A simple change that can help utilities and their customers conserve energy

This is good news: According to NW Current, more and more utilities are becoming interested in "decoupling" -- which could be the single most cost-effective step I've heard of for encouraging conservation.

Decoupling Katrina and climate change

Based on his (and his colleagues') research, here's what Roger Pielke Jr. thinks:

1. Anthropogenic climate change is real.
2. Greenhouse gas reductions make good policy sense.
3. But there is no evidence that energy policies focused on climate change can be an effective tool of disaster mitigation.
4. There is currently no evidence that allows us to attribute to human-caused climate change any part of the decades-long trend of a rising toll of disasters, a record which is dominated by floods and storms.
5. More people are beginning to conduct research in this area and perhaps future research results will tell a different story, but 1-4 above are what can be said today and supported by scientific research.
6. Given the state of the literature, this should not be a controversial conclusion.
7. There are better justifications for GHG reductions than disasters, and there are far better options available to policy makers than energy policies to make a material difference in future impacts of climate and weather extremes.

The reception he's gotten for this line of thinking from climate scientists has been, shall we say, less than enthusiastic.

Do hybrids use more energy in their lifecycle than other cars?

What to make of this news from the Eugene, OR Register-Guard?

In a report that's sure to be controversial, CNW Marketing Research ... concludes ... that, even though hybrid cars use less fuel, they require more energy - and are therefore worse for the environment - than conventional cars because their design and manufacture are more complex and the costs of disposal or recycling are higher for their batteries, electric motors and other specialized components. [Emphasis added.]

Hybrids use more energy throughout their lifecycle than regular cars? Can this possibly be true?

Color me skeptical: I think there's very good reason not to take the study too seriously -- at least, not until the authors can answer some tough questions about what their study implies.

Will you change your life to save the planet?

EcoBrits have begun a "Click for the Climate" campaign, asking the U.K. public to make a small lifestyle change in honor of National Science Week (March 10-19). Apparently, "Prime Minister Tony Blair will be turning down his thermostat, world record holder Colin Jackson will be taking the train, and Sir David Attenborough will be unplugging his mobile charger." Wo0t!

The BBC has set up a "Have Your Say" forum on the campaign, asking readers to leave comments on how they plan to change their lifestyle -- and the results are pretty amusing: "How about increasing death, take away all medication, and get rid of all people over the age of 60?" Ha!

I'm more interested, though, to find out what all you Gristmill readers think.

What will you do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions? Will you make a change to your lifestyle? Do you already try to limit your personal effect on the environment? What can you personally do to limit climate change? Or do you think you can't make any difference anyway?

Leave your thoughts in comments.

Cleared that right up

By now, everybody's probably familiar with the sequence of events:

1. Energy bill passes with promises of funding for renewables research.
2. Cuts in actual funding for renewables research.
3. State of the Union speech with big promises of funding for renewables research.
4. Budget shortfalls force firing of 32 researchers at National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
5. Bush launches PR tour to tout energy proposals, schedules visit to NREL.
6. Weekend prior to visit, Energy Department scrambles to rehire 32 researchers.
   
   Now here's the part that really amazes me:
   
   
7. Bush visits NREL, laments "mixed signals," and says this: "The issue, of course, is whether good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. ... I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

"I think we have cleared up the discrepancy."

It's like the distinction between substance and perception is just invisible to him. It verges on autistic.

Update [2006-2-22 14:18:33 by David Roberts]: Actually, let me put in more of the quote, since in some ways it's even more incredible:

I recognize that there has been some interesting, let me say, mixed signals when it comes to funding. The issue of course is whether or not good intentions are met with actual dollars spent. Part of the issue we face, unfortunately, is that there are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone.

Matt Yglesias responds:

I say the government is being run by idiots. There are sometimes decisions made as a result of the appropriations process, where money may not end up where it is supposed to have gone? The MBA presidency? The grownups are back in charge?

The whole episode is really mind-boggling, if one was still capable of bogglement at this point.

How companies are tapping the benefits of saving water

Name this critical and declining natural resource: It is pumped through pipelines and delivered by trucks. It is essential to...

Switchgrass: The magic wand that transforms crappy biofuels policy into gold

This short piece in Foreign Policy magazine is revealing, I think, of the congealing conventional wisdom in D.C. policy circles.

The basic thesis is this: Farm subsidies that now promote agricultural exports should simply be switched over to promote agricultural fuels -- i.e., ethanol. That way, Bush could get the WTO off his back about export subsidies, mollify the domestic agricultural lobby, and cure America's addiction to foreign oil. So easy!

One small note of caution:

So what's the catch? Corn farming is rough on the environment. Soil erosion due to wind and water is rampant. Fertilizer and pesticide runoffs produce algae blooms that result in "dead zones," including one in the Gulf of Mexico that is so polluted it cannot support aquatic life. Furthermore, building the ethanol processing plants will take 3-4 years, and gas stations would have to commit to providing ethanol. And, because ethanol uses only the starch in corn, not the oil, protein, or other components, converting corn into ethanol is attractive only if there is a market for the byproducts. Opinions differ, but some estimate that byproduct markets could saturate well short of 11 billion gallons of production.

Luckily, there's a handy solution to these problems. What is it?

Wait for it ... wait for it ...

Switchgrass! Whee!

Umbra on plants and global warming

Dear Umbra, My simple understanding of global warming is that we are introducing long-buried carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. This...

Umbra on global warming

Dear Umbra, The many articles on global warming conclude with something about the inherent complexity and uncertainty of the issue....