Climate Climate & Energy

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.

Biofuel bashing

Now with a German accent! (h/t: Gristmill reader CJ)

Coal is the enemy of the human race. Coal is the enemy of the human race

The Office of Fossil Energy (no, not Dick Cheney's office -- apparently there is another one) released a new report this week: "Tracking New Coal Fired Power Plants."

An excerpt from the press release:

If built, the plants will be critical in helping to meet future electricity demand in the United States. The new and proposed plants would theoretically produce enough electricity to power 90 million homes.

Coal is vital to the nation's energy security. Providing more than 50 percent of U.S. electricity, coal is an abundant, domestic energy source with more than a 250-year supply at current use rates. America's coal reserves, estimated at 272 billion tons, contain more energy potential than all of the oil in the Middle East.

Your tax dollars at work.

Renewable Energy Journal takes a moment

Via Renewable Energy Journal.

Sigh

Wow. The Nation has elected to print some flat-footed, idiotic global warming skepticism from Alexander Cockburn, who has made a media career out of insulting people and generally being a dick. I don’t have time to get into it — see previous post — but you can check with Sir Oolius for some initial debunkery. […]

Putting iron in the ocean

The risky idea of dumping iron into the ocean to promote plankton growth has been around for a long time. The reasoning: more algae blooms, more CO2 absorbed. But many scientists think that by the time the algae dies, rots, and release methane and nitrous oxide, it will worsen the greenhouse effect. Even most supporters think it should be studied before being tried. The IPCC is expected to dismiss this particular idea as speculative and probably counterproductive.

But Planktos corporation, backed by Silicon Salley, has decided to go full speed ahead experimenting with it -- to hell with possible side effects. They are simply going to dump iron into a 10,000 square kilometer patch in the Galápagos -- one of the most delicate and important ecosystems on the planet.

Read about it and/or watch it happen

There are something like 12 bills in the Texas Legislature this session addressing climate change. Most of them are deader than a doornail, but we might see passage this session of a bill to create a Texas climate change task force. This doesn't sound like much, but for Texas it's actually quite an accomplishment.

To get an idea of what testifying there is like, you can take a look at my archived testimony here (Real Audio). My testimony starts at 9:20. Particularly entertaining is the question and answer session starting at 19:20.

What was it like 430 million years ago

The earth, as a living organism, leaves behind breadcrumbs from millenia of development. And beautiful breadcrumbs they are.

Check out Frans Lanting's project and fall in love all over again. From Stewart Brand's account of a presentation as a part of the Long Now series:

How to reduce your household energy consumption, easy-like

Last Sunday's New York Times honed in on the dubious practice of Americans buying carbon offsets to brand themselves carbon-neutral. Andy Revkin, the paper's global-warming reporter, quoted me saying, "There isn't a single American household above the poverty line that couldn't cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures."

My claim has hit a nerve. Despite the absence of a link, already a dozen readers have tracked me down on the web and written to ask what measures I have in mind. This article is for them and anyone else who might be interested.

First, a confession. As often happens, assertion preceded analysis. But my claim didn't come from thin air -- I have experience in energy analysis and a feel for the numbers. With a bit of figuring, I made a list of 16 energy-saving (hence carbon-reducing) steps that together should do away with a bit more than one-quarter of a typical U.S. household's carbon emissions.

The top five:

Or They Could Stop Waging War

Report says U.S. military needs to wean itself from oil A report commissioned by the Pentagon says the U.S. military needs to break its oil addiction. The country used an average of 16 gallons of fuel per soldier per day in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2006, compared to four per soldier per day in the […]