At the annual winter meeting of the National Governors Association, which concluded Monday, state leaders revisited a previously launched initiative called “Securing a Clean Energy Future” — and struggled with the reality that “clean energy” has very different meanings to different states. “Clean coal,” in particular, was boosted by coal states and eyed with skepticism by others. In trying to hammer out energy recommendations for a new president, “We’re almost 50 different opinions,” lamented Alabama Gov. Bob Riley (R). Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer (D) agreed: “[Coal] has a CO2 problem, wind has a reliability problem, solar has a price problem, …
“This idea of clean, green energy is no longer a tie-dyed T-shirt kind of idea. This is mainstream economics.” – Gov. Ted Strickland of Ohio
Will reducing or stopping carbon dioxide emissions stop global warming? Not according to the IPCC. The Fourth Assessment FAQ, section 10.3, notes that "complete elimination of CO2 emissions is estimated to lead to a slow decrease in atmospheric CO2 of about 40 ppm over the 21st century." By going cold turkey on fossil fuels, we only get down to about 1985 levels in 92 years. The oceans will continue to heat up. In other words, we might as well try to drive a big wood screw into hard oak with a hammer. Yet the belief that reducing carbon dioxide emissions will have some leverage on the problem is widespread. To examine our beliefs, which are often hidden from us, I offer two solutions to global warming. Both will likely work, but they are very different. 1. The Earth Bag. Many elaborate and expensive geoengineering proposals have been made, but here is the most practical. The earth's overall temperature depends in part on albedo, or reflectivity to solar radiation. Change this by a few percent, and we change the climate. We manufacture 5 trillion plastic bags each year. All we need to do is to make them all white and bright, and get them into the dark tropical oceans, where they will reflect huge amounts of solar radiation back into space.
Like a virgin, the world’s first biofuel-powered plane flew for the very first time from London to Amsterdam on Sunday. (Well, it was a little bit biofueled: One of the plane’s four main tanks was filled 20 percent with coconut and babassu palm nut oil.) Virgin mogul Richard Branson celebrated his conquest, and deflected concerns about biofuels’ bad rep by pointing out that the nuts were sustainably harvested. However, he admitted that the experiment was unrepeatable on a large scale. Environmental activists were left unsatisfied, dismissing the flight as a publicity stunt.
In the realm of art, no interpretation of a work can be final, but intriguing hints from no less than writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson suggest that the stunning movie There Will Be Blood is actually a story not about the rise and fall of a man so much as the rise and fall of a commodity: oil. Of course, even the intentions of the creators -- and in the case of There Will Be Blood, that means principally writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson, star Daniel Day-Lewis, cinematographer Robert Elswit, and composer Jonny Greenwood -- don't necessarily prove anything. (After all, Anderson revealed in one interview that he "had no idea what we were doing" until he heard Greenwood's revelatory score.) But consider what Anderson said in an interview bout the movie with Terry Gross: We all know what has happened with oil, don't we? We all know the end of the story. It's a bit like Titanic, we all know the boat sinks. The fun of the story is watching how we get there. Or what he said in an interview with Charlie Rose, in reference to the oil industry's recent fortunes: I haven't been living in a bubble for the last six years. Or what the great music critic Alex Ross said of the score in The New Yorker: Greenwood, too, writes the music of an injured Earth; if the smeared string glissandos on the soundtrack suggest liquid welling up from underground, the accompanying dissonances communicate a kind of interior, inanimate pain. The cellos cry out most wrenchingly when Plainview scratches his name on a claim, preparing to bleed the land. Too literal an interpretation of what Anderson described to Charlie Rose as "a great boxing match" between the two of the most powerful forces in recent American history -- evangelical religion and the oil industry -- would be pointless. But when it comes to the controversial ending, we have to consider the possibility that this story is not about an individual, or even an industry. We have no choice, really, because it's only in this context that the finale makes sense. ***SPOILER ALERT*** For those who have seen the movie, or who have no intention seeing the movie but still want to consider the idea, please read on.
When last we checked in on the world’s commercial fish stocks, they were in danger of collapsing within decades. And, sorry to say, they still are, according to a United Nations Environment Program report ominously titled “In Dead Water.” Factor in climate change, overfishing, and pollution “and you see you’re potentially putting a death nail in the coffin of world fisheries,” says UNEP head Achim Steiner. To give a sense of the scale (ho ho) of the problem, our finned friends are the main protein source for some 2.6 billion people.
I've been getting a lot of questions about this: "Solar panels a 'loser,' professor says." Severin Borenstein is an economics professor at UC Berkeley. He did an analysis of California's solar program and found that if you compare the current cost of distributed generation solar PV, which delivers retail power, with the wholesale power cost of a gas peaker running on pre-Katrina natural gas prices -- and leave global warming and environmental benefits out of the equation -- then solar "isn't cost effective." Quick, someone call the Nobel Committee. We can argue about faulty assumptions and apples-to-oranges comparisons, but that would continue to miss the forest for the trees. The point of the California Solar Initiative, and other solar programs, is not to deliver the cheapest kWh amongst all possible kWhs in year one. It's about market transformation. The entire premise of the program is to take an expensive but useful technology and make it cheap. A great historical analogy is the commercial development of the integrated circuit, as described by Denis Hayes in this 2001 report (PDF) for the Energy Foundation:
Via ThinkProgress comes this segment on NBC Nightly News: Obviously I am totally unable to judge these things with any sort of objectivity. All I see is a huge, wealthy, politically connected industry using propaganda techniques to push a dirty facility on a community that is so poor and desperate that it’s willing to sell its children’s health for a short-term economic boost. Naturally NBC’s not going to say that. Still, they do a fairly decent job putting the relevant facts up front, though they did focus too much on CO2 — which won’t harm the immediate community — and …
I see no point whatsoever in passing a climate bill this year that includes a safety valve. I have blogged on this before, but it bears repeating as we appear to be getting to the endgame negotiations in the Senate on the Lieberman-Warner bill. Bottom line: If you want to get a 60% to 80% greenhouse gas cut in four decades, you just can't waste time with safety valves. We need to get to a price of $30 to $40 a ton for carbon dioxide as soon as possible -- and if it needs to go higher than that because conservatives block the progressives and moderates from legislating aggressive technology deployment strategies that would keep costs low, well, as the saying goes, "We'll burn that bridge when we come to it." If you just want to pass a bill that makes it seem like you're doing something while in fact doing little, then go for it! But surely a year's delay (waiting for a somewhat wiser Congress and an infinitely wiser president) is better than a pointless bill. In an article titled "Sponsors of Senate emissions bill seek compromise on cost provisions," Greenwire (subs. req'd) reports: