Laurence Aurbach
The Basics
- Name: Laurence Aurbach
Laurence Aurbach’s Recent Comments
Click here to view comment in original post
NRI statistics
One very helpful thing the Obama administration can do is get federal data collection and statistical analysis operations dusted off and operating again. The Bush administration avoided addressing sprawl whenever it could, which may explain why the most recent NRI statistics are from 2001.
From 1982-2001, about 14.5 million acres of forest were were newly developed. If development continued at the 1997-2001 rate, an additional 7.3 million acres of forest were developed through 2008. That adds up to 21.8 million acres of forest consumed by development since 1982. That's 5.4 percent of all U.S. forest, more than the area of Maine.
However, many borderline agricultural areas have been returning to forested status over the same time period, so that there was a small increase in forest land from 1982-1997. The WRI says that deforestation is an insignificant source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S., even though deforestation is responsible for 18 percent of emissions worldwide.
On Creating transit-oriented communities addresses many different issues posted 9 months, 1 week ago 5 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
Offshore wind for the East Coast
If they included offshore wind, the self-sufficiency figures for the Eastern seaboard would look a whole lot better. Some studies say the East Coast has enough offshore wind resources to supply the region's entire energy demand.
The New Rules projections for cellulosic ethanol are probably overstated by an order of magnitude.
On New report suggests that half of U.S. states could meet their energy needs with in-state resources posted 12 months ago 2 ResponsesClick here to view comment in original post
Emotion and nuclear power safety
It would be nice if we could eliminate emotion from the entire process of permitting, designing, building, operating, waste handling and decommissioning nuclear power. Unfortunately emotion -- especially greed, laziness and anger -- can insert itself into nuclear power in unforeseen and destructive ways.
Greed can lead to corruption in the construction process, so that nuclear plants are sited on top of earthquake faults. Inferior materials may be illegally swapped in for critical mechanisms, structures, vessels and piping, leading to premature failure. Safety procedures may be ignored during operations. Waste may be improperly dumped, or it may be stored improperly, contaminating the environment. Decommissioning may be bungled, also contaminating the environment.
Angry terrorists may seek highly radioactive material to make dirty bombs. They may strike nuclear shipments on trucks and trains as they travel through population centers. Angry nations may seek nuclear weapons materials from reprocessing facilities. Angry saboteurs may undermine the integrity of power plants during construction, or disrupt plant systems during operation.
The element of human emotion and human error is undeniable. It is the source and cause of most nuclear accidents and failures. But it tends to be ignored or minimized by nuclear proponents. The human element is the biggest reason to be cautious of nuclear power, and it is the reason we must demand strict oversight, monitoring and enforcement at all levels and phases.
The French have a massive bureaucracy devoted to nuclear power, far more centralized than the U.S. system, and a public watchdog agency that is recognized for its professionalism. But even with a so-called model system, France has experienced problems with leaks and waste storage and handling.
Jerome a Paris had a well-considered observation:
Which brings us back to ensuring that safeguards and procedures exist and are actually enforced. That's a task that can only be run and managed by a public body with the ability to retain competent personnel and to impose rules on the industry. That requires clear laws, a strong culture of regulatory enforcement, and the necessary high level political support and funding for the relevant body.
On Nuclear proponents are, like, totally John Galt posted 1 year ago 43 ResponsesTo me, this is the single most important element to ensure that nuclear is viable, and to make it possible for the public to trust the industry, something that a culture of secrecy and occasional contempt for the public has damaged.
Click here to view comment in original post
Paying for It
Other Gristmillers are writing about the current financial crisis and how it will limit the amount of credit available for new investments. I'm also reading stories like "Federal billions for Wall Street will handcuff next president" that describe how the Treasury Department's bailout plans are going to cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars and will severely limit the ability of the next president to pay for any new initiatives.
In the sustainability arena, this means a meager outlook for initiatives like a revamped electric grid, new transit and rail infrastructure, energy efficiency tax credits and so on.
In this context, and given the continuing necessity to lower CO2 emissions, I wonder if carbon taxes may become more politically palatable. The big advantage of carbon taxes is that the costs to consumers and industry can be certain and predictable. After watching the massive failure of the credit industry this fall, I wonder if Americans will prefer revenue certainty to Wall Street betting.
Also, if proposals like that of the Carbon Tax Center are implemented, everybody would receive a rebate from the carbon tax revenues, an idea that could gain popularity in a recession economy. This is the same sort of individual payment that Alaskans get ($2069 in 2008 via the Alaska Permanent Fund) and that Palin supplemented with an additional $1200 "resource rebate." So now that we have a VP candidate from Alaska, let's hear more about dedicated tax revenues that are rebated directly to individuals.
On A new We ad gets feisty posted 1 year, 1 month ago 7 Responses
Click here to view comment in original post
(mis)analysis
Based on some (mis)analysis too obscure for mortal men and women to follow...
It's not so obscure. Goddard simply did not understand how a map projection could affect his numbers.
A map projection is a way of representing the 3-D Earth on a 2-D piece of paper (or a screen). The map projection a lot of people grew up with is Mercator. Check it out:
The Antarctic is HUGE -- bigger than all the other land masses. That's because the standard Mercator projection distorts the area near the poles.
Now, just for fun, here's a different map projection:
Lambert Azimuthal Equal Area projection
This one shows the size of the Antarctic in correct relationship to the size other land masses. But the shapes of the continents are distorted.
In fact, all map projections have some form of distortion. It's unavoidable.
But Goddard simply counted the pixels on one map projection, compared it to different map projection, and ignored the fact that they were different.
That's why the NSIDC says,
Such an approach is simply not valid.
The proper way to calculate a comparison of ice coverage is by actually weighting the pixels by their [area] based on the map projection, which is exactly what NSIDC does.
By the way, who is Steven Goddard and what are his credentials, training or background? It seems to be a mystery. Some bloggers speculate he is a pseudonym.
On A new Olympic record for retraction of a mistaken analysis of NSIDC data posted 1 year, 2 months ago 3 Responses
