Climate Climate & Energy

Let’s Feed Them Some Oil Execs

Hungry polar bears eating each other We can’t think of anything funny to say about this: polar bears, deprived of their natural food by longer seasons without ice, may be turning to cannibalism. In the journal Polar Biology, American and Canadian scientists reviewed three cases of polar bear cannibalism in early 2004 in the Beaufort […]

Will ADM surrender gracefully to cellulosic ethanol?

Don't miss a great piece by Sasha Lilley about Archer Daniels Midland and ethanol: "The dirty truth about green fuel."

The latter part covers the environmental sins of corn-based ethanol -- familiar to Gristmillians -- but the first part provides some crucial context. It's about ADM.

Here's a taste:

CEI at it again

Oh brother. CEI is at it again with a "special web-only bonus" titled Al Gore: An Inconvenient Story.

Electric_Penguin over at Hugg.com sums it up nicely:

CEI has created quite the moral dilemma for themselves. They are condemning Al Gore for generating dramatically more Carbon Dioxide emissions than an average person while traveling around the world giving speeches on global warming. You can't condemn Al Gore for traveling and contributing to Global Warming when you are denying Global Warming exists. Either "CO2 is life" or Global Warming exists and the balancing act between to little and too much begins.

No nukes is good nukes

Someone -- I think Bart? -- sent me to a paper by David Fleming called "Why nuclear power cannot be a major energy source."

I just got done reading it, and as far as I'm concerned it is devastating to the pro-nuclear argument. Game over.

The paper -- based primarily on the work of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith -- carefully considers how much uranium is left in the ground, the energy balance for the full nuclear lifecycle (including cleaning up waste), the promise of breeder reactors, and just about every other aspect of nuclear power.

The ultimate verdict: If nuclear power maintains its current contribution -- roughly 2.5% of the world's energy -- it can continue for about 75 years, under ideal conditions. If we ramp it up to supply 100% of the world's electricity, it could last about 6 years, under ideal conditions. And there are no ideal conditions.

In other words, nuclear power simply cannot bridge the coming energy gap. More than anything, it serves as a kind of techno-totem, allowing people to cling to the illusion that technology will save us and we won't have to alter our lifestyles.

Anyway, read it. Bookmark it. Link to it. Send it to your friends. The nuclear illusion needs to be put to rest once and for all.

My favorite part of the paper is the helpful summary at the end. Here it is:

The Evolution Will Be Pint-Sized

Some small animals evolving to adapt to climate change, study finds As we humans cling to the status quo while it floats down the river toward a global-warming waterfall (ahem), smaller animals are getting on with evolving. New research in Science identifies heritable genetic changes in some small wildlife that increase their chances of survival […]

Spore Losers

Climate change could make pollen rise and allergies worse Perhaps you’ve heard the argument that a rise in carbon dioxide levels is a good thing, because CO2 helps plants grow. Well, says Hah-vard’s Paul Epstein, “It is the opportunistic plants like poison ivy and ragweed that thrive.” That’s right, ye allergy-stricken: More CO2 means more […]

Adaptation redux

Roger Pielke Jr. has an overheated post up today wondering why I don't care about the suffering of "millions, perhaps billions" of people around the world adversely affected by climate. Oy. I hesitate to reply, but here goes.

Champagne vineyards threatened by radioactive contamination

Global warming isn't the only thing threatening wine. In France, groundwater less than 10 km from the famous Champagne vineyards has tested positive for radioactive contamination, caused by a nearby leaking nuclear waste dump:

"We have been told for decades that nuclear dumpsites will not leak and that the best standards are being applied. In reality the dumpsite in Normandy is a disaster, and radioactivity is already leaking from the dumpsite in Champagne," said Shaun Burnie nuclear campaigner at Greenpeace International. "The authorities know they have a problem in Champagne already, with mistakes in the design. This is only the beginning of the problem, the bigger picture is that France has a nuclear waste crisis out of control that is threatening not only the environment and public health but also the economy of the Champagne region."

Clearly, there are some promises that just can't be kept. I wonder if Champagne is iconic enough to influence public opinion about nuclear power. In the meantime, bringing a Geiger counter to the next New Year's bash would be a cool party trick ...

And the Sand Played On

World’s deserts will become more desert-y, says U.N. Happy World Environment Day — we got you some bad news! As climate change progresses, desert temperatures will rise up to 12.6 degrees F by the end of the century; rainfall in most deserts will decline by up to 20 percent; water will become scant, or too […]

Wining and Declining

Global warming screwing up wine country Bad news for oenophiles: Global warming is messing with wine country. Wine grapes are highly temperature-sensitive, and if the globe gets much hotter (which smart folks say it will), famed wine-producing regions like France’s Burgundy and California’s Napa Valley may lose optimum climate for their grape varieties. Already, warmer […]