Latest Articles

They’re coming around

Everyone's excited about the Washington Post piece "Energy Firms Come to Terms With Climate Change," but I can't figure out what's new in it.

Restored bald eagles will kick them off Santa Cruz

The latest edition of the Nature Conservancy's quarterly magazine featured an article describing restoration efforts on Santa Cruz Island, sometimes referred to as The Galapagos of North America.

Bald eagles disappeared from the island in the 1960s. Just across the bay a chemical company had been making DDT and dumping it into waterways. A survey two decades later found a hundred tons of the stuff in local ocean sediments.

The bald eagles got nailed because they primarily prey on water species. Golden eagles took over the island and because they primarily prey on land-dwelling animals, the local fox population was being decimated. This is an example of how ecosystems unravel.

Bald eagles, which do not tolerate golden eagles in their territories, are being reintroduced to the island. Once reestablished they will drive off the golden eagles, thus sparing the endangered foxes.

Yes, charcoal

I'm shamelessly spreading this link around, because it's one of the most interesting pieces I've read in a while: Engineer-Poet at his blog The Ergosphere has a detailed and fascinating exploration of the possibility of using charcoal (derived from biomass and wastes) to fuel America, with many, many charts and numbers for the wonkishly inclined.

The short version is: If we're smart about it, we can generate enough electricity and liquid fuels from biomass in the United States to replace all fossil fuels and then some, plus rejuvenate long-suffering American soils, plus sequester billions of tons of CO2. Check it out here.

Washington Post says so

That's the underlying message from two remarkable stories published this weekend in the Washington Post.

On Saturday, Steven Mufson and Juliet Eilperin reported that "top executives at many of the nation's largest energy companies have accepted the scientific consensus about climate change and see federal regulation to cut greenhouse gas emissions as inevitable."

They include a great quote from Duke Energy executive John Stowell:

No new subsidies needed

A massive new Apollo project? Massive subsidies for renewable technologies? Thousands of more nuclear plants?

Wrong.

It's much simpler than that. This article from Reason succinctly states what most economists agree on:

... eliminate all energy subsidies, set a price for carbon, and then let tens of thousands of energy researchers and entrepreneurs develop and test various new technologies in the market.

Read the rest of the article for more details; it's sobering and should help to focus our energies (no pun intended).

Want some big paper decorations?

If you've been to a Target recently you've probably noticed the gorgeous "cut paper" themed decorations hanging from the ceiling. I asked the manager of my local Target what they do with the decorations when they're through using them, because they are so lovely I hated to think of them being thrown in the trash.

Rapper gets thumbs-up from water expert

I wrote last week about Jay-Z tackling Africa's considerable water and sanitation problems, and an NYC shindig to preview the MTV documentary on his visits to Angola and South Africa.

I was with a good friend, Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute, the morning of the UN bash, before he hopped a train to NYC to share the podium with the rapper and music mogul. Peter, one of the world's leading water experts, was at the Wilson Center in Washington that morning presenting his new book, The World's Water 2006-07.

I asked Peter about the event and his take on Jay-Z as a force for progress on the issue. He wrote in an email:

It’s likely not the primary cause

In climate change debates, one hears a lot about the Sun. A favorite argument of those opposed to action is that the warming we're presently experiencing is due to increases in solar output, also known as solar brightening, and not from greenhouse gases.

Before critiquing this argument, first remember what the IPCC says about human contribution to climate change:

There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.

Note that the IPCC says most of the recent warming is due to human activities. This leaves as much as 50% of the recent warming not attributed to humans.

It is certainly possible -- and fully consistent with the IPCC -- for solar to have contributed some part of the warming we are experiencing.

The real question is whether solar brightening could be the dominant cause of the recent warming, with humans playing a minor role. That is unlikely, for the following reasons:

A fired federal employee expresses himself

Guess who said this, and when:

While my departure may be satisfying to ExxonMobil, I can assure you that this will not make the scientific challenge of climate change and its impacts go away. That 150 countries unanimously agree about the science of this issue is not because of some "green" conspiracy, but because of the solid scientific underpinning for this issue. Certainly, there are uncertainties, but decisions are made under uncertainty all the time--that is what executives are well paid to do. In this case, ExxonMobil is on the wrong side of the international scientific community, the wrong side of the findings of all the world's leading academies of science, and the wrong side of virtually all of the world's countries as expressed, without dissent, in the IPCC reports....To call ExxonMobil's position out of the mainstream is thus a gross understatement.

‘They predicted global cooling in the 70s’–But that didn’t even remotely resemble today’s consensus

(Part of the How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic guide)

Objection: The alarmists were predicting the onset of an ice age in the '70s. Now it's too much warming! Why should we believe them this time?

Answer: It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.