Uncategorized

Mallaby v. Samuelson

Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby smacks down his fellow pundit Robert Samuelson's defeatist column on global warming.

These days almost nobody asserts that global warming isn't happening. Instead, we are confronted with a new lie: that we can respond to climate change without taxing and regulating carbon.

Coal gasification

A story in a West Virginia newspaper slobbers over coal gasification -- almost like the reporter got all her information from the industry. In West Virginia! Lawsy me. Needless to say, carbon dioxide isn't even mentioned.

A more sober assessment can be found in several posts on Daily Kos (if you can survive all the blogofascism!). Responding to Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer's NYT op-ed, Jerome a Paris asks him these questions. The Governor responded here. DarkSyde had this post about Schweitzer's 60 Minutes appearance. And finally, in response to an NYT feature on synfuel, Schweitzer wrote this post.

Enough homework for you?

Schweitzer's a smart, serious guy; of course it's no secret that he's advancing Montana's interests, but he's clearly no mere shill for the coal industry. And he's explicit that gasification is not a long-term solution, but merely a bridge:

So coal-to-diesel, in my mind, is a piece of a larger national plan that 1) takes us through the next several decades to the hydrogen economy, 2) includes a heavy dose of biofuels and other renewables, 3) breaks oil dependence in the short term, and 4) provides a boost for technology that will help us combat global warming.

Having read a good bit about all this, my skepticism has not been overcome. Here are what I see as the big limitations on gasification/sequestration:

Aspen and E.O.

Excellent post over at Joel Makower's about the Aspen Ideas Festival, with specific emphasis on E.O. Wilson, whom, by the way, I'll be interviewing in October. So start thinking of questions.

The Supreme Court’s carbon-dioxide case

In October, the Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments in a case of extraordinary significance: whether or not the feds can regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. While enviros (and a dozen states) have been trying to push the case to SCOTUS for a while, they are nonetheless nervous. The court has been substantially made over with the recent additions of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, but nobody's entirely sure how exactly it's changed. Muddled decisions like the recent one on the Clean Water Act do not portend victory, or even clarity. (More on this from Carl Pope.)

Two questions are at issue. Quoting from the appeal (PDF):

1. Whether the EPA Administrator may decline to issue emission standards for motor vehicles based on policy considerations not enumerated in section 202(a)(1).
2. Whether the EPA Administrator has authority to regulate carbon dioxide and other air pollutants associated with climate change under section 202(a)(1).

In other words, can the EPA regulate CO2, and if it can, is it required to. That's simple enough, but I've not seen much in-depth analysis of what the ramifications various rulings might be. In the unlikely event the court rules that the EPA has the authority to regulate CO2, and must use that authority, it would be epochal. But what about various splits?

Tipping points

RealClimate has a great post up on climate "tipping points," a notion that has been used and abused with great frequency lately by laymen and journalists -- including yours truly. It goes into detail picking apart positive feedbacks, tipping points, and points of no return.

The most valuable bit for me was clarifying what James Hansen has in mind when he says that we have ten years to fundamentally change course:

U.K. conservatives and global warming

As google-using cheater tfahrner revealed below, the long excerpt in this post comes from a speech yesterday by U.K. Tory leader David Cameron. If you haven't yet, give it a read.

I couldn't believe it. If a U.S. politician gave this speech ... well, they'd be a Democrat, and the media would ignore it, and I'd probably never hear about it. But if I did, I'd faint. I can't really find a single thing to criticize. The focus on energy decentralization leaves me woozy. The refusal to give nuclear special dispensation makes me swoon. I mean, damn.

Of course, I don't know all that much about U.K. politics. Cameron could be a total gasbag for all I know. This could be an all-bark-no-bite kind of thing. And of course conservatives are out of power there and don't have the capacity to do much even if they wanted.

But the point -- as made at length by Mark Hertsgaard -- is that Britain's conservative party now recognizes concerted action on climate change is non-negotiable. Without it, the party is doomed:

Hell comes to frogtown

A new report from leading conservation experts suggests that a third of all amphibian species are at risk, and calls for an urgent rescue to save frogs, newts, and other amphibians from extinction. Disease, habitat loss, and climate change are the major culprits -- amphibians are "delicate sentinels of environmental change." But frogs must carry some of the blame themselves. Frog celebrities have been poor role models: Mr. Toad's reckless driving and compulsive behavior have led some to call his life a "wild ride," and Kermit the Frog's heroin thin physique has raised suspicions of anorexia and drug use. While the Amphibian Survival Alliance is doing its best to aid the crisis, I offer a few survival tips for our frog friends:

Food vs. fuel

Interesting: "Shell Says Biofuels From Food Crops 'Morally Inappropriate'"

(via EB)

What does it mean to say global warming is ‘natural’?

It has recently come to my attention that there's some difference of opinion on exactly what climate skeptics mean when they say that global warming is "part of a natural cycle," or more simply, "natural," as opposed to anthropogenic.

My assumption has always been as follows: The amount of CO2 produced by human activity is trivial as a climate forcing. It's not causing the rise in global average temperature. The rise in global average temperature is simply part of a swinging between hot and cold that happens over centuries, and will happen no matter what we do. (Alternatively, recent warming is caused by an increase in solar radiation.)

The main practical outcome of the view that global warming is "natural" is that we can't do anything about it (except adapt). I think that's the whole point. But apparently not everyone agrees.

Does that jibe with what y'all think? Or are there other interpretations?

Evolution and global warming: satan’s satanic satanism

Via Tim Lambert, Panda's Thumb brings word of creationists joining the fight against, um, reality (in the form of global warming):