Comments A Siegel has made

Alec

I see many paths for 'Making Green by Going Green' and creating 'relatively painless' paths to reduce emissions.

In fact, I believe that McKinsey has significantly overstated the near-term costs of dealing with climate change (and they are typically cited as optimistic, placing a relatively low cost) because they do not engage in a systems-of-systems analysis of costs and benefits. They explicitly put health care costs and health benefits off the table; they do not examine move from high albedo (white) or green roofing to a lowered heat island impact further lowering air conditioning requirements; they do not calculate into the equation the productivity improvements (in work place, schooling, etc) from 'greening' buildings ...

We have a real opportunity for significant change at a positive ROI, especially in the near (next decade or so due to efficiency opportunities) even without considering that pesky little problem of Global Warming.

E.g., there is real power and opportunity for a 'no regrets strategy' part of the discussion since so much of what is required to be done can be done at an overall benefit even without considering reduced GHG emissions as part of the discussion.

I have (in other pieces) praised the energy efficiency elements of W-M.  I am now disappointed by the clean energy elements (why isn't clean energy funded at least equally with dirty energy (and, no, CCS is not clean energy)?).  This discussion is about the specific climate change / global warming section of the bill which has, imo, been significantly compromised ... and compromised in a way (the give-away of a $trillion+ of permits with some quite scary implications dealt with elsewhere) that will seems likely to compromise (if not sabotage) our ability to pursue a stronger program 5, 10, 20 years from now.

Now, I agree about "framing". I agree about the value of having a structure to help shift basic thinking. There is value for having a "win" to build on and pursue further wins.  But, we should strive to have something that, even if it is too weak today, can be strengthened tomorrow without too high a lost opportunity cost.

Note in my three suggestions that I did not argue for raising the RES. In fact, I see it quite possible that we will exceed the W-M target without that and see that RES as something that can be strengthened. Note that I did not suggest pushing the 2020 targets in line with IPCC (25-40% below 1990 levels) as, again, that is something that might be strengthened in years to come.   Those three suggestions, in my perspective, all address elements that cannot be reclaimed (except at extraordinary cost) once put into law.

Alec,

It is unclear that you want "healthy debate", instead it seems that you want mindless support, putting people on phone banks with a text that you provide.

There are a number of critical problems with W-M, most notably the huge amount of give-aways that will be impossible to carve back in the future and that handicap (if not cripple) any ability to move toward something with even a marginal chance of doing enough to turn the tide on Global Warming's rising seas.

If the problem were solely the RES ... If the issue were solely that the 2050 targets were inadequate in face of what the IPCC laid out, ...  Those are things that can be strengthened as time moves on, as we have success with EE/RE, as climate change's risks become ever clearer to a larger portion of the populace.

A $trillion plus in direct and indirect subsidies for polluting energy is money that will never be retrievable once given away. That sort of massive rent seeking is not reversible. 

And, what is the message?  Are you stating that W-M is "effective climate legislation"?  That is, as noted, a hard nut to swallow.

No ... Alec ... you are not looking for a "healthy debate" ...

Dave

Appreciated the rant ... and the quite thoughtful 'placing it in context' apology.

1.  At least some of the critiquing (Romm & myself included) has given good grades re energy and energy efficiency elements of the bill, while raising questions about the climate section.

2.  This is a "discussion draft" ... discussion not allowed? Only cheerleading?

Much to support

in what Fred has shared with you, from the need for today's technologies to tomorrow's. I share his excitement about the range of exciting new technologies.

I part ways with him, however, as to whether Lieberman-Warner is a "strong" bill. Among other things, his comments don't discuss that L-W is proposing cuts from today's levels by 2020, when the science calls for almost double those cuts -- 1990 as baseline, rather than 2005-2008.  (see: Plumbing Lieberman-Warner's Shortfalls: doesn't meet scientific requirements http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2008/04/18/plumbing-lieb ...)

And, so on ...On An interview with Fred Krupp, author of Earth: The Sequel and president of EDF posted 1 year, 6 months ago 1 Response

Apples to Apples?

Why is legitimate to compare a Corolla to a Prius or a prospective Volt?

Have you sat in both a Corolla and a Prius?  

Did you note any difference in terms of comfort levels? In terms of features?

Does the normal Corolla have Bluetooth built-in?  GPS, standard?  A rear-view camera? A system for real-time feedback as to car performance?  

And, how about leg room and space?  Ever sat in the back seat of a Corolla or a Prius (both?)?

Now, there is a reasoned discussion to be had, but adopting misleading platforms to make your comparison undermines any confidence that we can have in the other things that you assert.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Excellent discussion ...

On many levels. I truly appreciated this. While in agreement with much (most ... nearly all), I also appreciate that you added to my knowledge and, well, your style here ... Thus, thank you.

Couple points/thoughts/perspectives:

• To me, "ethanol" and biofuels are a potential small piece of Silver Buckshot (at most ... a fragment).  There are situations/environments where some pursuit of them can truly make sense. This should be done, as much as possible, in conjunction with efforts for greater efficiency (as you write), but there are situations where they make sense.  Now, to me, these almost entirely move past corn ethanol to things like biofuels from waste or, perhaps, jatropha in Haiti for making biodiesel.  

• The one 'silver bullet' element of biofuels in the United States, to me, is the potential that gem-flex fuel PHEVs, using some biofuels in the mix, could be game changing in terms of US use of liquid fossil fuels.  If a PHEV creates a path for a 90% reduction in fossil fuel and, well, cellulosic ethanol (if it ever emerges) could be producing the equivalent of several percent of today's fuel requirements, this creates a vehicle with 500+ mpg equivalent for gasoline.

• As a query, there is an interesting systems of systems element.  I've not tracked back but have seen (David Sandalow, Freedom from Oil) that the savings in reduced farm subsidies are more than twice in value (now?) compared to the costs of the corn ethanol subsidy.   Interesting item to factor into the discussion.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Thank you for posting here ...

and for taking on the corporate give-away and other misdirections in the Lieberman-Warner bill that will handicap our ability to do what is necessary to face Global Warming.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

RE Carbon Fee & other countries ...

this is a reason why there should be some form of import fee (with real penalties) against imports from any nation that does not have an equivalent (or better) carbon fee or cap-and-trade or such system for controlling carbon emissions.

We should be helping other nations leap frog polluting economic development. One method would be to show that there is a (real) cost in terms of foreign currency earnings in not taking a leap frog approach.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Additional influencing of China?

Another, additional path of influence, would be to make sure that any form of carbon tax/fee captures imports from countries that do not have equivalent programs in place. And, well, actually to have some form of penalty fee on those imports to provide a real encouragement to the home nation to act.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Very well stated and thoughtful ...

You are right that the 'norm' for discussing solutions for Global Warming ... Apollo Alliance / One Sky / Energize America are just three concept groups (yes, S&N are AA aligned) who are seriously focused on the prosperity which will come from turning toward energy efficiency, renewable energy and other key elements for a better energy future.

And, absolutely, there are many regulatory/policy changes that will foster real change. You mention Profit Decoupling (e.g., utility no longer incentivized for greater power delivery), but also, for example, regulatory standards for energy efficiency from home electronics to utility transformers; high-albedo roofing and other building code improvements; etc ...

Now, the "investment" -- why not high investment in energy efficiency & renewable energy to make government structures throughout the United States work more efficiently.  Energize America's Energy Smart Communities Act (ESCA) would put $11 billion / year into local/state government infrastructure for energy efficiency and renewable energy. This would improve capacity throughout the nation for executing such programs in homes and businesses.  (See www.ea2020.org ) And, well, it would make governments less expensive to run while lowering US governance GHG footprint.  And, last study I saw said that it would take just $80 million/year to bring $1.3 billion in school construction up to LEED standards.

In any event, I digress ... excellent discussion.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

To MKayser

Re "defenders" -- do we rush out to defend a bill with so many clear poison pills? Do we criticize it to death?  Do we ???

As for me, I will provide constructive comments, arguing for trying to help develop this toward something that I can rush out and defend.  As per my comments here, I think has many quite serious gaps and pitfalls, such that it is nearly DOA -- and potentially purposefully so.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Very positive statement

for many reasons, while I think something like a carbon fee should be put into place, I have a harder time embracing so warming. The following is what I, for one, posted to Dingell's site this morning:

Congressman Dingell,

Thank you for enriching the discussion with this proposal and opening it for comment.  Here are a few of my initial reactions.

1.  I do not believe that we should call this a "tax". Polluters should pay a FEE (or a royalty) for the privilege of polluting.  Just as one pays the local dump a "fee" for dumping trash.

2.  I am concerned that this summary does not discuss, in any meaningful way, the positive benefits that would come from reduced CO2 (and related) pollution.  Such as improved health from reduced coal-fired particulates in the air, etc ...  This "summary" is not placing a very difficult issue in a good context.

3. Also on benefits, there should be discussion as to the economic benefits (jobs, reduced imports, etc ...) and security (reduced need to protect oil) and ... benefits of reducing reliance on fossil fuels and going to energy efficiency/renewable energy as cornerstones to the economy.

4.  The summary understates the science, the target is not strong enough, and the threat/benefit (as above) is not clearly/strongly enough stated.
   

5. I disagree with the targeted use of funding.  (a) should be much (MUCH) more heavily focused on making the nation more ENERGY SMART -- help poorer people flatten their total energy bills by rapidly helping them be more energy efficient (thus reducing the carbon fee's impact).  Foster overall energy efficiency (thus enabling shutting down coal-fired electricity plants).  Help government at ALL levels be more energy efficient (which would reduce the citizen's burden for paying for government).  Too many of the items within the list are items that should be funded (through other means).  And, for example, national health care will end up lowering the nation's total health care bills (as would aggressive energy efficiency.

6. I disagree with so much of the gasoline tax money going to roads and airports, reinforcing the polluting systems -- for example, why not use the money for improving rail, electrifying it, and increasing its reach/extent to reduce demand for road/air travel.  Why not use "gasoline tax" to help people pay for PHEVs (plug-in electric vehicles)?

7. There is nothing here about how to capture the Chinese / Indians / anyone else who does not undertake something similiar. (Why not cooperate with the Europeans and Japan to impose import duties on imports from any country that does institute a carbon fee and use those resources to create a Prosperous, Climate Friendly Economy based on energy efficiency and renewable (or nuclear) energy?)

-------

My initial discussion of the proposal, point by point, is Dingell:  A dingbat proposal re Global Warming?

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

My vote ...

A.  Go for broke with #1.  Do the right thing, somewhere in line with www.stepitup.org calls.

B.  As well, not under Global Warming legislation, pursue smart / niche concepts that help improve the energy situation and foster greater capacity for stronger measures. These should be things that George W might sign, such as the Energy Smart Community Bonds (ESCB) program we've developed at Energize America (www.ea2020.org).

And, well, a good laydown of the options. I remain fearful that the second path will be the one chosen.

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Re core principles ...

as the author of that section, I would suggest that a more recent (2007 rather than 2006) and extensive version might be appropriate to look at:  http://www.ea2020.org/drupal/node/47

Blogging regularly at Energy Smart to Energize America .

Some excellent material ...

Keith -- There is much of great value in this post.

Now, to modify this a little bit:

• Carol Browning was EPA Administrator in Clinton Administrator, not 'just' lobbyist.  Not also: Albright Group, e.g. Madeline Albright.  Browning is engaged in many environmental related activities / organizations.

• Gore is striving to make dealing with Global Warming / the Climate Crisis bi-partisan, to enlist Corporations and 'non-traditional' Greens.  

In addition, just as a note that is worthy of being in the post, Cameron Diaz is a Climate Project trainee.

Blogging regularly at Ecotality for a Sustainable Future.

And ... mea culpa ...

I should have started it ...

"GREAT POST ... this is both useful and enjoyable ... but ..."On So much goodness you could waste a day posted 2 years, 6 months ago 4 Responses

Interesting to read the speech ...

as Murdoch seems driven to this by three factors:

• Advertiser demands
  
• Changing audience dynamic (don't buy climate skeptism, want green)
  
• His watching Australia

Check out the briefing ...

It truly gets impressive when you check out the briefing.

Slide 3 (pdf of entire presentation at: http://www.netl.doe.gov/coal/refshelf/ncp.pdf ) shows the additional power generation: natural gas, renewables, coal.

Several points:

• Have to wonder, considering the noise about it, why there is no nuclear?

• The Renewables ... roughly showing a 10 Gigawatt capacity addition 2005-2010 (which understates, wind/biomass/solar capacity addition but not hugely) ... For all the remaining 5-year periods, renewable capacity addition is perhaps at 1 gigawatt per five year period. Thus, this work has renewables dropping an order of magnitude in terms of added capacity rather than every reasonable prediction showing growing capacity from a variety of renewables.

RE heat gain issue ...

My understanding is that, for many reasons, incandescents are not efficient paths toward heating. While the "waste" heat is not 100% wasted, it is not efficiently deployed.  Even in areas where there is value for that waste heat, the CFLs still have value.

Low-use areas -- well, for me, those are the areas that get the CFLs that didn't pass muster to be in a bedside lamp.On Not tonight ... your CFLs give me a headache posted 2 years, 7 months ago 27 Responses

Hadn't seen statistics before ...

Almost surprised that traffic was not down further.  Very interesting the (important) link between instrature work. Basically, most major cities around the world are sitting on top of major infrastructure repair / renovation / replacement requirements. If cars can be taken off the road, perhaps this will speed the path to more efficient water/sewage system implementation.

And, the idea of a graduated fee is great -- quite low for EVs, a little more for PHEVs, up through into America's favorite SUV GHG-belchers.  And, related to congestion, if EV/PHEVs penetrate enough, move all the fees up a little.

Seems to me that Washington, DC, should seek to impose a congestion fee ...

• there is good public transport into the city (Metro rail & bus)

• traffic congestion is a mess

• pollution from automobile transport is a serious regional problem

• High-percentage of vehicles entering city through relatively few nodes (bridges from VA, etc ..>)

Doubtful Congress will let it through but this would be a great step forward for DC, the region, and the nation.On Imagine: charging polluters to encourage the others! posted 2 years, 7 months ago 4 Responses

Wonderful review ...

Thank you ... 100-mile diet is a real challenge and my household is a LONG way from coming close to it (or even seriously attempting it).  But, we are trying to do occasional meals this way and developing our knowledge ... and prioritizing local over distant in food purchases to a growing extent.On Now that I've actually read the book ... posted 2 years, 7 months ago 2 Responses

Good discussion ...

I think it worthwhile to place this in the context of green roofs & concepts of planting crops on urban rooftops.

For example:

• Montreal study: http://rooftopgardens.ca/files/Making_Rooftops_Bloom_Fina ...

• Discussion of Singapore: http://www.greenroofs.com/archives/gf_nov-dec05.htm  

A survey by Ngee Ann Polytechnic students ... found that four suburban areas of northern Singapore -- about one tenth of the total built environment -- had about 212 hectares of apartment and commercial rooftops to grow fresh vegetables, using inorganic hydroponics. ...

... about 39,000 tonnes of vegetables a year could be produced from the 212 hectares [at] $2/kg - the value of produce would be ... approximately U.S. $ 23.5 million a year.

Given that the Singapore Government's objective is to displace around 20% of the annual consumption of 380,000 tonnes of fresh vegetables consumed each year with local production (currently at only 5% pa of the total), this Ngee Ann Polytechnic study is significant justification for more serious analysis of rooftop production of fresh vegetables across the whole of Singapore.

It is reduction of so-called "food miles" writ large!

Why not do a Grist investigation/report?

You have CitizenRE CEO Styler contacting you with concern about this.

Why not do some research re CitizenRE and then conduct an interview with Styler.  Provide an update as to CitizenRE's status.

One place to start that research: CitizenRE: Panacea or "clean-energy vaporware".  Some thoughts and a lot of links to various people who've looked at CitizenRE.

Please ... please ... prove my skepticism wrong ... I would love to see CitizenRE work and for Skyler to become a multi-billionaire via massive deployment of solar panels across the US and then the globe.  Why not take a Grist look and see whether you think that this might occur?On This company a renewable energy godsend or pyramid scheme? posted 2 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Wonderful discussion ... exceptions ...

Gar -- This is a great discussion. Really appreciated.

And, to reinforce you comment about 'many solutions', the term that I use (lots of other people use) is that "there is no such thing as a silver bullet solution, but instead Silver BBs, or, perhaps, silver buckshot".  Going to sustainable building practices with lower energy costs to operate merits BB status.

One disagreement: you simply seem to assume the US cultural 'not in my neighborhood' rather than pointing to this as a barrier that exists but that can be overcome.  Education/acculturation will help make this 'acceptable' in suburban neighborhoods rather than simply in the 'rural, where your neighbors can't see you' circumstances.On Using earth to save the earth posted 2 years, 7 months ago 13 Responses

As per others ...

1.  INSULATE! INSULATE!! ... BUT FIRST AIR SEAL!!! Get the house "efficient" in terms of usage as the first step.  This is an integrated process.

2.  Re heating ... there are so many options.

• If steam/radiant, consider the value of solar hot water as the feedstock. This will lower the energy required to heat up the water to required temperatures for heating.  (And, if radiant as a choice and the option is available, dig down a reservoir for storing solar heat from summer for winter purposes.) The solar option thus picks up probably 70+% of the annual hot water heating demand.

• Natural Gas: In the Northeast, definitely worth checking out a combined-heat power system.  (Such as the Micro-CHP system from Honda / Climate Energy. (http://www.hondanews.com/categories/1048/releases/3822)

• If you have an air conditioning requirement (not common in MA), can consider a 'fossil fuel system' combining high-efficiency Heat Pump (mine, SEER 16+) with a high-efficiency gas furnance.  With a good controller/thermostat, system switches between the two for the most fuel (and/or cost) efficient option for heating.  (And, this creates a mixed gas/electric option for heating.)

• Solar passive:  Any ability to build back in solar passive heating?

Key question for anyone looking to replace a heating system on an old home:  Have they had a home energy audit? (A good start is Home Energy Diet (see my review at: http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/energy-bookshelf-1-put ... )On Umbra on home heating posted 2 years, 7 months ago 14 Responses

Jobs & renewable energy ...

One of the fallacies is that switching to a (more) sustainable economy would be bad for the economy.  This is only true if you ignore the 'free ride' implications of pollutants ... and perhaps only 'maybe' true.

Renewables & energy efficiency are great in terms of employment.  Trade fossil fuel extraction costs (relatively low labor and not in the local economy where power used) for good quality local jobs while reducing the pollution load.

Thanks for this piece. Look forward to the detailed future discussions.On An overview of environmental careers experiencing growth posted 2 years, 7 months ago 10 Responses

Spot on ...

Even with Inhofe ... Gore was sincere in his offer to meet privately, from my impression ... wonder whether Inhofe will take him up on it.On Really the last one, honest posted 2 years, 8 months ago 10 Responses

Read Samuelson with great skepticism ...

He is, consistently, a skeptic in terms of arguing that 'we need research and development because today's technologies won't do much good ...'

He doesn't address, anywhere, the impact that we could have by leapfrogging with renewable power, efficient use of energy, and smart growth in the developing world.  

You might be interested in J'accuse! Distorting reality in "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth"

Robert J. Samuelson:  J'accuse!  You are using your pulpit to mislead and deceive.  You seek to perpetuate the problem rather than solve it.

Samuelson must watch Colbert, since he specializes in truthiness. Just as with all his other articles, today's piece is filled with facts and interesting points that might be true, but the totality of the discussion is not truthful.  

How about a truthiness example:

 Consider a separate study by Wood Mackenzie, a consulting firm. It simulated a fivefold increase in U.S. electricity from renewables by 2026. Despite that, more coal generating capacity would be needed to satisfy growth in demand.

Well, wind power is at 25+% growth rates, globally, for many years. And, there are wind turbine factories being built that would support increased growth.  At 25%, this is a doubling in slightly less than every three years. In the US, wind is roughly 1% of wind power.  If we were postulating a 10% average growth rate over the next 20 (or, 40% of the current), the wind production would be roughly 8 times current levels.  

Solar is increasing at 40% ... and shows signs of (seriously) accelerating, both with new PV options and concentrating solar power (CSP).

Emerging are ocean power (wave, tidal, etc) systems.

Geothermal looks like there might be real room for growth, especially if low-temperature geothermal emerges.

It is saddening to see Grist giving Samuelson this level of credence without looking behind the wizard's curtain.
On Major technological advances are necessary posted 2 years, 8 months ago 7 Responses

This is important ...

and a message that I try to emphasize with people.

All we need to do is look at all of Amory Lovins work with an open eye and realize that we could greatly strenghten our society while using a fraction of the energy we do today.

And, some major companies get it.  For example, Dupont, according to Chad Holliway, Dupont's Chief Executive Officer

in 1994, Dupont set a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by the year 2000.  They achieved that goal on schedule.  Then Dupont set a goal to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 65 percent by 2010.  They made that goal as well.  In fact, they achieved a 72 percent reduction by 2004, six years ahead of schedule, and avoided costs of over $3 billion by holding Dupont's energy use six percent below 1990 levels.

Very good ...

I agree with all those who advocate your taking the time to seek getting a version of this published in the MSM -- including the NYTimes.  Perhaps the NYPost wouldn't mind publishing an attack piece on The Times ... The Village Voice??

In any event, appreciated reading this. Thank you.On The gray lady gets it woefully, laughably wrong posted 2 years, 8 months ago 53 Responses

Solarkismet's material is quite good ...

glad to see that link ... this is an excellent discussion of CitizenRe ...On Anybody heard about this too-good-to-be-true solar company? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 29 Responses

For WiscIdea ...

I am glad that CitizenRE gets blogged here ...

My comment was to David Roberts, a staff writer / blogger at one of the top environmental news / discussion sites ...

Seems to me that Roberts (yes, David, assume that you're reading this) might have spent a minute doing a search re CitizenRE. He would have come across any number of the serious discussions of this.  I used my posting as an example ... but also clearly suggested/stated that there were lots of great discussions out there. And, CitizenRE has been advertising (heavily) on the web for something like 4 months ...

Now, for you, mea culpa -- I was not (absolutely NOT) suggesting anything about you or commenting to you.  Apologies that you took my comment as an insult to you.

RE bees, you might want to check out Vince CA's excellent discussions ... this, 4 Feb, was the second of two: Pollinator Sunday, Pt 2: Mason Bees.  Everything else aside (your annoyance or anger at me), those were beautifully written, informative pieces by someone with a deep knowledge and passion. Well worth the 5-10 minutes to read.On Anybody heard about this too-good-to-be-true solar company? posted 2 years, 8 months ago 29 Responses

Some more Republican Skeptic material

The Senate Republican Policy Committee posted Global Warming: The Settled Versus the Unsettled Science (http://rpc.senate.gov/_files/022707GlobalWarmingPG.pdf) 27 February.  

It actually admitted that there is a consensus that there is warming ... that CO2 contributes to that ... but then it continues to push skeptic lines about uncertainty, doubt in modeling, needing to pay close attention to scientific developments, etc ...

Don't know ... perhaps I would have given it a C- in an undergraduate class.On Hint: the people who deny we're causing it posted 2 years, 9 months ago 6 Responses

Excellent discussion ...

Thanks ...

Now, as for "attic bypasses" -- many split levels (such as mine) and other homes were built with interior walls directly open into the attic. These create "chimney" effects, leaving the walls hotter in summer and colder in winter.  Sealing up some of these gaps led to wall warming by over five degrees within an hour for many walls.

As for blowing insulation ... if it is cellulose, I disagree with LeadByExample. This is a great 'neighbors' project. Find a neighbor/friend who wants to insulate. He/she helps you in your home with some air gap sealing on one day and the next day you blow in the insulation together. The next outing, up into their attic you go to seal gaps and work the insulation together. As long as the beers are cold at the end of the job, it isn't so bad.On Umbra on insulation, again posted 2 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

Samuelson disregards reality ...

and yet he keeps his page access at Newsweek, Washington Post, et al.  

As I wrote in J'accuse! Distorting reality in "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth", a piece discussing one of Samuelson's pieces last summer,

Samuelson's "Global Warming's Real Inconvenient Truth" has factual errors, misleading statements and conclusions, and provides a counterproductive path for thinking about and achieving change for a better future.

...

And, we all need to remember -- there is no magical silver bullet.  I agree with Samuelson that we must have a much stronger R&D program in energy issues.  I am in violent disagreement, however, that we should simply sit on our hands, watching the world decay around us, placing at risk the entire concept of a future for ourselves and future generations, with a blind hope that those research investments will come up with that non-existent silver bullet that will magically restore the world to pre-industrial age carbon dioxide levels and will bring back to life all the species that became extinct in the interim.

Robert J. Samuelson:  J'accuse! You are using your pulpit to mislead and deceive.  You seek to perpetuate the problem rather than solve it.

The Washington Post is
Romancing the Skeptics. Its editorials, recently, are strong re Global Warming and the need for action. The reporters, in stories, all too often show an ignorance, quoted meteorologists telling us why GW is just natural phenomena, and they strive to balance their OPEDs and LTEs.  I had a LTE attacked Skeptics one Saturday, responding to a skeptics letter the week before. Soon afterwards, I open the letters section to see a BS LTE from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) attacking Gore.  

AHHH!!!!On It's seductive -- and wrong posted 2 years, 9 months ago 54 Responses

Joe Romm ... has it right re meteorologists ...

As the skeptics love quoting meteorologists ... but we should all be cautious about meteorologists talking about Global Warming/Catastrophic Climate Change.

From Hell and High Water by Joe Romm (Recommended reading).

Another reason the media gets the climate extreme-weather link wrong:  Most meteorologists, including virtually every TV meteorologist, are not experts on global warming.  As on climate scientist explained to me:

"Meteorologists are not required to take a course in climate change ... university programs don't requre the course (even if they offer it).  So we have been educating generations of meteorologists who know nothing about climate change."

Asking a meteorologist to explain the cause of recent extreme weather is like asking your family doctor what the chances are for an avian flu pandemic in the next few years or asking a Midwest sheriff about the prospects of nuclear terrorism. The answer might be interesting, but it wouldn't be one I'd stake my family's life on. (p. 225)

I want to buy a vowel ...

Actually ... Perhaps, can I ask, is there a B ... and an S????

At the end of the day, to a certain extent, he has a point about whether people are doing everything that they can / should to address Global Warming.  If you believe in GW, should you be taking a private jet around the world?

By the way, the skeptics guide is truly wonderful, of regular use and recommend it to many others.On Vanna can't save you now posted 2 years, 9 months ago 5 Responses

Scientific Report by Massive Committee ...

So true:

"Anything that relies so heavily on consensus and agreement between groups and governments will in the end have huge amounts of important flaws and will probably, due to the pressures of bureaucracy, generally emphasi[z]e the uncertainties in the science."

Yet, the 4th IPCC is already being attacked (aggressively) by Global Warming Deniers as a bunch of fearmongering.  I just responded to a poster over at Ecotality who was attacking the "Chicken Litte Global Warming fear mongering" and asserting that Global Warming is just a tool to enslave the masses by an elite. ... And, sadly, there is still resonance for this in the United States (most notably in the OVP and Oval Office (in order of importance?)).

Yet, this report is consensus ... and a consensus combining scientists and bureaucrats from all over the world. Anyone who has sat around a conference table with just a few people trying to iron out the words even in a cover letter knows how horrible a process that is.  But, again, too many will not be able to conceive of this report in that vein.

This is a struggle, to get out the understanding that this is base report that, almost certainly, is understating the severity of the challenges facing us (US and the world) today and into the indefinite future, rather than 'chicken little fear mongering'.

Now, the public in the United States is shifting ... yet, only 47% percent of Americans (by latest polling) believe that it has been conclusively shown that human activity is causing Global Warming.  And, the vast majority believe that taking steps to deal with Global Warming will hurt the economy/them even though we can go very far with a 'no regrets' strategy while improving real quality of life and strengthening the economy.  But of these incorrect impressions need to be shifted --- as quickly as can be.On The report may pass over some of the worst dangers posted 2 years, 10 months ago 6 Responses