Articles by Gar Lipow

Read and be dazzled by the techno-futurism

David asked contributors for end-of-year lists. Since I normally focus on conservative assumptions, I thought I'd use it as an excuse to look at future breakthroughs and cost improvements.

I was going to weasel by calling these "possibilities," but instead I decided to use the time-tested technique of public psychics: I'll call them predictions, crow over any that come true, and pretend the rest never happened.

1. Power storage that will make electric cars cheaper than gasoline cars.

Ultracapacitors, various lithium systems, lead carbon foam (PDF), and aluminum are among the candidates. The first storage device with a price per kWh capacity of $200 or less, mass-to-power ratio as good or better than LiOn, and ability to retain 75% or more of capacity after 1,000 cycles in real world driving temperatures and conditions wins.

Is hydropower really low-carbon? Time will tell

Back in early November, I noted information suggesting hydropower may not be as carbon neutral as we thought. The word "may" was deliberately chosen.

At the time, I received an angry email from a leading hydropower supporter, which included links to some studies suggesting the data for high emissions was cherry-picked, or didn't take net emissions into account adequately.

I soon found other studies dealing with these objections and suggesting significant net emissions from hydropower. At this point, I was reminded of the debate between warming deniers and climate scientists, except I was not sure which side was which.

The December 2006 issue of Nature contains a fascinating article on the subject: "The green image of hydropower may have been seriously overstated, warn Scientists." The key paragraphs:

Carbon trading it too easily gamed

"Mommy, where do carbon offsets come from?"

"Well, you see sweetheart, when a major polluter and a consultant love money very, very much, they express that love in a special way. Nine months later, the consultant produces an extremely large paper packet."

In theory, carbon taxes and carbon trading yield similar results.(Carbon taxes raise the price of fossil fuels by taxing it. Permits raise the price of fossil fuels by requiring people to buy permits for each unit burned) So why do so many people who support carbon taxes oppose carbon trading? Because in practice they differ catastrophically, something we have good reasons to expect.

The real world record of carbon trading includes:

It’s a disaster, not a catastrophe

A Guardian story suggests that we may have as much as eight degrees of global warming already locked in, in the form of stored heat in the ocean. But a substantial stored-heat backlog in the ocean has been well-known for some time. That it is greater than expected is bad news -- but (as I've confirmed in correspondence with Gavin Schmidt of Real Climate) this does not mean that all or most of that stored heat is going to "come back" and fry the planet, provided we take action in time.

I know James Lovelock, the brilliant inventor of the Gaia hypothesis, is spreading the "8 degree" misinterpretation, but most climate scientists do not agree with him.

Climate disruption is a serious crisis for the human race, but the reality is bad enough. No need to make solving it harder by exaggerating the threat. RealClimate has posted a number of articles debunking exaggerated panic-mongering: