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.

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.

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.

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?

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):

Not surprisingly, we don’t have a lot of years left with many of our favorite natural resources given current consumption rates. The chart presents both the rate of consumption for the U.S. (we’re #1! in a bad way) and for the world, based on an assumption that global consumption goes up to half that of the U.S. (with developing nations striving to match our standard of living, it’s not a bad assumption).

The takeaway here is not that we’re going to all of a sudden run out of Indium and stop making LCD monitors. Instead, this should remind us all that we need to drastically change the way we interact with natural resources over the next century if we want to maintain anything close to our current standard of living.

At the risk of politicizing an otherwise apolitical post, I’ll also add this: When you hear politicians tell you that we can’t do anything to change the way we produce energy or to increase the efficiency of everyday processes because it costs too much, ask yourself this: what’s the cost of doing nothing?

Looking at the map, I detected a subtle pattern. To flesh out my hypothesis, I drew a series of circles with a 500 mile radius. 5 of these circles fit nicely over the proposed high-speed rail corridors. 

The 500 mile radius is not arbitrary. This is the distance where air travel is more time efficient than ground based transportation. For airlines, flights less than 500 miles are generally unprofitable. 

To understand why, let’s compare two alternatives for travel between Minneapolis and Chicago : 

Air travel: 

1. Drive from your home to the airport. [Time : 30 minutes]
2. Check-in and navigate through security [Time : 30 minutes]
3. Wait at the gate [Time : 30 minutes]
4. Board plane and taxi to runway [Time : 20 minutes]
5. Fly to destination [Time : 90 minutes]
6. Land, taxi, and deplane [Time : 20 minutes]
7. Claim baggage and exit airport [Time : 20 minutes]
8. Drive to destination [Time : 30 minutes]

Total travel time : 4 hours 30 minutes

The above analysis is a best-case. Any delays in flights, traffic, baggage, etc. would add to the time.

High Speed Rail travel:

1. Taxicab to train station. [Time : 15 minutes]
2. Board train and wait for departure [Time : 15 minutes]
3. Travel to destination [Time : 3 hours 20 minutes]
4. Depart train and taxicab to destination [Time : 15 minutes]

Total travel time : 4 hours 5 minutes

How is it possible that rail travel is actually faster than flying? It’s all about the downtime. Air travel requires many steps along the way that don’t contribute to the primary goal of getting you to your destination.

• Driving to the airport – by necessity, airports are far from the city center. 
• Check-in/security – standing in line @ 0 mph 
• Waiting at the gate
• Taxiing
• All-too-ubiquitous delays

By contrast, a high-speed rail system takes you directly from city-center to city-center and minimizes wait time. Plus it’s cheaper and more energy efficient. Neat!

One of the common reasons people like personal automobiles (and especially SUVs) is the convenience of transporting stuff like groceries. Today was a warm day in Milwaukee so I decided to make a trip to the store with only my bike. Just how much could a bicycle with two medium panniers carry? Let’s find out: 

Here’s my ride all loaded down. It handles surprisingly well with a full load. 

Here’s a view to give some depth to the panniers.

And here’s the haul I was able to carry. Not bad if I do say so myself!

Mathematically, it’s perfectly reasonable. Using the measure of MPG, I can tell you exactly how many miles I can drive on a tank of gas, or how many gallons I’ll burn driving a certain number of miles. Unfortunately, the human brain isn’t a perfect computer and we often take shortcuts in calculations.

Consider the following graph:

This simple chart shows the relative MPG for four sample cars. Each car in the series gets 10 MPG better than the previous. Looking at this chart, you might conclude that the difference between Car A and Car B is equivalent to that of Cars C & D.

Surprisingly, you would be wrong.

Here is the same data but represented in Gallons per 100 Miles:

Looking at this graph, it’s immediately obvious that the difference between Cars A & B is far greater than Cars C & D. After driving 100 miles, Car A burns 2.6 gallons more than Car B; Car C burns only 0.6 gallons more than Car D. 

So why is this important? 

As high fuel prices and increasing environmental awareness push consumers towards more efficient automobiles, it’s important that we have an accurate comparison. If you drive a car that gets 20 MPG or less, upgrading to a car that gets 25-30MPG will have a significant impact on your fuel consumption. Far more, in fact, than upgrading a modestly efficient car to a super-efficient model. 

Hack your brain–next time you’re comparing cars, don’t look at MPGs. Convert to Gallons per 100 Miles (GP100) instead and make your comparison much easier. 

GP100 = 100 ÷ MPG

• American adults average 72 minutes a day behind the wheel of a car, according to the WorldWatch Institute. 
• That’s more than twice as much time as the average American father spends with their kids, according to the United States Department of Labor.
• It’s the equivalent, if you do the math, of just over one eight-hour workday a week or just under 11 40-hour work-weeks a year.
• According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 17 percent of the average American’s income goes on the costs of owning and running a car.
• That means, in other words, that we spend eight weeks of every year working to pay for our cars.
• Putting it all together, we Americans spend the equivalent of nearly five work-months a year either driving our cars or working to pay for them.
• And a lot of the time, reports the Texas Transportation Institute, we aren’t even getting anywhere, since we annually spend the equivalent of 105 million weeks of vacation sitting in traffic jams.
• Every ten minutes we spend commuting, according to Robert Putnam’s Bowling Alone, means 10 percent less connection with our friends and communities.
• Even if you don’t own a car, research also shows that the more traffic on our city street the fewer friends we have, because the traffic causes to spend less time hanging out in our neighborhood.
• You don’t need to own a car either to breathe the 70 to 80 percent of air pollution that automobiles and trucks contribute in New York, Los Angeles, and Dallas, according to the Environmental Defense Fund
• Meanwhile, studies show that the more a nation’s citizens commute by walking, biking and public transportation, the less obese they are.
• To top it all off, people who ride bikes or walk to work are 24 percent more likely to be happy with their commute than those who drive their cars.

Your thoughts?