Climate Climate & Energy
All Stories
-
Climate change justice is contentious
As this round of the IPCC unfolds, developing countries are scurrying to relieve themselves of any major responsibility for historic emissions and, consequently, aggressive mitigation policies.
For example, China has requested inserting language that formally recognizes the percentage of emissions for which developed countries are responsible -- 95 percent from the pre-industrial era until 1950, and 77 percent from 1950 to the start of the millennium.
-
Planktos may be a bad idea, but innovation is good
The green blogosphere generally reacted with chuckles or consternation to Planktos' announced plans to dump tons of iron into the ocean to, you know, see what happens. Gar Lipow took the article as another excuse to bash carbon offsets.
To follow the logic, you first have to know why anyone would want to dump several tons of iron into the sea. Planktos hopes to demonstrate that seeding the oceans with certain nutrients is a credible way to stimulate plankton blooms. It further hopes to demonstrate that these blooms are a credible way to sequester atmospheric carbon. Carbon markets provide the incentive for this quixotic undertaking. If the experiment is successful -- a big if -- Planktos could one day tap into the many billions of dollars available for carbon reduction projects.
-
And why wouldn’t they?
RealClimate, a blog run by leading climate scientists, thinks Planktos's scheme to dump iron particles in the ocean to make plankton bloom and sequester carbon is "thin soup."
I have some extended quotes from David Archer on the subject below the fold. But if you are interested, read the whole thing.
In spite of public relations claims by Planktos representatives in comments, it appears that most of the scientific community does not think highly of the Planktos claims.
-
Scan much?
The final IPCC WGIII report is out, but the PDF seems like a horrible scan or something — it’s almost unreadable. Anybody got a clean copy they want to send me?
-
Clash With the Titan
Anti-dam activists target billionaire Warren Buffett This weekend, activists are descending on Omaha, Neb., to push for removal of four Western dams they say are killing salmon and causing a health risk to humans. Their target: skillionaire Warren Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway holding company owns PacifiCorp, the utility that owns the Klamath River dams. In […]
-
You know you love it
This AP story is a bit old but it’s incredibly significant so I’m going to go ahead and get in a tizzy about it. It’s about efforts by the city of Stamford, Conn. (among other places) to establish a micro grid district. What’s that, you ask? Within these special zones, sometimes referred to as “energy […]
-
When it’s the Bush administration talking about Hanford
The following is a guest post from Natalie Troyer, publications and volunteer coordinator at Heart of America Northwest. —– Sheryl Crow — who was joking, people — recently suggested that folks use “only one square [of toilet paper] per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required.” […]
-
It’s done
It appears that all the haggling is done and the Working Group III report from the IPCC is ready to go. It will be formally released tomorrow. Andy Revkin has a preview, and the NYT also has a Q&A with Revkin about the all-night negotiations that just ended. More to come.
-
Shot down
Alex Cockburn, who has long been a low-key denier of the human contribution to climate chaos, has decided to take his contrarianism on this issue loud and proud. Because Alex is a bit too prominent to simply ignore, George Monbiot takes a few minutes from his busy schedule to tear the piece into little tiny shreds.
It takes Monbiot only a few sentences to point out that all the arguments Cockburn makes are well known and widely discredited, and that Alex uses zero references. Cockburn's sole source seems to be a guy he met on a Nation cruise. Alex is not only taking a highly destructive position, he is doing so without bothering to do his homework. Monbiot goes on to quote Cockburn himself on the nature of crank arguments. I recommend reading Monbiot's refutation, even if you are familiar enough with the debate to spot all Cockburn's scientific mistakes unaided. Because Monbiot illustrates here how, if circumstances force you, to deal with an opponent who makes an argument totally unworthy of any respect.
-
