Uncategorized

Super-battery idea wins X Prize competition for next green invention

From the people that brought you private space travel comes another ambitious techno challenge — a hyper-green battery that can store electrical energy in vast quantities, with super-quick recharging abilities and without environmentally harmful components. Today the X PRIZE Foundation announced the winner of its $25,000 YouTube contest to come up with the next “Crazy […]

Peter Barnes chats about cap-and-dividend

Here's Peter Barnes on video talking about his preferred solution to climate change: cap-and-dividend.

Much more on SolveClimate.

I understand the appeal of cap-and-dividend, not just practically but theoretically, as it establishes common ownership rights over the atmosphere. But I still have never heard convincing answers to my two biggest issues with it: one, that it will never pass, despite the evidence-free claims of its supporters that the public would rally around it, and two, that it would squander a major source of revenue that could be invested in clean energy and green infrastructure.

Energy density is not an immutable requirement

This article in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists makes an important point: no energy storage mechanism is ever likely to approach the energy density of hydrocarbons like oil and coal, certainly not at scale.

Part of the reason coal and oil are enemies of the human race is precisely that they are so seductive -- they really are fantastically designed energy carriers, with high energy density in easily portable packages. It will take incredible collective self-discipline to keep from using them up (and reaping the long-term consequences).

The conclusion, however, bugs the snot out of me:

'We're looking at a scenario where there's no more agriculture in California,' Part 2

Finally, we have a top administration official telling it like it is. Energy Secretary and Nobelist Steven Chu told a Los Angeles Times reporter:

In a worst case, Chu said, up to 90% of the Sierra snowpack could disappear, all but eliminating a natural storage system for water vital to agriculture.

"I don't think the American public has gripped in its gut what could happen," he said.

Precisely. [You can listen to an interview with the LAT reporter and me on To the Point here.]

We face desertification of perhaps a third of the earth that is "largely irreversible for 1,000 years" -- if homo sapiens are not sapiens enough to sharply and quickly reverse emissions trends. Part 1 looked at the canary-in-the-coal mine for desertification: "Australia faces collapse as climate change kicks in."

But the Southwest from Kansas and Oklahoma to California are right behind Australia, according to a 2007 Science ($ub. req'd) paper:

Here we show that there is a broad consensus among climate models that this region will dry in the 21st century and that the transition to a more arid climate should already be under way. If these models are correct, the levels of aridity of the recent multiyear drought or the Dust Bowl and the 1950s droughts will become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to decades.

[Note: That study "only" modeled the A1B emissions scenario, which leads to 720 ppm by 2100. We are currently on track to 1,000 ppm (see here).]

A December U.S. Geological Survey report also warned that the Southwest faces "permanent drying" by 2050.

Before the permanent drying -- aka a desert -- sets in, you'd expect to see more and longer record-breaking droughts. In fact, Lester Snow, director of California's Department of Water Resources said Friday:

Stephan Faris’ book is a grim reality check

The cover of the new climate change travelogue from journalist Stephan Faris makes it pretty clear his news will be grim. On the front cover of Forecast: The Consequences of Climate Change, from the Amazon to the Arctic, from Darfur to Napa Valley ($25, Henry Holt and Company), a lifeless desert floor extends to an […]

Finally the truth can be told!

According to Tim Lambert, this video briefly appeared on the Heritage conference site -- before the rocket scientists there discerned that it was parody. In their defense, I'm losing my ability to tell the real from the parody in the fever swamps as well. Like this, for instance. Apparently it's real.

Because we've always needed reasons to kill each other

Canada's public broadcaster, CBC, has just finished airing the three-part series Climate Wars, based on the Gwynne Dyer book of the same name. I haven't yet finished reading the book, but the thesis is easily summarized: If you thought that the effects of climate change only included withering droughts, torrential storms, and general freaky-deakiness, you've missed one of the big ones: anthropogenic mass death, or as the political scientists call it, "war."

Yup, on top of all the other things we'll have to worry about in a melting world, there's the sad fact that we'll have more and more reasons to kill each other over dwindling water and food supplies. When you consider that the 20th century was bloody enough as economic and industrial opportunities were expanding, the 21st century is looking mighty depressing if you believe that wars can start over resource scarcity.

You can download the podcasts of Parts I, II, and III of Climate Wars here, though I can't testify as to how long they'll stay up there. So give it a listen soon. And do check out the book -- like I said, haven't finished it, but it's excellent so far.

Win an eco-Valentine's Day package valued over $400

Subscribe to our weekly Seattle email -- a guide to the green scene in our hometown -- for your chance to win dinner for two at Stumbling Goat Bistro, an organic bouquet from TerraBella Flowers, the organic Aphrodisiac Collection from Theo Chocolate, and a private tour of the Theo Chocolate factory.

It's everything you need for the perfect green Valentine's Day ... except for an actual valentine, of course. (Good luck with that!)

Plus, by signing up for the Grist Local email, you'll learn about upcoming events, sustainable businesses in the area, and important political goings-on -- all zapped straight to your inbox every week. Each email also features an interactive event map, local green job listings, and news links that will keep you informed about eco-issues throughout the Puget Sound region.

Already a Grist Local subscriber? Invite a few friends to sign up, and you'll be entered, too.

The deadline is 3 p.m. next Tuesday, Feb. 10, so sign up now!

CO2 and the Clean Air Act

We are rapidly approaching national greenhouse gas legislation, either through a congressionally-led cap-and-trade bill or an EPA-led amendment to the Clean Air Act. However passed, these regulations will then immediately face a practical problem: how do you enforce a law that is in conflict with itself?

This problem arises because of the Clean Air Act's core failing: It compels businesses to increase their CO2 emissions. The moment we compel businesses to reduce those same emissions is the moment we expose this flaw and invite waves of litigation that will not only delay the implementation of CO2 policy, but also invite compromise and negotiation that will likely be forced to sacrifice some of the Act's environmental intent. How on earth did we get here? And what are we to do about it?

The clean air act mandates greenhouse gas pollution

Broadly characterized, the Clean Air Act does three things:

1. It sets limits on the concentration of regulated pollutants at regulated point sources;
2. It steadily tightens those limits over time, and;
3. It requires any new pollution sources to meet the most current (stringent) pollution standards.

By any measure, the act has done a commendable job of reducing non-CO2 air pollution. But it has unwittingly increased CO2 pollution as well.

Scientists find source of gregarious behavior (in grasshoppers)

This week's edition of Science has an interesting paper on the swarming behavior of desert locusts. It's initiated by high levels of serotonin. I'll wager E. O. Wilson is very excited about this.

From an informative article in the BBC News:

"Serotonin profoundly influences how we humans behave and interact," said co-author Dr Swidbert Ott, from Cambridge University.

"So to find that the same chemical is what causes a normally shy, antisocial insect to gang up in huge groups is amazing."

Indeed. Got me to wondering about other examples of swarming behavior. I'm thinking Super Bowl. Which got me to wondering about the Super Bowl ads mentioned by Kate Sheppard.

The Ecomagination ads made me smile. They made me feel good inside. Given the opportunity, I may find a way to thank GE for making me feel good. Drinkability made me laugh. I may subconsciously decide to buy a Bud Light the next time I'm at a bar just to rekindle that feeling.