Joe Romm, author of Hell and High Water, wrote me about the review I posted earlier. I referred to the book as "depressing," but the tone is frank, not truly gloomy. Romm has none of Lovelock's penchant for drama.
Nonetheless, depression really was my reaction, because I'm familiar with Romm's work. He is known as a level-headed, optimistic analyst. His book is no exception -- he documents the problem and the (quite mainstream) solutions he endorses throughly and meticulously. So what is the problem?
Imagine for a moment you have been seriously injured in a car crash. A world-famous surgeon walks into your room. Without drama, after thoroughly and clearly giving you all the background, he concludes: "I think we may still save one leg."
Comments
View as Flat
caniscandida Posted 9:57 pm
14 Jan 2007
<<
Gray skies are gonna clear up,
Put on a happy face!
Brush off the clouds and cheer up,
Put on a happy face!
>>
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:52 am
15 Jan 2007
Detailed Plan Won't Harm U.S. Economy
The Energy Information Administration (EIA) today released an analysis of a highly detailed discussion draft on global warming legislation. The findings: mandatory steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions can be achieved at very low cost to American households and without harming the U.S. economy.
EIA, created by Congress in 1977, is a statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy. Its mission is to provide policy-neutral data, forecasts and analyses to promote sound policymaking, efficient markets and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment.
Bingaman initially proposed global warming legislation as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. That amendment was not offered, but a bipartisan "Sense of the Senate" resolution based on it was and passed in the Senate with 53 votes. A year later, after dozens of meetings with Republican and Democratic Senate offices, stakeholder groups and others, and an all-day workshop on climate policy, a modified draft was given to EIA for analysis. A bipartisan group of six Senators - Bingaman, Arlen Specter, Mary Landrieu, Lisa Murkowski, Ken Salazar and Dick Lugar - asked the agency to analyze the revised proposal.
Sen. Bingaman: "I am committed to developing bipartisan climate change legislation that can pass the Congress this year. Getting good analysis of draft legislation is the critical first step to understanding the impacts of global warming policy. I plan to hold a hearing to review the results of this analysis."
Sen. Specter: "I thank EIA for this report and look forward to reviewing it thoroughly. I am particularly interested in its analysis of domestic energy supplies, such as our abundant coal resources, which are crucial for national security and energy independence. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the serious and important issue of global climate change."
Sen. Landrieu: "Understanding the economics of climate change is a crucial part of developing responsible policies that protect both our economy and our environment. This analysis provides us with important information on the path forward."
Sen. Murkowski: "Climate change is a serious issue that we need to address. As we consider placing mandates on greenhouse gas emissions we must understand the impacts that such action will have on our economy. The analysis done by EIA will give Congress valuable information as we move forward in our deliberations."
Sen. Salazar: "As we consider the alternatives for tackling the problem of climate change, it is important that we understand the impacts of regulation on our economy. The effects of global warming are serious and we should continue to study and monitor the direct threat posed to our way of life. As my colleagues and I continue to study the economic impacts of climate legislation, we look forward to working with all of our colleagues in the Senate to craft a solution to this important problem."
Sen. Lugar: "The threat of climate change has been made worse by inefficient and unclean use of energy. In the long run this could bring drought, famine, disease and mass migration, all of which could lead to conflict and instability. This study is part of the analysis necessary for us to consider as we take action to reduce these threats. I thank the EIA for its contribution."
According to EIA, the climate plan would have the following impacts:
Ø A meaningful start towards reducing emissions. Compared to projected emissions without the program, emissions are lowered by 5% (372 million tons) in 2015 and 11% (909 million tons) in 2025, and 14% (1259 million tons) by 2030.
Ø Economic effects that are almost non-detectable. Costs to the U.S. economy would total 0.1% of GDP through 2030. Cumulative GDP is projected to double from 2006 to 2030. (See attached slide)
Ø No substantial increase in electricity prices. Electricity prices would rise by less than 11% by 2030.
Ø A continued vital role for coal in our energy mix. Coal use would grow by 23% by 2030 compared to 53% without the program.
Ø No substantial shift to natural gas in generation. Natural gas demand is projected to increase by a mere 1% by 2030.
Ø A meaningful boost for renewable energy. Non-hydro renewable electricity generation would rise by 53% by 2030.
The .pdf of the report has been posted on the EIA web at:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/servicerpt/bllmss/pdf/sroiaf
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 1:48 pm
15 Jan 2007
It's a scam. There is no absolute reduction in emission, merely in intensity of emissions per dollar of GDP.
Resource efficiency tends to increase in growing economies in any case, along with absolute increases in the use of those resources. Not even accelerating this enough to level or cut emissions is not a serious proposal.
All these polls that disappointed us by showing a majority of the U.S. population still doubt global warming is human caused? They do show a plurality who understand that it is human caused. The deniers can read trends; that plurality will be a majority soon enough. They are moving to the next stage - putting forth non-solutions.
Permalink
JMG Posted 11:27 pm
15 Jan 2007
Cutbacks Impede Climate Studies
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007...
U.S. Earth Programs In Peril, Panel Finds
By Marc Kaufman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, January 16, 2007; A01
The government's ability to understand and predict hurricanes, drought and climate changes of all kinds is in danger because of deep cuts facing many Earth satellite programs and major delays in launching some of its most important new instruments, a panel of experts has concluded.
. . .
As a result, the panel said, the United States will not have the scientific information it needs in the years ahead to analyze severe storms and changes in Earth's climate unless programs are restored and funding made available.
"NASA's budget has taken a major hit at the same time that NOAA's program has fallen off the rails," said panel co-chairman Berrien Moore III of the University of New Hampshire. "This combination is very, very disturbing, and it's coming at the very time that we need the information most."
. . .
The panel also recommends that NOAA restore to two satellite projects "key climate, environmental, and weather observation capabilities" that were dropped for financial reasons.
Permalink
yjdmd1 Posted 2:53 pm
16 Jan 2007
In order to insure energy and economic independence as well as better economic growth without being blackmailed by foreign countries, our country, the United States of America's Utilization of Energy sources must change.
"Energy drives our entire economy." We must protect it. "Let's face it, without energy the whole economy and economic society we have set up would come to a halt. So you want to have control over such an important resource that you need for your society and your economy." The American way of life is not negotiable.
Our continued dependence on fossil fuels could and will lead to catastrophic consequences.
The federal, state and local government should implement a mandatory renewable energy installation program for residential and commercial property on new construction and remodeling projects with the use of energy efficient material, mechanical systems, appliances, lighting, etc. The source of energy must by renewable energy such as Solar-Photovoltaic, Geothermal, Wind, Biofuels, etc. including utilizing water from lakes, rivers and oceans to circulate in cooling towers to produce air conditioning and the utilization of proper landscaping to reduce energy consumption.
The implementation of mandatory renewable energy could be done on a gradual scale over the next 10 years. At the end of the 10 year period all construction and energy use in the structures throughout the United States must be 100% powered by renewable energy. (This can be done by amending building code)
In addition, the governments must impose laws, rules and regulations whereby the utility companies must comply with a fair "NET METERING" (the buying of excess generation from the consumer), including the promotion of research and production of "renewable energy technology" with various long term incentives and grants. The various foundations in existence should be used to contribute to this cause.
A mandatory time table should also be established for the automobile industry to gradually produce an automobile powered by renewable energy. The American automobile industry is surely capable of accomplishing this task.
This is a way to expedite our energy independence and economic growth. (This will also create a substantial amount of new jobs). It will take maximum effort and a relentless pursuit of the private, commercial and industrial government sectors commitment to renewable energy - energy generation (wind, solar, hydro, biofuels, geothermal, energy storage (fuel cells, advance batteries), energy infrastructure (management, transmission) and energy efficiency (lighting, sensors, automation, conservation) in order to achieve our energy independence.
"To succeed, you have to believe in something with such a passion that it becomes a reality."
Jay Draiman, Energy Consultant
Northridge, CA. 91325
1-16-2007
P.S. I have a very deep belief in America's capabilities. Within the next 10 years we can accomplish our energy independence, if we as a nation truly set our goals to accomplish this.
I happen to believe that we can do it. In another crisis--the one in 1942--President Franklin D. Roosevelt said this country would build 60,000 [50,000] military aircraft. By 1943, production in that program had reached 125,000 aircraft annually. They did it then. We can do it now.
The American people resilience and determination to retain the way of life is unconquerable and we as a nation will succeed in this endeavor of Energy Independence.
Solar energy is the source of all energy on the earth (excepting volcanic geothermal). Wind, wave and fossil fuels all get their energy from the sun. Fossil fuels are only a battery which will eventually run out. The sooner we can exploit all forms of Solar energy (cost effectively or not against dubiously cheap FFs) the better off we will all be. If the battery runs out first, the survivors will all be living like in the 18th century again.
Every new home built should come with a solar package. A 1.5 kW per bedroom is a good rule of thumb. The formula 1.5 X's 5 hrs per day X's 30 days will produce about 225 kWh per bedroom monthly. This peak production period will offset 17 to 24 cents per kWh with a potential of $160 per month or about $60,000 over the 30-year mortgage period for a three-bedroom home. It is economically feasible at the current energy price and the interest portion of the loan is deductible. Why not?
Title 24 has been mandated forcing developers to build energy efficient homes. Their bull-headedness put them in that position and now they see that Title 24 works with little added cost. Solar should also be mandated and if the developer designs a home that solar is impossible to do then they should pay an equivalent mitigation fee allowing others to put solar on in place of their negligence.
Installing renewable energy system on your home or business increases the value of the property and provides a marketing advantage.
Nations of the world should unite and join together in a cohesive effort to develop and implement MANDATORY RENEWABLE ENERGY for the sake of humankind and future generations.
JayDraiman
Permalink