Uncategorized

Global warming probably won’t do the job.

Roger Pielke, Jr. makes a good point over on Prometheus today about the way the debate over energy policy is being framed. He says:

The energy policy debate over climate change has largely been framed as an issue of managing the global climate for long-term benefits with the extra benefits of reducing dependence on foreign oil, increased efficiency and decreased particulate pollution.

He suggests that advocates of a sane energy policy would be well advised to reverse this order, to sell their ideas "in terms of a primary need to reduce dependence on foreign oil, increased efficiency and decreased particulate pollution," with "the resulting side benefit of reducing the impacts of humans on the climate system."

I too have my doubts that global warming will ever serve as an effective driver for public action. Even if the faux debate went away and everybody acknowledged the reality, it's just too abstract and far away, the benefits too intangible. Yes, the ice caps are melting (etc.), but we're talking about making a major shift in the way we live in order to ... what? ... slow but not stop the rise in greenhouse gases so as to avoid the worst impacts of climate change in 100 years? It's just not something that's going to get people in the streets. In a perfect world, maybe, but ours is not that.

What will get people fired up? Security and money. Money and security.

Let’s put energy sources on a level playing field and let them duke it out, nuclear included.

(I'm not sure "agnosticism" is really the right word here, but this is the "blogosphere" where you're supposed to generate "buzzwords" that are "viral," so what the hell, I'll give it a whirl.)

The nuclear debate continues. This Felicity Barringer piece in the NYT -- about a few high-profile green defections on the subject of nuclear power -- kicked off a new round of back-and-forth. (See also this piece about the resurgence of the nuke industry in the UK.)

Let me just rip off this intro bit from a post at Corpus Callosum:

There has been a fair amount of blogbuzz lately, about the subject of nuclear power: not the type of power that comes from having really big bombs, but the type of power that is used to generate electricity.  There are posts on the subject at Crooked Timber, Tapped, Mark A. R. Kleinman, Washington Monthly, and Brad DeLong's Semi-Daily Journal.

All the posts he cites are worth reading, many with good discussions in the comments.

The position I'm coming around to is hinted at in this post by Nathan Newman, and echoed in this John Tierney column (which marks the first and likely last point of agreement between me and Tierney). It is twofold:

Military fails to get exemptions from enviro laws — this time.

Carl Pope discusses some "outbreaks of enlightenment" in Washington, D.C. Check 'em out.

Of particular note is the fact that Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John Warner (R-Va.) refused to insert language in the Defense Authorization bill that would have exempted the Defense Department from several environmental laws. The Pentagon has been after Congress for such exemptions for years, with mixed success. (We've reported on it many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many times. We've also reported many, many, many, many, many, many times on the Pentagon's various environmental sins.)

Every time, the DoD talks vaguely of how "training" and "readiness" might be threatened. And never -- never once -- has it been able to cite an example wherein actual training or actual readiness was impacted, at all, by environmental compliance. It's about a) the money, and perhaps even more so, b) Donald Rumsfeld's umbrage at the thought that a bunch of commie treehuggers can tell him what to do.

Will the Three Laws of Robotics be enough?

It's bad enough that we consume too much. Now we've gone ahead and created other beings who have the potential to do the same: robots. That's right, I give you the self-replicating robot.

Whether you like it or not, robots are going to be produced. So, you can either fight it or help ensure that they will have as little impact on the environment as possible. I'll go with the latter.

Robots are slowly being integrated into our lives. They regularly appear in movies, on television and in books. They clean our floors, entertain our children, diffuse bombs and explore distant planets. Some are even modeled after their makers, acting as greeters and guides. In the future, robots may assist humans with special needs, or perform duties dangerous or undesirable to us. In short, as depicted in the movie I, Robot, robots could eventually become as pervasive as the automobile. While this future is most likely far off, current events dictate that we act now.

Now I have to admit, watching the online video of these simplistic little buggers replicating themselves is cool. But, as I watch, I become concerned. Not only should one ask What resources will humans use to create an abundance of advanced robots in the first place?, but also, How will these robots go about reproducing on their own? Will they be dependent on humans to "feed" them the ingredients necessary for replication or will they be autonomous in this respect? I mean, will they start creating their own robot factories? You can see where I'm going with this ... robots and humans -- along with the rest of Earth's species -- competing for already depleted resources.

So, the question is: What set of guiding principles do we hard-code into robots now so they're most likely included in robots produced in the future? To put it another way, do we want the Terminator or the likes of the machines in The Matrix? Or do we want Data, 3-CPO and Marvin? I thought so.

Where Have All the Wildflowers Gone?

Decline of wildflowers in forests worries scientists Sprawling housing developments, hungry deer, invasive plants, and other threats have sent many forest wildflower species in the U.S. into decline. Scientists say there are limited studies and surveys available on the delicate flowering plants, known as spring ephemerals, because they are only visible above ground for a […]

A study says the world’s wind alone could meet its energy needs; the Senate disagrees.

A new study by some smart scientists at Stanford University suggests that global wind resources are good enough to produce 72 terawatts of electricity with current turbine technology. That's about 40 times the amount of electricity the world used in the year 2000!

In other hot air news, Sen. Domenici (R-NM), chairman of the Senate Energy committee, described Sen. Wyden's (D-OR) proposal of funding parity for coal and renewables as a "joke" during the energy bill markup today.

Question to Stanford scientists: How much electricity could the collective sighs of sustainable energy supporters produce?  

A mug’s game

Ah, this is too good. A mug bearing a map of the world that, when filled with hot liquid, shows the effects of global warming.

Why isn't there more stuff like this?

(Via Jeremy at WC)

New ads give recycling a smackdown

OK, I was watching bad TV last night, and this ad came on for Glad ForceFlex trash bags. Apparently these are very exciting trash bags because they stretch, which makes them better for bulky items. Such as, according to this chipper ad: cardboard boxes and two-liter soda bottles.

Glad! Have you heard of a little thing called recycling? I know your success depends on people not recycling. But do you have to be such wankers about it? (In fairness, I should note that the company donated its stretchy bags for the Great American Cleanup. Which is noble and all. But sort of cancelled out by the "just chuck it!" campaign.)

Even though my letter to eBay didn't get a response, I'm going to continue my crusade and pen a note to the good folks at Glad about this one. (And not just because of Umbra's encouragement.) We'll see what happens.

Bush wants to ride his bicycle bicycle bicycle

Via Chris, a pointed column from Marc Fisher in the Post today makes the point that Bush's blithe bicycle rides through wilderness refuges are ironic in light of the fact that he's consistently cut funding for them. Do you think he sees the disconnect? As with so many questions regarding this administration's environmental policies, it's hard to decide which answer would be worse.

Is there tension between them?

I am an atheist.

I wouldn't call myself a "militant" atheist, as I don't consider being an atheist a big part of my life or my self-image. I don't believe there are furry three-eyed ghosts floating behind me at all times, but I don't get militant about that either. Why bother?

However, in these times we live in, there's a strange pressure to show extreme deference to religious proclamations, however expressed, no matter how absurd the content. Witness, for instance, the global media lovefest when the pope died, during which I read a quote from a bishop who said, "papal infallibility doesn't mean you get it right every time." Oh? Gosh, that sounds kinda dumb to me. But I'm not allowed to say so.

I'm allowed to say that I have a "difference of values" with far-right religious folks about homosexuality, but I'm not allowed to say that finding justification for discrimination in a millennia-old Jewish holy book is %$@#! stupid and irrational.

But whatever. Most of the time, I can live with this -- I reside in a secularist blue-state bubble anyway, and I figure the current wave of backwards medieval religious sentiment will pass in due time. Live and let live, I say.

But Richard Dawkins, author of celebrated evolution masterwork The Selfish Gene, does not share my attitude. He shows no deference and hedges no bets. This interview with Dawkins in Salon is, in that way, utterly refreshing. It reminds you how few people, despite the perpetual delusions of persecution on the part of modern-day right evangelicals, are willing to openly criticize the religious -- despite their complete lack of restraint in criticizing us atheists.

My point? Glad you asked. The one thing I would ding Dawkins for is this exchange: