Yes, along with those who deny that human action is the primary cause of this century's global warming, there are people who deny that the Beatles ever existed.  Their basic argument: There was never just one group of 4 individuals calling themselves “The Beatles” who rose to world stardom.There were multiples of each character performing as “John”, “Paul”, “George” and “Ringo”. Each part of the world appears to have had its own Beatles group, And even then, there were sometimes multiple characters within. They all looked identical to each other except for a few features here and there.But what was most …

Free marketeers and green-minded people tend to converge on a single belief -- that electronic goods such as Apple iPhones and iPads are inherently unsustainable. Making such goods is only possible, the story goes, because of the unbearable mistreatment of workers who make those products, and the extraction of raw materials under environmentally destructive conditions. Treat workers fairly, and extract rare earths and such in ways that don't degrade the ecology, and costs would explode -- your iPad would carry the price tag of a small car.

This argument is sometimes made by those who don't want to see anything done about the horrible treatment of workers in places like Foxconn in China, where nets have been placed to catch workers driven to attempting suicide by jumping from building windows and roofs. Sometimes it is made by those who think this whole technological civilization thing is a mistake. In both cases it is wrong.

Here is the truth: The single greatest cost component of both the iPhone and the iPad is neither labor nor materials, but profits.

Can biochar save us from climate change? We need more research to know for sure. (Photo by Visionshare.)

Many claims have been made over the years about biochar. It certainly sounds like something that can help save our asses from the climate crisis. Take some waste from thinning trees to prevent fires, or straw from growing wheat or rice, or any other high-carbon waste. Partially burn it without air to power cooking stoves or provide some other kind of energy. Bury the resulting charcoal in fields to store the carbon, and improve soil structure. Voila, biopower that on net takes carbon out of the atmosphere and turns some of it into fossil carbon that is permanently removed from the carbon cycle. In essence, it is supposed to be a form of carbon sequestration that is permanent today, and makes agriculture more sustainable besides. Suck it, global warming!

Unfortunately, this is completely unproven.

Miracle on 34th Street is the perfect Christmas movie for those who hate fake sentimentality. It is not that the classic 1947 film lacks schmaltz, but that a sly script hides a sharp edge under every schmear. Most of the plot advances come when characters, good and bad act out of self-interest. Two exceptions are "Kris Kringle" who is soon revealed to suffer from a delusion of being Santa Claus, and Sawyer, the evil psychologist who acts out of ego-driven malice and hurts other for no gain other than personal satisfaction. With those exceptions everyone has motives an economics 101 …

I recently stumbled upon some High Voltage Direct Current (HVDC) technology that seems promising to me for long distance transmission. It is not existing technology; it is a detailed proposal with no prototype and not even a computer simulation behind it. Nonetheless it looks like a less expensive and more environmentally friendly way to move large amounts of electricity over long distances -- well worth further exploration. The basic idea, elpipes, as developed by Roger Faulkner is to place HVDC lines inside insulated pipes, which can then be buried underground or placed just above ground rather than raised on transmission …

My last post was a reminder that the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM) remains a miserable failure. The evidence that it does not actually contribute to solving the climate crisis included data that showed that the overwhelming majority of offsets certificates issued and approved by the program are generated by scandal ridden projects, and are widely acknowledged as invalid. The same post also linked to a study from the World Bank, an offset pioneer, that acknowledges that most existing project based offsets are "non-additional" i.e. based on partially or totally false stories. That same post also provided quotes from leading authorities in …

Since there seems to be resurgence of attempts to defend the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) offset system, it seems time for a reminder of how badly the idea has failed. The fundamental idea behind CDM is that greenhouse gas polluters in rich nations could continue to release greenhouse gases, but pay polluters in poor nations to reduce emissions. The results, it was claimed, would be the same greenhouse gas reduction as the rich polluters could have achieved, but at a lower cost.  CDM works by having a polluter in a poor nation accept CDM money, then compares their actual situation …

A recent state sponsored study shows that California could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions 60% compared to 1990 by 2050 with today's technology(pdf).  That has sparked a debate.  The glass-half-full crowd, among whom I usually count myself would argue that if we have the technology today to achieve a 60% reduction, if we start implementing now, normal technological progress will take care of the rest. The glass half-empty crowd say that 60% means it is hopeless to do anything now, that we should wait for breakthroughs before doing anything. I find myself in the glass is 100% full crowd. Well, …

A  peer reviewed paper in the November 2011 issue of Nature/Climate, shows that, at least in the U.S., biofuel production from forestry results in higher carbon emissions than not producing biofuel in most cases. Even just increasing fire management, removing biomass that acts as tinder, will result in a net reduction in forest sequestration in most cases(behind paywall). According to the study Regional carbon dioxide implications of forest bioenergy production, in most cases the decreased fire rate does not make up for biomass removal. There are exceptions, forests that produce exceptionally high emissions when subject to fire, but these results …

Elisabeth Kwak-Hefferan, aka the Greenie Pig, is feeling guilty about her plane trip to a friend's wedding and decided to try to make up for it by rolling her own carbon offsets -- that is, skimping on car travel and other energy use to make up for all that jet fuel she helped burn. While I appreciate her avoiding offset schemes, I think rolling her own misses the point, and it makes her life harder than it needs to be. Elisabeth doesn't have much to feel guilty about, really. I guess instead of taking a plane, she should have taken …