Gristmill

Waste to energy

Folks in the U.S. tend to be convinced that technology will save us. Traditionally, environmentalism has opposed itself to this tendency, scolding that technology is, in fact, the source of all eco-evil. I would suggest that, while technology's record is, shall we say, mixed, this is the wrong way to go, both substantively and politically. More on that subject later.

I certainly count myself a technological optimist, so I get excited about every story like this: Today, Treehugger gives the rundown on two new machines that make energy from waste. The first creates (brace yourself for some technical jargon) a really ginormously strong tornado that batters the waste into power. The second does something that even the Treehuggers don't pretend to understand -- "a thermal depolymerization process" -- to squish virtually any carbon-based waste into three products: "high-quality oil, clean-burning gas, and purified minerals that can be used as fuels, fertilizers, or specialty chemicals for manufacturing." They're pretty psyched about it:

That sounds weird, but imagine this: If this thing works, most toxic waste problems would disappear--and so would imported oil. According to its manufacturers, if the U.S. were to convert its agricultural waste alone into oil and gas, according to Discover magazine, it would yield the energy equivalent of 4 billion barrels of oil annually. Four billion barrels! That's nearly as much as we import each year.

Yes, yes, it's still in development, might not pan out, might have unforseen side effects. But still: Neat.

Climate models

A favorite rhetorical tactic of global warming skeptics is to point out that climate scientists use models, which they imply are less scientific than the hard data used by other disciplines. This is, on its face, dumb. Every scientific field uses data to develop models, uses models to predict future data, and where there are discrepancies modifies either the data collection methods the models (or both). Climate science does the same. There are, however, interesting and unique features of climate models, and the indispensable RealClimate offers a quick synopsis thereof. It's slightly technical, but good reading nonetheless.

Priorities for a Healthy … zzz …

Via Jon Stahl I saw the launch of Priorities for a Healthy Washington, a coalition of Washington state enviro organizations. I looked over the site quickly and went on about my day -- it didn't make much of an impression.

Now Alex Steffen asks: Hold on, why can't enviros make a damn impression? The PHW site is business as usual, he says, "a great example of environmentalists once again describing the steak rather than selling the sizzle."

Check out the site, read Steffen's diagnosis and suggestions, and let us know what you think.

Politics after disasters

Here's a fascinating piece by Peter Ford in Christian Science Monitor on the political effects of natural disasters throughout history, with some discussion of the possible political ramifications of the tsunami. Good to see someone going a little deeper than the "man clings to tree for two weeks" level.

Meteor Blades

Dan E. Arvizu will take his seat as the eighth director of the National Renewable Energy Laboratory on Friday. The federally funded, privately managed lab is the premier U.S. research institution for renewable energy and also conducts research into energy efficiency.  Its goal is not only to pioneer new technologies, but to get the fruit of its endeavors into the marketplace.

All I know about Mr. Arvizu is what I read in the DOE press release and what little is available about him on the Internet. He seems to have plenty of the right credentials and experience for the job. I wish him well.

But a new director won't mean more money for the laboratory, which will be operating on around $200 million again this year, about a sixth of the nation's entire renewables and efficiency budget. That's less than half the 1980 budget of NREL's predecessor, the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI), where I went to work in 1978. Indeed, this year's entire R&E budget, which is poking at the $1.3 billion level, is only 40% of the R&E budget of a quarter century ago. It ought to be 400%. That would put it in the range of three months worth of what we're spending on Iraq.

Paper or pla… oh, fer chrissake!

Can you ever have enough answers to the paper-or-plastic question? Of course not! Here's another, from Treehugger.

Global warming consensus

A couple of things I missed over the holiday break: Via this interesting piece on climate change consensus on RealClimate I found this interesting piece on climate change consensus in the Washington Post. Read 'em -- we'll be talking about this more soon.

Green quid pro quo for Liberia

William Powers has an intriguing editorial in the New York Times today arguing that Bush should help Liberia institute a sort of "Peace for Nature swap, based on the Debt for Nature model in which third world countries receive debt relief for conserving their natural heritage." The idea is that Liberia has something lots of folks want -- intact rain forest -- and they desperately need something we can help provide: stability. In exchange for setting its rain forest aside as a United Nations biosphere reserve, Liberia would receive U.N. peacekeeping, electricity and water, and training in new jobs based around ecotourism and limited logging. I think enviros should be skeptical about these schemes, vigilant against their historical tendency to value the rain forest over the long-term health and development of indigenous populations, but this sounds like an excellent plan to me, particularly given the grim alternatives Powers describes. An example of economic development driven by preservation of natural resources rather than exploitation thereof, sitting in the heart of Africa, would be, as Martha Stewart says, a good thing.

Deconstructing Inhofe

Sen. James Inhofe (R-Ok.) is the chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. He thinks global warming is "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people." He recently gave a speech on the floor of the Senate summarizing new science that he says supports his position. Chris Mooney utterly dismantles it.

UPDATE: Ah, yet another dismantling, more technical in nature, from the folks at RealClimate.