Climate Climate & Energy

Three related stories about coal power

See if you can connect the dots.

First this, from Greenwire ($ub. req'd):

West Virginia regulators have approved American Electric Power's plan to build a $2.3 billion clean coal plant.

Appalachian Power Co., a subsidiary of Ohio-based AEP, received approval for the project Thursday from the Public Service Commission. Regulators say the 629-megawatt Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle plant is needed to help AEP meet demand for electricity.

CSM notes a slowing in the Coal Rush

The often-outstanding Christian Science Monitor notes a distinct reversal of fortunes (at least here in the U.S.) for The Enemy of the Human Race. The situation is so dire that a coal industry guy has had to resort to the great standby of the corporate toolbox, namely lying:

"If they don't start building coal plants, it's going to be an economic prosperity problem for the country," says Richard Storm, CEO of Storm Technologies, an Albemarle, N.C., company that specializes in optimizing coal-fired power plants. "We need coal. Coal is a national treasure."

Increased attractiveness of alternative energy is some consolation

Oil just passed the $106 mark, putting it well above the inflation-adjusted record set just a few days ago. In an earlier post, I predicted that the price of oil would go down. So far I have obviously been wrong, although I suspect that the price will decline by the end of the year since this seems awfully like a part of the greater speculative commodity bubble we are witnessing.

But putting that aside for a moment, there is one great benefit of the high price of oil that environmentalists should be celebrating: it is making alternative energy much more attractive, so much so that the high price may usher in a major wave of renewable energy projects that will, in turn, lead to greater scale economies and perhaps the mainstreaming of alternative energy. This would be a great thing.

Now for the bad part. First off, if politicians hadn't been so cowardly and short-sighted and had actually followed economists' advice for a carbon tax long ago, the high prices of energy could be funneled into tax rebates for us all or research and development for all sorts of green technologies. Instead, the money is going to the oil companies and the terrorists. Not good.

Second, the high prices of energy are leading to inflation, which is greatly complicating the Federal Reserve's ability to deal with the recession we're in (yes, it's a recession), and the effects are highly regressive, hurting the poor much more than the rich.

Overall, the high price of energy is doing some pretty bad things -- but if it can help tilt the playing field to alternative energy, this silver lining may end up being an amazing turning point in history.

Competitive Whining, er, Enterprise Institute bashes Gore with all they’ve got

A short while ago, Sir Oolius received a fundraising email from the Competitive Enterprise Institute asking for donations to help them with their new raison d'etre: yelling "FU, Al Gore!" as loudly and as often as possible. The fruits of this effort are now upon us in the form of a national ad whining campaign:

If carbon = life, then Al Gore ...

Manhattan Declaration disses IPCC, Gore, any attempts to reduce CO2

Okay, so at the recent Heartless Heartland skeptic/denier/disinformer/climate-destroyer conference (I promise to propose a better term this week!), one of the few attendees who was a non-non-believer in science emailed me the following:

Marc Morano, Sen. Inhofe's press secretary, just cited your post on the dangers of consensus as an example of how deniers are forcing climate action proponents to retreat. "We're making them afraid of using the term 'consensus'!"

Now, that is humor! After all, my article is titled "The cold truth about climate change: Deniers say there's no consensus about global warming. Well, there's not. There's well-tested science and real-world observations [that are much more worrisome]," and it explains that:

1. "Consensus" is far too weak a word to describe the collective scientific understanding of the dangers of human-caused global warming.
2. The reality of climate change is almost certainly going to be much worse than the "consensus" as that term is normally used (to describe the IPCC reports).
3. The deniers are peddling pseudoscience.

No special revelation

Southern Baptist Convention to back off from outright denialism tomorrow?

Skeptics and ressentiment

Most of what needs to be said about the substance of the just-concluded Heartland Institute Skepticpalooza Clown Show has been said (see, in particular, Miles and Joe). Just a couple of stray observations. The science of climate change has nothing to do with it. There are plenty of interesting questions in climate science, but the […]

On the International Conference on Climate Change

If only Congress would have signed on to the Manhattan Declaration years ago, we could have spent valuable resources wisely summarizing nonexistent reports, thereby avoiding the subprime crisis.

Rising electricity demand is a choice, not an inevitability

Discussions of public policy frequently take place inside frames that are difficult to discern clearly without effort. Which goals are fixed and which are negotiable? Which changes are acceptable and which are not? Take, oh, homelessness. The brute fact is that we could solve homelessness in the U.S. tomorrow if we so chose. We could […]

Canadian federal court ruling could halt planned oil-sands project

A Canadian federal court has ruled in favor of environmental groups that sued in opposition to a massive planned oil-sands mine in Alberta. The 120-square-mile strip mine had recently been approved by a joint federal-provincial panel that found the project’s estimated annual greenhouse-gas emissions of 3.7 million tons to be insignificant. Yet no justification was […]