Climate Climate & Energy

Hurricane Dolly hits land, skirts oil and gas facilities

Hurricane Dolly hit land in Texas Wednesday as a Category 2 storm. No deaths have been reported and the storm had a minimal impact on oil and gas operations; it largely missed offshore oil and gas facilities, but did cut production 10 to 20 percent at some refineries and by 5 to 8 percent overall. […]

It’s the fossil fuel crowd that’s against American jobs

Reading around on reactions to the latest oil shale hubbub, I keep seeing conservatives saying that greens against dirty energy development are opposing "American jobs." It’s important that everyone involved in fighting oil shale — and other drill-and-burn energy policies — understand something simple: the U.S. energy sector has very low "labor intensity." That is […]

Blockbuster Teamsters announcement rejects oil drilling as an energy solution

For years, the Teamsters have supported opening the Arctic Refuge and other protected areas to oil drilling; they ran ads bashing John Kerry on it in 2004. So it is a Very Big Deal that the Teamsters have just come out and rejected drilling as a solution to the energy crisis. At an event in […]

Poll indicates Brits harbor doubts on climate change

U.S. conservatives aren't the only ones who are easily duped. When 1,039 Brits were asked "To what extent do you agree or disagree that ... Many scientific experts still question if humans are contributing to climate change," a remarkable 60 percent agreed whereas only 22 percent disagreed.

Congrats to the British deniers out there -- yes, even you TVMOB, who apparently qualifies as a scientific expert in the U.K. because he wears a Nobel prize pin made of gold recovered from a physics experiment presented to him by the Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of Rochester, New York.

The poll also asked for responses to "I sometimes think climate change might not be as bad as people say." Some 42 percent agreed while 41 percent disagreed. I am going to (optimistically) ascribe that less to the U.K. airing of the The Great Global Warming Swindle than to the fact that this statement is true when it comes to one particular famous British person.

From fossil fuels to manufacturing for wind and solar energy

A couple of years ago, Al Gore made the case, in a film called An Inconvenient Truth, that we have a big problem called global warming. But the film was not effective at pointing to a solution. Humans evolved to consider a crisis as a challenge, as long as a solution is readily available. Otherwise, panic or resignation sets in.

Now, Gore has moved a significant step further by arguing that all sources of electricity should be carbon-free -- in other words, all of our electricity should be generated using wind, solar, or geothermal power, instead of coal, natural gas, or oil.

The next step should be to explain how we move to a fossil fuel-free electrical system. Gore continues to advocate a revenue-neutral carbon tax, but it feels like he's searching for something else, something that would be part of the effort to clean up the energy system.

He might consider the idea that rebuilding the manufacturing economy by building solar and wind equipment would not only lead to a carbon-free system, but also would revive the national economy and the middle class.

Could lime absorb massive amounts of carbon dioxide?

If this pans out, this is a huge idea -- and potentially a reprieve from climate disaster:

It’s a 1980 flashback, as energy price spikes make oil shale economical once again

The Bush administration’s latest push to force dirty energy extraction down the throats of Americans living in western states has some historical pedigree. Extracting oil from keragen — somewhat misleadingly known as "oil shale" — by cooking the rock at high temperatures is an environmental, social and economic nightmare that’s been with us since the […]

Oh, wait, we don’t have a national water policy

This essay was originally published on TomDispatch and is republished here with Tom's kind permission.

---

"Lisa, the whole reason we have elected officials is so we don't have to think all the time. Just like that rainforest scare a few years back. Our officials saw there was a problem and they fixed it, didn't they?" -- Homer Simpson

On June 24, 2008, Louie and I curled up on the couch to watch seven of the nation's foremost water resources experts testify before the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee's Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment.

This was a new experience for us. For my part, the issue to be addressed -- "Comprehensive Watershed Management Planning" -- was certainly a change of pace from the subjects I ordinarily follow in Judiciary and Intelligence Committee hearings. I wasn't even entirely sure what a "watershed" was. I knew that, in a metaphorical sense, the word referred to a turning point, but I was a bit fuzzy about its meaning in the world of hydrology. (It's the term used to describe "all land and water areas that drain toward a river or lake.")

What was strange from Louie's point of view was not the topic of the day, but that we were stuck in the house. Usually at that hour, we'd be working in the backyard, where he can better leverage his skill set, which includes chasing squirrels, digging up tomato plants, eating wicker patio chairs, etc. On this particular afternoon, however, the typically cornflower-blue San Jose sky was the color of wet cement, and thick soot was charging down from the nearby Santa Cruz Mountains. Sitting outside would have been about as pleasant as relaxing in a large ashtray.

It would have been difficult, on such a day, not to think about water.

Better questions for Gore

In response to my rant about Gore on Meet the Press, a certain boss of my acquaintance asked me what questions I would have asked. Here are a few: High gas prices have created extraordinary pressure for a short-term political response, which Republicans are providing with their drilling campaign. What is a better political and […]

Viscount Monckton, a British peer, says his paper was peer-reviewed by a scientist

"The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley" is full of crap himself. Before casting a wary eye on his new ribaldry, however, let me direct you to yet another dismantling of his "thesis" -- this one by Deltoid at ScienceBlogs: "Monckton's triple counting."(Even more debunking here.)

But I digress. The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, as he prefers to call himself, or TVMOB, as I will call him because, damn, the acronym is just too sweet, has penned an epistle to the president of the American Physical Society, which you can peruse here [PDF]. (Please note that the picture on the right is not TVMOB nor do I think he would ever participate in this.)

TVMOB is displeased with the new APS disclaimer on his article: "The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions."

TVMOB writes, "This seems discourteous." You see, TVMOB holds the view that peer review occurs if his article gets suggested edits by a co-editor who happens to be a scientist.

Let me not make the obvious point that being edited by an editor ain't scientific peer review. You can read the editor's requested edits on page two of TVMOB's letter [PDF]. Anybody who has actually been peer-reviewed will note that the proposed edits aren't anything close to what a peer-reviewed set of comments looks like, especially for an analysis as flawed as this one.

Since TVMOB's letter is straight out of Monty Python, let me rather make the point in kind that a peer is "a person who holds any of the five grades of the British nobility: duke, marquess, earl, viscount, and baron."

By that definition, I am sure that TVMOB's paper was not given proper peer review. Indeed, I'm not certain TVMOB has a proper peer on this Earth. Perhaps Senator Inhofe or President Bush.

But pity the poor modern British viscount who whines in his letter, "I had expended considerable labor, without having been offered or having requested any honorarium." Join the club, buddy. Since when do you think scientific newsletters pay you a nickel? Oh, I forgot. You aren't a scientist.

I especially love the conclusion to his epistle: