Climate Climate & Energy

Ante up

Colin Challen, a member of Parliament and chair of the All Party Parliamentary Climate Change Group, has a good editorial in the latest issue of Science (sub. rqd). He makes a key point that is often missed in the debate:

Not only must we reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, we need a timetable that reduces the risk of positive feedbacks and sink failures that could lead to runaway catastrophic climate change.

We are "playing climate change poker," as Challen says, fighting not just to avoid the consensus prediction for climate change, but the plausible worst-case scenario, which is far worse. That's why even a 60 percent cut in emissions by mid-century may not be enough, and many are pushing for an 80 percent cut.

The entire editorial is reprinted here:

Renewable energy is good for them

Renewable energy is good for rural communities — at least in the UK: A study funded by the Economic and Social Research Council, of community renewable energy projects in Britain has found that so far, projects are largely based in the countryside, some quite remote. From wind turbines to shared heating systems, small-scale renewable energy […]

We want some

Hmmm. This is interesting. Seems that American Express is running a contest, and the winning project gets $5 million.

I mention this for two reasons: out of civic duty, and because our project is in the running for five million freakin' dollars.

We are currently about 1,200 measly votes from making it to the next round.

The project, "Harvest the Sun," is a collaboration of Vote Solar and the Center for Resource Solutions, and would go toward our work bringing solar into the mainstream.

For the love of God -- I currently expend a ridiculous amount of time, energy, and dignity raising money for the work we do, and we do it on a shoestring. With $5 mil we could damn near guarantee a defeat of global warming.

So, if you are an AmEx cardholder, I would be eternally grateful if you'd take the time to go to the Members Project website and vote for "Harvest the Sun".

Thank you.

Really

If you haven’t already heard, yesterday saw the release of an important new report: In the most comprehensive environmental assessment of electric transportation to date, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) and the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) are examining the greenhouse gas emissions and air quality impacts of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV). The […]

Shocking

I am shocked, shocked at the N.Y. Times report:

The Japanese operator of a nuclear power plant stricken by an earthquake earlier this week said Wednesday that damage was worse than previously reported and that a leak of water was 50 percent more radioactive than initially announced.

For the third time in three days, Tokyo Electric Power apologized for delays and errors in announcing the extent of damage at the plant in this northwestern coastal city, which was struck Monday by a magnitude 6.8 earthquake. The company also said that tremors had tipped over "several hundred" barrels of radioactive waste, not 100 as it reported Tuesday, and that the lids had opened on "a few dozen" of those barrels.

Why is it you never read, "Wind Farm Damage Worse Than Reported"? The L.A. Times has more alarming news:

The new alchemy: Turning iron particles into gelt

Turns out we here at Grist got a preview of his "fringe environmentalist" testimony to Congress.

Too bad the Post didn't mention his cold fusion background; that really puts this scheme into perspective.

It's just the eco-version of the same old same old. (There's one born every minute, and two to take his money ... )

Just when you thought it was over

Spreadsheets are wonderful things. Rhett Butler has put together a really nice cost analysis comparing the value of tropical peat bogs to palm oil. In a nutshell, this chart shows how much money the owners of these peat bogs could make in the next thirty years, depending of course on the future prices of palm oil and carbon offset credits:

For once

It's typically held that the market will price in all current information. To avowed economists, this means markets can virtually predict the future. If you buy that logic, the market may be signaling something environmentally positive about coal and carbon legislation.

This from Greenwire ($ub. rqd):

Ignore those flashing lights! Full speed ahead!!

Yawn. Another story about the way production of biofuels (inferior substitutes for a commodity that is wasted in gargantuan quantities daily) consumes many times their weight in water, a truly vital liquid.

The money quote, the perfect encapsulation of all that is stupid, is here:

State Sen. David Johnson, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee, said he will not support regulations on how ethanol facilities use water until he sees proof that Iowa's aquifers are in trouble.

You go, Senator! Never address a problem until it's a crisis, that's the spirit! You are a true credit to your species, sir.

Why bicycling is 25 percent better than you thought

Your car's greenhouse-gas emissions are about 25 percent worse than you think.

How so? Well, for each gallon of gas you burn in your engine, there's the climate equivalent of another quarter-gallon or so embedded in your consumption. What that means is this: the gasoline you use didn't just magically appear in your tank -- it was extracted, refined, and transported to your local station. And all that activity released emissions.

It's a curiosity of our energy system (and other systems too, such as our food system), but it's a curiosity that bears closely on our thinking about how to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. Stay with me for a moment.

It's usually assumed that each gallon of gas releases about 19.5 pounds of CO2 into the sky. (Some quibble, and argue that it's 19.4 or 19.6. But whatever.) Basic physics dictates that a gallon of gasoline combusted will release a more-or-less fixed amount of CO2. But from a public policy perspective, physics isn't the whole story.