Skip to content
Grist home
Grist home

Climate Climate & Energy

All Stories

  • Greenspan on climate change

    greenspan7big.jpgIf you thought Greenspan was confused about energy, his discussion of global warming in The Age of Turbulence is downright stupefying. He opens well (p. 454):

    There can be very little doubt that global warming is real and man-made.

    But the next sentence is (I kid you not):

    We may have to rename Glacier National Park when its glaciers disappear, in what now looks to be 2030, according to park scientists.

    That's what all the fuss is about -- we'll have to rename one of our national parks in 23 years. This is the Lomborg view. The movie version might be called A Minor Inconvenience.

  • Greenspan on energy

    Greenspan is no polymath, to go by the discussions of energy and climate in his instant bestseller, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World. During his nuclear power love-fest, he writes (p. 453):

    Nuclear power is not safe without a significant protective infrastructure. But then, neither is drinking water.

    Wow! That's an analogy I bet you never heard before. Greenspan is actually comparing drinking water infrastructure -- which is needed mainly to protect the water from us (i.e. from human pollution) -- with nuclear power's infrastructure; which is needed to protect us from nuclear material, which (unlike water) is inherently dangerous. I guess this economic guru is the only person in the country who would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a reservoir.

    Even more annoying (p. 446):

    For example, after the initial surge in the fuel efficiencies of our light motor vehicles during the 1980s, reflecting the earlier run-up in oil prices, improvements slowed to a trickle.

  • Bogs, not oceans, may have been the source of an increase in atmospheric methane

    What triggered the Palaeocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM) about 55 million years ago, which saw the fastest period of warming documented in Earth's geological history? The PETM is associated with a rapid rise in greenhouse gases, particularly methane -- but the big question is where did the methane come from?

    bog.jpgThe most common answer has been the ocean (methane hydrates), but new research in Nature ($ub. req'd) casts doubt on the ocean theory -- instead finding chemical evidence that the methane came from terrestrial sources, bogs, which were themselves stimulated by rising temperatures -- an amplifying feedback. The lead author says:

    A lot of temperate and polar wetlands are going to be wetter, and of course warmer as well [because of current climate change]. That implies a switch to more anaerobic conditions which are more likely to release methane. That's what's predicted, and that would be a positive feedback -- and we have evidence now that this is what happened.

    Indeed, research from last year found "thawing Siberian bogs are releasing more of the greenhouse gas methane than previously believed." Why should we care about the source of the PETM?

  • New U.S. Pirg report recommends 100 percent of allowances be auctioned

    Speaking of auctioning the permits under a cap-and-trade system, yesterday U.S. PIRG released a new report: “Cleaner, Cheaper, Smarter: The Case For Auctioning Pollution Allowances In A Global Warming Cap-and-Trade Program.” It argues for auctioning 100% of permits: Auctioning all allowances under a cap-and-trade program is fair, reduces the societal cost of achieving emission reductions […]

  • Land-use decisions a key factor in emissions reduction, says analysis

    How to reduce U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions? Building compact, mixed-use neighborhoods would be just as effective as much-touted policies like boosting fuel economy, cleaning up power plants, and building green, says a new analysis from the Urban Land Institute. The U.S. population is expected to grow 23 percent by 2030; under the sprawl-encouraging status quo, driving […]

  • Who will lead on advancing smart-grid technologies?

    To bring on the amounts of variable wind and solar energy and plug-in vehicles needed to meet our vast energy challenges, we will need a smart grid capable of managing much more complex power flows. Outside of some progressive exemplars, however, don't expect leadership to come from the utility sector. Instead, changes will be forced by new policies and players, including some you might not expect, like big box retailers.

    Those were my key takeaways from the stellar line-up of smart grid speakers at the Discover Brilliant sustainable technology conference in Seattle this week. David has been blogging away from the conference, so I don't want to go over too much of the same turf. Instead I'm going to synthesize what I heard across a number of sessions and offer my interpretations.

    A few statistics from the conference underscore the sluggishness of the electric utility industry when it comes to advanced technologies:

  • Utility will pay for solar on Habitat for Humanity houses in California

    Recognizing that solar electricity is a good investment in the long run but a bit spendy up front, utility Pacific Gas and Electric has agreed to pay for solar power on some 65 houses built by Habitat for Humanity in northern and central California next year. PG&E will donate about $1.2 million for panels and […]

  • Arctic sea ice continues to melt at alarming rate

    A chunk of Arctic sea ice roughly the size of Florida melted in just six days, according to scientists who warn that ice in the region continues to melt at an alarming rate.

    Reports are already surfacing of the detrimental effects such rapid habitat loss is having on marine mammals, such as polar bears, which use the ice to hunt and migrate. Most recently scientists have said polar bear populations could drop by 66 percent by mid-century.

    Virtually every day there is news about the impacts of climate change on the oceans, from whale deaths due to lack of food, to potential coral destruction; from rising temperatures and increased ocean acidity, to the disappearance of cold water species because of warming ocean temperatures.

    The oceans are suffering from climate change. More than ever we all need to do our part to step up and protect them.

  • Urban growth rates in Qatar and China leave Friedman skeptical about climate change mitigation

    doha2.jpgFirst the good news from The New York Times:

    We have ended TimesSelect. All of our Op-Ed and news columns are now available free of charge. Additionally, The New York Times Archive is available free back to 1987.

    Good for them. Interestingly, even though I had paid my money to get TimesSelect, I pretty much stopped reading the stuff behind the barrier because I couldn't connect readers (i.e., you) to the material. The NYT had basically taken some of their best columnists out of the global discussion. Now they are back.

    Friedman has a new piece titled "Doha and Dalian" -- "Doha [top] is the capital of Qatar, a tiny state east of Saudi Arabia. Dalian [bottom] is in northeast China and is one of China's Silicon Valley." Their growth rates have surprised even itinerant Tom:

  • New book praising biofuels has an unexpected author

    There are combinations that are just too weird: chocolate cake and grape juice (to steal from an old Dick Van Dyke show), or hearing the Rolling Stones' music used to market chastity belts and abstinence pledges. Or like seeing the Worldwatch Institute's name on a book praising biofuels ... the very fuels Les Brown, WWI's founder, is crusading against.

    The gist of the book seems to be, "We need a completely different kind of biofuels than we have or are likely to ever see, but if that better, fairer system came along, it might be good for the poor." In other words, the Les-Brown-less WWI is now providing cover for people who don't give two burps about the poor, but sho' do love them some subsidies. And for people who will be throwing this book around the way Bush threw around Colin Powell's notorious UN speech on Saddam's "weapons of mass destruction."