Uncategorized
All Stories
-
Carbon sequestration smells fishy.
In the midst of the recent climate pledging lovefest, it's easy to lose sight of the unhappy truth that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have already reached levels that effectively guarantee us at least several decades of global warming. While the Kyoto Protocol is worthwhile--to reduce global emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels--it is only a small first step toward putting brakes on climate change. To do that, scientists estimate that worldwide emissions must be reduced by at least 60 to 70 percent.
Needless to say, achieving those levels of reductions will be a something of a challenge. We'll need to consume less, become more efficient, and develop alternative energy sources. We'll also need to figure out ways to capture greenhouse gas emissions--principally carbon--and prevent them from concentrating in the atmosphere and contributing to warming. The most talked-about way to do this is using carbon "sinks" such as forests and grasslands, which essentially soak up carbon by trapping it in living biological material.
Another possibility--one that is thick with possibility and contradiction--is sequestering carbon manually. The BBC reports on pioneering technology that the United Kingdom is exploring that will capture up to 85 percent of power-plant emissions and then trap them under the North Sea in geologic formations that were once occupied by petroleum or natural gas. Sounds good, right?
-
The powers that be fear renewable energy, as it threatens their mechanisms of control.
There's a point about renewable energy that's been rattling around in my head for a while. Now one of our dear readers has gone and made it in comments, so let me take a whack at it here, drawing on what he said.
Imagine this: A (small-d) democratic, open-source, modular energy grid that accepts and distributes power from any source. Some regions or towns generate power with solar installations, some with wind turbines, some with hydropower, some with tide or wave power, and most with some combination of sources. The energy grid is a piece of federal infrastructure; access to it is a guaranteed public good.
This is, I think, the kind of energy grid most greens would like to see, and the kind they ultimately have in mind when they advocate for clean energy. (The details -- and they are legion -- will have to be hashed out, obviously.)
Now, consider a few characteristics of that system:
-
He will oppose renewable targets and climate-change measures.
A story today in the Wall Street Journal (which, sadly, you can't see without a paid subscription), digs into an Office of Management and Budget report on the energy legislation pending before the Senate. Here's the relevant bit:
The OMB said the president will oppose an amendment that would require utilities to produce 10% of their power from solar, wind and other renewable sources by 2020.
The White House budget experts said the administration "is not convinced of the need" for several pending amendments that propose different ways to restrict the nation's industrial output of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases." The president will oppose "any climate change amendments that are inconsistent with the president's climate change strategy," which remains centered on voluntary emissions-reduction efforts, the OMB said.In case you wondered where the White House stood ...
Would Bush veto a bill just because it contained renewable targets or CO2 caps? I doubt it -- he's been begging for an energy bill for years, and scuttling it in such a transparent sop to his fossil-contributors would be politically ugly.
But we'll likely never find out. If anything sinks the bill, it will be the MTBE liability shield that the House (read: Tom Delay) is so hot for.
-
Umbra on joining your first environmental organization
Dear Umbra, I am new to the environmental world, and looking for ways to help and organizations to join. It took me a while to find Greenpeace. I am wondering what other organizations are out there, and my friends (and I’m sure other Grist readers) would also like to know. Ayla Pinus elliottii var. densaNaples, […]
-
San Francisco takes the first step
San Francisco, or as I like to call it, number one, is already sinking its teeth into the Accords. City officials must have gotten an early copy, or taken a look at the wiki used to draft them before they were finalized, since the SF Examiner article reporting that officials will consider making green purchasing a reality for the city is dated May 30, before the Accords were finalized. Nevertheless, SF will be well on their way to knocking out Accord number five with this step.
While both the Examiner and Treehugger categorize the action as falling under the "precautionary principle," I don't know that I would do the same. From what I could gather the things to be eliminated from purchases are already known to be problems. San Francisco did adopt the principle in 2003.
On another note, how cool is it that there was a wiki for the Accords?
(Thanks to TH for the link!)
-
Urban musings.
One of of the things that always fascinates me about cities is how much personality people attribute to them. I have been told, on good authority, that before transportation got so fast and efficient, there used to be distinctive accents for every major city, not just New York or Boston, but places like St. Louis or Cleveland or Chicago or Pittsburgh. Cities take on so many characteristics of humans that it's sometimes hard not to think of them as living, breathing organisms.
On the other side of the coin, one of the most interesting challenges urban planners face is getting a diverse age range in the population of a city. So many times I have heard, "boy I love New York City but I sure wouldn't want to raise a kid there."
"Now's the time, the time is now" ... to read more.
-
10 steps on global warming
Before I forget yet again (I'm the last guy on the blogospheric block to get to it): the Union of Concerned Scientists' Ten Steps to Reduce Your Global Warming Impact.
-
Tie fighters
Remember that story about how the Japanese government is urging businessfolk to dress down to save energy?
Apparently Japanese necktie makers don't appreciate it.
-
A salient point in the nuclear debate.
Marketplace decided to broach that touchy, touchy subject this morning, running a brief segment on the nuclear debate and the support it's been getting from some greens.
For the most part, it's your standard, run of the mill coverage: Some greens are reconsidering because of global warming; others aren't so keen.
However, there was one item that caught my attention. Southern Nuclear, which runs three plants in the South, is considering filing a site permit, the first step to a new reactor. The whole process will take about ten years before the reactor is operational, according to the report.
The report then jumps to an interesting corollary:
It's that timeline that forced some greens to reconsider nukes. They figure if it takes a decade to get a plant going, the debate better get started.
While I have no problem with the debate getting started, I see the lag time as a huge strike against nuclear. Professor Martin Parry, the IPCC scientist, said on Talking Point that thirty, forty, fifty years down the line, it's reasonable to expect that we will have clean, low-emission technologies to meet the world's energy needs. Parry left it open as to whether nuclear would be included in these technologies (he listed nuclear, clean coal, and renewables).My point is that when we don't plan to build a reactor this year, we are ensuring that no new reactors will be built for the next ten years. By the time a reactor gets online, the other available technologies will be that much better, and we might say hey, maybe we don't really want to have to deal with all the costs of nuclear when we've got renewables to beat it. Reading sites like Treehugger and WorldChanging makes me more optimistic every day that the day is coming fast when those who choose to do so can easily live an emissions- and isotope-free life.
We might regret settling for a single with a compromise on nuclear when we won't see benefits until after we've already hit the grand slam and found really clean alternatives. Sorry, it's baseball season.
Update [2005-6-14 16:10:2 by Dave Roberts]: Sorry to butt in on Andy's post here -- hi Andy! -- but Jim Harding and Denis Hayes just published an op-ed in the Seattle P-I that makes exactly the same point:
Changes in electric market structure -- generally termed deregulation -- have only added to the risks that utilities and investors must consider. In a deregulated market, there is no certainty that costs incurred will be recovered. Even in fully regulated markets, utilities must consider the possibility that any number of technologies -- fuel cells, photovoltaics, coal with carbon sequestration, gas-fired combined cycles, geothermal, conservation or wind -- could undercut their investments long before the capital costs are recovered. Peter Bradford, former Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, argues that nuclear power is fundamentally incompatible with a deregulated industry, and he is probably right.
They also make a good point about proliferation. Check it out.
