As snowy peaks get warmer, ski industry tries to stave off extinction

With the Olympics starting this week, all eyes are on the slopes of Turin. But skiing and snowboarding could disappear...

New studies say Cali will save money by cutting emissions — and they’re probably right

A couple of new studies have found that California can meet its ambitious 2010 goals for reducing climate-warming emissions at no net cost to consumers. And, even better, meeting the even more stringent 2020 goals could actually save consumers money:

"It's basically a very good news story," said Ned Helme, president of the Center for Clean Air Policy, an environmental think tank based in Washington, D.C. "We found you could do this very cheaply."

Now, I haven't looked at the studies -- and I might not really be able to judge their quality even if I had. By their nature, studies like this tend to be speculative: They show what could happen, but not necessarily what will.

Still, this seems extremely plausible to me -- far, far more plausible, for example, than the notion that eliminating wasteful energy consumption will wreck the economy.

ADM is doing for soil what Exxon has done to air

Amid all the hoopla over President Bush's State of the Union address, Archer Daniels Midland's quarterly report (PDF), released Tuesday, got little attention outside of Wall Street -- where it drew cheers, sending ADM's share price to an all-time high.

At the company's conference call with analysts, the Wall Street Journal reports, John M. McMillin of Prudential Securities "likened [Archer Daniels Midland] to Exxon Mobil Corp., which just announced its own record-breaking profit and jokingly suggested the company might be called upon to explain its profits."

Actually, McMillin's comparison isn't all that comical. Just as ExxonMobil clawed its way to the top of the corporate heap by peddling an environmentally ruinous commodity whose real costs don't burden its balance sheet, ADM's "blowout" profits can be traced directly to government largesse. Oh yeah, and both companies owe much of their surging profitability to making fuel for cars.

Aargh! My brain!

Wow.

Every year, the Edge Foundation asks an enormous array of smart people (scientists, philosophers, mathematicians, intellectuals of every stripe) a single question and publishes the results. This year's question:

WHAT IS YOUR DANGEROUS IDEA?

The history of science is replete with discoveries that were considered socially, morally, or emotionally dangerous in their time; the Copernican and Darwinian revolutions are the most obvious. What is your dangerous idea? An idea you think about (not necessarily one you originated) that is dangerous not because it is assumed to be false, but because it might be true?

What you get in the answers are the good bits: The most intriguing ideas of the world's top thinkers boiled down to their essence.

It's some of the most fascinating stuff I've ever read, and after two hours I've only scratched the surface. I really can't recommend it highly enough.

What would your answer be?

(via BoingBoing)

Readers talk back about Obama, radicals, religion, and more

  Re: For Those About to Barack Dear Editor: I used to have a great deal of respect for Barack...

Hypocrisy again

Over on Treehugger, Lloyd Alter claims to have enjoyed this Wall Street Journal piece by Dan Akst (yes, yes, subscription only). I can't say I did.

Since you can't read it, I'll summarize: People who build "green" houses that are huge and isolated are hypocrites.

It's a bit mystifying to me why this genre of writing is so prevalent. I suppose it's fun to point out that a preachy celebrity drives a Hummer, or that the head of an environmental group flies all over the country to give talks, or that some recycling suburban mom commutes 50 miles to work. For pundits, charges of hypocrisy are nigh irresistible, since they require no thought, research, or analysis. "Look, person says A and does not-A! Gotcha!" It's easy.

But is hypocrisy really that important? To the point that seemingly the bulk of writing on environmentalism begins and ends there?

I think not.

Bartlett on peak oil

Last Friday, Rep. Roscoe Bartlett (R-Md.) appeared in a 90-minute documentary called Oil Crash. On March 18, he'll appear in We Were Warned, a CNN documentary on the same subject.

At 4:30 EST today, CNN's "The Situation Room" (helmed by the execrable Wolf Blitzer) will air a story about Bartlett, in conjunction with the release of new poll about energy.

Also, yesterday, Bartlett made a speech on the matter before the House. In it, he quotes heavily from this 2005 report by the Army Corps of Engineers (PDF).

Anyway, Bartlett's raising the alarm. I've reprinted some excerpts from his speech below the fold.

Update [2006-3-15 15:26:41 by David Roberts]: Hm. Looks like I basically replicated an Oil Drum post. That'll teach me to start writing before I visit the ol' RSS aggregator.

Umbra on choosing a laptop

Dear Umbra, I am buying a new laptop, and I was wondering if all computers are the same energy-wise, or...

It’s over

Well, damn. Kevin Drum stole my thunder.

I wanted to draw special attention to a post by John Quiggin, which announces:

More significantly, perhaps, 2005 saw the final nail hammered into the arguments climate change contrarians have been pushing for years. The few remaining legitimate sceptics, along with some of the smarter ideological contrarians, have looked at the evidence and conceded the reality of human-caused global warming.

He also makes this crucial point: