suppose that felt like?
Soon, we all will know.
Filed under climate change, culture, economics, energy, politics : Comments (0) : Feb 27th, 2010
Minnesota takes aim at North Dakota
Minnesota (my beloved home state) has just fired a shot across their western border towards North Dakota. From Scientific American:
To encourage the switch to clean renewable energy Minnesota plans to add a carbon fee of between $4 and $34 per ton of carbon dioxide emissions to the cost of coal-fired electricity, to begin in 2012, to discourage the use of coal power; the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions.
To provide some context, North Dakota is a state with dwindling population and abundant cheap coal. There are a number of coal-fired power plants that export electricity across their borders to the more populated (and less coal-rich) Minnesota.
Continuing the article,
State officials in North Dakota are mounting a legal battle against Minnesota. State officials argue that this would unfairly discourage coal-powered electricity sales in favor of renewably powered electricity.
Really, North Dakota. No shit.
Fortunately for their state, North Dakota is also blessed with an abundance of wind resources. The same high voltage lines that carry dirty coal electricity could be used to export wind power instead.
There’s two ways they can play this:
1) Use the tariff as a direct financial incentive to agressively build wind farms and increase local employment
Or
2) Spend millions of tax dollars fighting the tariff in court and continue down the dead-end of coal power plants.
I wonder which path North Dakota will take?
Filed under climate change, economics, energy, environment, politics : Comments (2) : Jan 6th, 2010
Bike to Work Week 2009
Summer has more or less come to Milwaukee so it’s time to get back on the saddle : Bike to Work Week 2009 is here!
We had nice weather on all but 1 day this week, and I’m on track to ride to work 3 of 5 days. I find that I consistently overestimate the “hassle factor” of biking to work and I underestimate how great I feel after 30 minutes of moderately vigorous exercise in the morning.
Since the 2008 season, I’ve made some observations and modifications to my bicycling routine that helped a lot:
-
Dress the part – Bicycle shorts look silly but they really do help. Add a bicycling jersey or other top and you’ll notice the difference.
-
Get a rack – A rear rack and pair of panniers (or saddlebags) can comfortably carry a lot of gear. I used to use my Timbuk2 messenger bag and found that the strap would get uncomfortable. With the panniers, I have full range of motion and can carry my work clothes, computer/supplies, and a lunchbox.
-
Plan for flats – Ride long enough and you will get a flat. A spare tube, tire levers, and CO2 canister are very easy to pack in a small kit and will get you back on the road in no time.
-
Winter training helps – After blowing out my knees from marathon training, I switched to stationary bike for the winter. Remarkably, the work I put in during the off season translated to much faster/easier cycling on the real bike.
To keep myself honest, I’m tracking my commute for the rest of the year based on transportation mode. (Using my new favorite data collection + display tool DAYTUM):
Filed under Milwaukee, energy, work : Comments (1) : Jun 11th, 2009
