Comments Brudaimonia has made

  • Marinaman, If you make a claim, you should back it up. Data about what was deleted? Temperatures? Paleoclimatic data? I don't deny that possibility, especially since one of Phil Jones's emails does ask colleagues to delete certain emails, but this doesn't necessarily mean data was manipulated. Please provide support for your claim.On On "climategate" posted 13 hours, 54 minutes ago 22 Responses
  • Shearwater, I do deny that the UNFCCC is an attempt to take away our freedom and initiate a one-world government. Here is a description of the convention: **** Under the Convention, governments: * gather and share information on greenhouse gas emissions, national policies and best practices * launch national strategies for addressing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to expected impacts, including the provision of financial and technological support to developing countries * cooperate in preparing for adaptation to the impacts of climate change **** Where in that description does it talk about taking away people's freedom and instituting a one-world government? Where is your evidence to back up this point? "The fact is that Al Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth," has 34 falsehoods and 9 outright lies." Again, where is your evidence? "The polar bear population si increasing and has been for the last twenty years. That is evidence!!" Yet again, where's your evidence of that? On the contrary, it seems like polar bear numbers are in fact declining, especially in areas that have experienced significant warming over the last few decades, like Alaska (see here and here, for instance).On Obama administration officials grateful for early spring posted 14 hours, 4 minutes ago 10 Responses
  • Georgiact, Where is your support for the claim that data being cherry-picked has been known for years? Which data? Have these global land-surface temperature observations showing the global warming that has occurred over the past 40 years been manipulated? If so, where is your evidence?On On "climategate" posted 14 hours, 16 minutes ago 22 Responses
  • John 123, Re: (1), which emails show that they manipulated data? I'm not condoning some of the things they said, and I think Phil Jones should resign. But you should provide more specifics, and respond to Michael Mann's clarifications about some of the spotlighted emails: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/michael-mann-in-his-own-w_b_371414.html. Re: (2), what's your evidence that the work of a few scientists is the foundation for all of the findings in the IPCC? It seems pretty absurd to me. For instance, just one chapter of one working group for the AR4 -- Ch. 5, WG1 -- has 250 references to scientific articles or data. (See here: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter5.pdf) You seem very adept at name calling but short on premises to back up your point.On On "climategate" posted 14 hours, 21 minutes ago 22 Responses
  • David, I suspect that the crux of it all for most skeptics is that climate change is fatal to some of the basic tenets of their ideology, which, in the extreme, is the solipsistic refusal to believe that their actions affect others. That everything is ultimately connected is the basis of ecology. Climate change is one of the more broad, subtle instances of this fact (subtle not in terms of magnitude, but in terms of the indirectness of its impacts). To accept it would create ideological dissonance for many dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. So at this point I don't know if continuing to offer evidence to them is necessarily the best way of getting them to change their position, to the extent that that's possible. It might be part of a more philosophical debate about what it means to be a conservative given that climate change is happening and the externalities of consumption are primarily responsible.On On "climategate" posted 23 hours, 28 minutes ago 22 Responses
  • Shearwater, You continue to avoid offering evidence for your points. The "Instrument of Repudiation" is not evidence. It is not a scientific document. It is a series of baseless statements. Since you've had several chances to back your claims up and have failed to do so, I can only assume you don't really believe that climate change and the GHG connection are myths.On Obama administration officials grateful for early spring posted 23 hours, 55 minutes ago 10 Responses
  • Shearwater, You failed to offer any evidence of your original claims. My questions are still waiting answers. The graph shows that the climate has changed in the last 20 years (in fact, the last 40 years), contrary to your original point. You failed to offer counter-evidence, but instead implied that those who compiled the graph from temperature observations are liars. Where's your proof of that? It's true that that particular temperature anomaly graph does not show the relationship between GHGs and temperature. That is shown in this National Academies of Science pamphlet (large PDF), pp. 5-6: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf . The crux is that the observed high temperatures cannot be explained solely by reference to natural factors affecting the atmosphere. You talk about the "burden of proof". Few things are proven indisputably in the natural sciences. One looks for where the weight of evidence is. It seems clear that the weight of evidence is on the side of the hypothesis that GHGs and climate change are connected. See, for example, this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). Furthermore, that hypothesis has as its starting point the physical law discovered about certain gases, which we happen to emit in our everyday activities: they let the sun's radiation pass through them and warm the earth, but absorb and send back towards earth some of the infrared radiation they received from it. So if it were true that we should assign someone a "burden of proof" in this debate, perhaps it should be directed towards you contrarians: why, despite that indisputable fact about certain gases we emit, are they NOT somehow affecting the earth's average temperature, and thus other aspects of our climate, land, and oceans? The new giddiness over the East Anglia emails are what are to be expected of expert straw-clutchers: twisting the words of a few of them and believing that that overthrows the overwhelming body of evidence that the climate is changing. I won't defend some of the language used in them. Some of it is disturbing; other parts have been taken out of context. (See Michael Mann's response here, for instance: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/mann-in-his-own-words.php). But how does what was said in those emails show that climate change isn't happening? The dramatic tone of your comment ("lemmings", "world is going to end", etc.) suggests that you are attempting to compensate for a lack of evidence for your claims through harsh language. If you can't back up any of your claims with evidence, how can I take them seriously?On Obama administration officials grateful for early spring posted 1 day, 16 hours ago 10 Responses
  • Shearwater, You failed to offer any evidence of your original claims. My questions are still waiting answers. The graph shows that the climate has changed in the last 20 years (in fact, the last 40 years), contrary to your original point. You failed to offer counter-evidence, but instead implied that those who compiled the graph from temperature observations are liars. Where's your proof of that? It's true that that particular temperature anomaly graph does not show the relationship between GHGs and temperature. That is shown in this National Academies of Science pamphlet (large PDF), pp. 5-6: http://dels.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf . The crux is that the observed high temperatures cannot be explained solely by reference to natural factors affecting the atmosphere. You talk about the "burden of proof". Few things are proven indisputably in the natural sciences. One looks for where the weight of evidence is. It seems clear that the weight of evidence is on the side of the hypothesis that GHGs and climate change are connected. See, for example, this article: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686). Furthermore, that hypothesis has as its starting point the physical law discovered about certain gases, which we happen to emit in our everyday activities: they let the sun's radiation pass through them and warm the earth, but absorb and send back towards earth some of the infrared radiation they received from it. So if it were true that we should assign someone a "burden of proof" in this debate, perhaps it should be directed towards you contrarians: why, despite that indisputable fact about certain gases we emit, are they NOT somehow affecting the earth's average temperature, and thus other aspects of our climate, land, and oceans? The new giddiness over the East Anglia emails are what are to be expected of expert straw-clutchers: twisting the words of a few of them and believing that that overthrows the overwhelming body of evidence that the climate is changing. I won't defend some of the language used in them. Some of it is disturbing; other parts have been taken out of context. (See Michael Mann's response here, for instance: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/mann-in-his-own-words.php). But how does what was said in those emails show that climate change isn't happening? The dramatic tone of your comment ("lemmings", "world is going to end", etc.) suggests that you are attempting to compensate for a lack of evidence for your claims through harsh language. If you can't back up any of your claims with evidence, how can I take them seriously?On Obama administration officials grateful for early spring posted 1 day, 16 hours ago 10 Responses
  • Shearwater, What are your premises for the claim that only the last 20 years matter in determining whether climate change has occurred? Also, what is your evidence that the climate hasn't changed in the last 20 years? http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif Here is a graph from NASA showing global temperature averages from 1880-present. The annual mean temperature anomaly increases from 0.20C in 1989 to 0.56C in 2009. How is that not a change? Or are these temperature observations flawed? If so, why? You seem pretty definitive in your comment, so you must have rock-solid evidence to back it up. I'll be waiting to see it.On Obama administration officials grateful for early spring posted 2 days, 9 hours ago 10 Responses
  • Agree about there being no one Holy Grail, or Silver Bullet...pick your symbol. My comment was directed towards the article's use of the term specifically for the solar energy industry. There inevitably will be lifestyle changes, but *at best* they will be gradual. Through smart planning they will not involve unbearable hardship. However, if the "complacency or panic" dichotomy of the public and political landscape stays in place, we may unfortunately see (and are already starting to see, I would argue) the "hard", unprepared-for lifestyle changes. What we need is to plan for as soft of a landing as possible.On SolarReserve's 24/7 solar power plant posted 2 weeks, 4 days ago 98 Responses
  • It's good that several commenters mentioned water. That will be the linchpin for whether this technology will be scaled up out west, no matter who's the financial backer or how many rocket scientists they employ. How much of the steam is recycled through the system? If a closed system, how much water loss is there? How will new water be delivered to the desert? Can it use reclaimed water? Is that cost-effective? And so forth. Until these questions are answered sufficiently I don't think anyone can be completely comfortable with this technology being the Holy Grail of renewable energy.On SolarReserve's 24/7 solar power plant posted 2 weeks, 5 days ago 98 Responses
  • Hopefully, someone introduced the person who asked that question to permaculture (though Joel Salatin and Will Allen are pretty strong examples).On Pollan shoots down organic myths at Grist event posted 1 month, 3 weeks ago 25 Responses

  • Clifford,

    A former professor used to say, "All models are wrong, but some are useful."

    If the question is, "Are the GCMs 100% accurate?" then the answer is, "Of course not.  They're models."

    But the important question is, "Are the GCMs accurate enough to warrant GHG reductions?"  It certainly looks that way.  Let's remember that the models are based largely on physical laws and that there are a number of validations that test their fitness (see here).

    Even given the models' complexity, climate assessments such as the IPCC's give ranges, rather than one value, for their predictions.  For example, the AR4 gave a sea level rise range of 0.18 to 0.59 meters over this century.  This range encompasses smaller ranges for each of six emissions scenarios.  So if the media throws out one value, it's because the media is more interested in getting your attention than being scientifically meticulous.

    Finally, we have observations of what has already happened.  It doesn't take a model to know that 11 of the 12 years from 1995-2006 were the warmest in the instrumental record, as the AR4 reported.  It doesn't take a model to see the coral reef bleaching that has already occurred.

    And it doesn't take a model to accept basic, undeniable facts: some gases have the property of letting through solar radiation but trapping infrared radiation.  These gases, some of whose atoms had previously been buried in the Earth, have been emitted into the atmosphere nonstop since the Industrial Revolution and are now in higher concentrations.

    It's just a matter of people accepting reality and taking responsibility for their actions, even if that might not be the most politically expedient thing to do.  Even if it means that they have to admit that they were wrong.

    On No, Jeff, there's not a debate about the science of climate change posted 4 months, 4 weeks ago 13 Responses

  • Actually, most hydrogen these days, for transportation at least, is produced through steam methane reformantion, which uses a ton of energy, not to mention any methane that happens to escape into the atmosphere.


    Also, I'll refer you to my earlier comment about the link between natural disasters and climate change.

    On Climate bill negotiations stall in House posted 5 months, 1 week ago 35 Responses

  • WWAGD,

    If you were really concerned about the importance of peer-reviewed articles, would you believe that one blog post could "put[] an ice axe into the 'science' of global warming", as you said earlier?

    It would mean that Pielke knows something that nearly every peer-reviewed article author reviewed by Naomi Oreskes in her meta-analysis, "Beyond the Ivory Tower", published in Science, doesn't.  It's important to realize the overwhelming body of scientific evidence finding a very strong likelihood of the connection between human-caused GHG emissions and the harmful climatic effects on our livelihoods.

    As far as the link between climate change and natural disasters, it's true that we don't have rock solid evidence of a strong connection, but there is physical and statistical evidence that points to a possible connection.  No one disputes that hurricanes tend to originate in warmer water; that's high school science.  What makes bodies of water, like the Gulf of Mexico, warmer?  Global warming.

    Secondly, even if a connection between tropical storm frequency has not yet been unequivocally proven, that's not the only way climate change can influence tropical storms, cyclones, and hurricanes.  There's stronger evidence that climate change is making them more intense.  See, for example:

    K. Emanuel. (2005). Increasing destructiveness of tropical cyclones over the past 30 years.

    "I find that the record of net hurricane power dissipation is highly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature, reflecting well-documented climate signals, including multi-decadal oscillations in the North Atlantic and North Pacific, and global warming. My results suggest that future warming may lead to an upward trend in tropical cyclone destructive potential, and—taking into account an increasing coastal population—a substantial increase in hurricane-related losses in the twenty-first century."

    and...

    J. Elsner, et. al. (2008). The increasing intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones.

    "We find significant upward trends for wind speed quantiles above the 70th percentile...Our results are qualitatively consistent with the hypothesis that as the seas warm, the ocean has more energy to convert to tropical cyclone wind."

    So, there is evidence that climate change and natural disasters -- at least cyclones and likely hurricanes -- are linked.

    On Climate bill negotiations stall in House posted 5 months, 1 week ago 35 Responses

  • From the Washington Post article:

    "To stretch federal dollars across more proposed [nuclear] plants, the Energy Department has been lobbying the Japanese government to extend export credits and loan guarantees to the plants using Toshiba designs and to persuade the French export credit agency, Coface, to help back the Areva design at Calvert Cliffs. Those agencies usually help promote exports to poor or developing countries, not to aid a project in the world's richest economy."

    I am not knowledgeable about the ethics of Coface's or another credit agency's projects, but this is a perfect example of the legitimate concern over nuclear power's risk, and the amount of insurance needed to mitigate that risk.

    Not every large construction project that carries a lot of risk is unwise, but in nuclear power's case, we have so many alternatives, including the simplest one: reducing wasted electricity generation.

    On Enviros cringe as Senate committee approves energy bill posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 3 Responses

  • Aletho,

    Do you seriously believe Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is an authoritative source?

    The Venezuelan heavy oil figure is an estimate of total reserves.  No legitimate discussion of peak oil is based on total reserves.  The question is: what is economically recoverable?

    Even going on what is technically recoverable, the figure for Orinoco Belt oil -- where most of the heavy oil is situated -- is only 100 to 270 billion barrels.  How much of these reserves are economically recoverable, especially given their extra heat and refining requirements, is another question.  What we do know, according to the USGS, is that:

    "Compared to light oil, these resources [heavy oil and natural bitumen] are generally more costly to produce and transport. Also, extra-heavy oil and natural bitumen must usually be upgraded by reducing their carbon content or adding hydrogen before they can be used as feedstock for a conventional refinery.

    [...]

    ...to sustain commercial well production rates, heavy and extra-heavy oil production almost always requires measures to reduce oil viscosity and to introduce energy into the reservoir.

    [...]

    Extra-heavy oil commonly requires the addition of diluents (gas condensate, natural gas liquids, or light crude) to enable the oil to be transported by pipeline. Extra-heavy oil must also be chemically upgraded to reduce density and remove contaminants before it can be used as refinery feedstock. In recent projects in the Venezuelan Orinoco heavy oil belt, 1 barrel of diluents is required for every 3 or 4 barrels of extra-heavy oil produced."

    So, as it turns out, the figure you cited -- 1.3 trillion barrels of oil -- is not applicable to our discussion.  You need to discount it by what is economically recoverable -- and, of course, consider all the feedstock, production, and environmental costs.

    Evidence that economically recoverable unconventional liquids will avert peak oil continues to elude you.

    On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

  • Aletho,

    You continue to fail to offer evidence for your main point, and, out of what appears to be desperation, you continue to misrepresent what I say.

    Just because a few old wells in North America can extract a little bit more due to pumping in water or CO2 to increase pressure doesn't mean unconventional liquids production will prevent a peak oil crisis.

    Far from the CERA figure of 4.8 trillion barrels of recoverable reserves (and several commenters have noted CERA's well-known bias and over-optimism), the IEO reports (xls) only 1.342 trillion proved oil reserves.

    I will ask, for the last time: where is your evidence for your major claim?  Please don't copy and paste any more full news articles from obscure sources several years ago.  A link to a peer-reviewed paper or credible government report specifically dealing with how unconventional or off-shore liquids production will substantially delay a peak oil crisis will do.  In all of your many comments, you have failed to produce this.  Why?

    Why do you continue to refuse to offer evidence for your point?  If you cannot back up what you say, I will assume that you don't disagree (for any good reason) with the fact that the world is facing an impending peak oil crisis.

    On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

  • Aletho,

    Your post further confirms that you don't have solid, quantitative evidence for your main point.  Why is it so difficult to offer counter-evidence to the IEO?

    You also continue to try to put words in my mouth, a sign that your argument is fueled more by desperation than by rationality.

    "Angola's Subsalt Oil Reserves May Resemble Brazil's"

    Did you even read this article?  It doesn't report on any proven reserves; it simply says that there may be some oil given the geology.  The article mentions that exploratory drilling hasn't yet begun, and that exploration and production are "challenging and expensive" -- further proof that some amount of off-shore oil production may not be economically feasible.

    The credibility levels of your other sources need no further elaboration: Vladimir Putin, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, and a guy who thinks that oil magically seeps up from the Earth's core.

    Where is a peer-reviewed paper, government report, or credible report from a consortium of firms or organizations that shows that unconventional liquids will save the world from an impending peak oil crisis?

    On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

  • Aletho,

    Please don't quote me with things I never said.  I just pointed out what your own link said -- that capital costs for new oil and gas development had skyrocketed at the time of Yergin's testimony.  It's a reminder that capital costs are a significant issue for unconventional liquids production.

    What you still haven't done is offer any evidence to back up your main point: that unconventional liquids production will save the world from a peak oil crisis.  The fact that you still haven't done so is indicative that you don't know where that evidence is, and that perhaps it doesn't exist.

    Please stop throwing out unsupported hiring figures from one oil company to try and prove your point.  It may be true that Petrobras has been hiring a lot, but a) please show where you found this figure, and b) more importantly, this doesn't prove your point.  Just because there is some increase in investment towards deeper off-shore oil from a few companies (and clearly that seems to be the case) doesn't mean peak oil isn't either upon us now or coming up very soon.

    As far as what "unconventional" means, I am using the IEO's categories.  If you look at Table G3 of the IEO, "World Unconventional Liquids Production by Region and Country, Reference Case", you'll see that the primary components are indeed biofuels and tar sands, which, as I stated above, have their own associated economic, environmental, and social issues, in addition to their supply coming into question.

    Whether you call off-shore production conventional or unconventional, you still have yet to prove your point -- that it will mitigate the impending peak oil crisis.

    Please offer evidence for your claims.

    On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

  • Florida also had been trying to get a 61-mile commuter rail corridor into Orlando, but the project's future is up in the air now.

    Another "unsung" transit system that could be on this list:

    - Minneapolis/St. Paul: opened the Hiawatha LRT about 5 years ago.  Ridership and station-area development vastly exceeded projections.  Future plans are commuter rail from the west into downtown Minneapolis and the Central Corridor LRT from Minneapolis to downtown St. Paul, down University Ave.  Buses are pretty well coordinated and have an extensive service area.  It also helps that the Twin Cities have a wonderful biking network and a strong biking/green culture.

    On The best U.S. transit systems you never knew existed posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 15 Responses

  • Aletho,

    I'm not sure which of those four identical comments I'm replying to, but let's just say all of them.

    The table you pasted, while interesting, does not serve as evidence that unconventional liquids belie peak oil.  All it shows is one consulting firm's projections of total liquids production for 15 countries.  The projections themselves are somewhat rosy compared with the IEO's projections (xls).  For example, CERA shows a 2005 production figure of 12.7 mmbd for Saudi Arabia, compared with the IEO's 10.7.  Similarly, CERA shows 14.3 mmbd in 2015, while the IEO shows 10.9.  Given that the CERA link is congressional testimony of one person over two years ago, and the IEO is a comprehensive document released a few weeks ago, what makes you believe the former is more convincing?

    The CERA testimony says little about unconventional liquids, except stating that "the cost for developing new oil and gas projects increased more than 50 percent over the last two years".  Far from offering evidence for your point, you seem to be offering evidence for the opposite: the economic unfeasibility of much new oil and gas projects.

    Speaking specifically of unconventional liquids, most of the increased production will come from either biofuels or tar sands.  But production of biofuels raises clearly raises food prices.  And production of tar sands relies on substantial amounts of natural gas (as this report shows), for which there are only 9 more years of production at current levels given Canada's reserves.  Tar sands are using an unsustainable amount of natural gas.

    So it seems unlikely that unconventional liquids alter the conclusion that peak oil is imminent or already upon us.  And as Michael Klare mentions in the article, there are all the negative externalities associated with biofuels, tar sands, oil shale, etc: air pollution, climate change, etc., for which the production of these sources should pay.

    On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

  • Aletho,

    Where's the evidence that unconventional liquids can be produced cheaply?  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but you have made that point several times without backing it up with evidence.

    If unconventional liquids are so abundant and cheap to produce, why does their production only increase to 13% of total liquids production by 2030?  Why not more?  According to IEO2009, this modest production increase is not nearly enough to meet demand, since price is projected to more than double from $61/barrel in 2009 to $130/barrel in 2030.  If unconventional is so cheap and abundant, why doesn't the EIA expect production to skyrocket at a price of $130/barrel?

    Or is the IEO wrong?  If so, what is your counter-evidence to support that conclusion?  What flaws in the IEO's reasoning make its conclusions about oil prices and unconventional production incorrect?

    Please try to avoid making claims without backing them up.  It will help the comments section to have a more informed and reasoned discussion.

    On It's official -- the era of cheap oil is over posted 5 months, 2 weeks ago 44 Responses

  • There are 106 members of the Congressional Coastal Caucus, at least according to this (slightly outdated) list on Rep. Frank Pallone's website.

    The current members should all be well aware of ocean acidification and its effects on their districts' economies as the ACES Act progresses through Congress.

    If they oppose strong regulation of GHGs, and attempt to weaken the bill, it should be made clear to their constituents that they are jeopardizing their districts' marine economies.

    On 'Sea Change' documentary highlights threat of ocean acidification posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 9 Responses

  • CO2 Sharkey,

    Of course, sea ice is already displacing seawater, so its melting does not create a direct sea level rise.  But, as the article mentions, melting sea ice does cause a warming effect through decreased albedo.

    Sea level rise occurs through thermal expansion of the oceans and melting land ice, like glaciers.  And sea level has been rising more drastically than the IPCC thought even two years ago.

    So, melting sea ice does cause sea level rise, just indirectly through the albedo feedback, which takes time.

    On New NSIDC director on “death spiral” Arctic ice posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago 5 Responses

  • Thumbs up their *sses

    Along with the recent energy bill, this episode should be a lesson that we can't count on any branch of the federal government, as it is currently composed, to take meaningful action on environmental issues.  On the environment, most of them are just a bunch of bumbling fools.

    Cities, towns, and some states are the ones taking the lead.  They're on the second lap while Washington is still trying to figure out how to tie its shoes.On House energy committee not primed to rush through climate bill posted 1 year, 10 months ago 11 Responses

  • Maybe it's the sounds

    I like them both, but buses groan loudly with diesel engines while streetcars kind of whir along, perhaps with an innocent clank or two.

    Here's another good recent streetcar article from Alex Marshall that I recommend:

    http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/12/04/good-streets-includ ...On Transportation planning with people in mind posted 1 year, 11 months ago 20 Responses

  • Democrats need to get greener or they will lose

    Republicans may only seem to be getting greener while continuing to let the Earth burn, but in Washington, deceptive appearances are still gold.  Their Potemkin village of environmentalism is now a small town.  Newt's book is just one recent example.

    Democrats will jeopardize future chances of a majority in Congress if they don't respond to this greenwashing by getting greener in reality.  This means they need to remind a few anti-environmental committee chairs that it's not about them, it's about the future of the party. Much more importantly, it's about the future of the Earth.On Anti-environment, anti-technology Gingrich tries to rewrite history posted 2 years ago 9 Responses

  • New Urbanism

    I doubt New Urbanism works really good unless it is done in areas having low or negative growth.

    That is a sloppy, unsubstantiated claim.  New Urbanist developments have thrived in high-growth areas, such as Raleigh-Durham, parts of California, outside of D.C., and so forth.

    I'll take the "what Don Chen said" route as a reply to the affordability part of your comment.   It's true most zoning and other municipal regulations prohibit New Urbanist developments, but the New Urbanists have proactively sought to replace obsolete codes with those of their own design.

    Not that I don't have qualms with NU.  Its roots are primarily in architecture and urban design, and only some environmental connections are a priori.  There are more and less eco-friendly NU developments; it depends on several dimensions such as brownfield/greenfield, nonporous/porous pavement, natural features, transit-oriented (almost all have at least some transit connection), etc.On Land-use and development decisions are crucial in the fight against climate change, says new report posted 2 years, 2 months ago 11 Responses

  • Even better than "just eat[ing] out"

    I do agree that there are certain economies of scale that allow restaurants to use less packaging and energy per calorie than home cooking.

    But only a very small percentage of restaurants uses local food, and only a slightly larger percentage uses organic food.  Usually, restaurants are getting the conventionally-grown and -processed stuff.

    Even better, have community dinners with friends and neighbors.  One person takes turns cooking for several people.  And then the group can have discretion over where the food was purchased.On More than half of U.S. families bought packaged meat last year. Gross posted 2 years, 2 months ago 14 Responses

  • A pittance of a penance...

    ...for a company that is responsible for how much carbon emissions over the years?

    Herein lies the ethical rub: when a company takes 100 steps back and 20 steps forward, should we applaud them like they're 20 steps ahead, or critique them like they're still 80 steps back?On Wal-Mart's eco-initiatives turning Arkansas into sustainability hotspot posted 2 years, 2 months ago 9 Responses

  • A funny anti-wind argument

    At the Farmer's Market this morning, a vendor saw my shirt, which had a mention of renewable energy and a picture of a wind turbine on the back.

    He said, "You know that wind turbines would slow the rotation of the earth, right?"

    (It's something to ponder, but the answer is no.  The winds themselves might influence the Earth's rotation ever so slightly, but not, by any kind of non-negligible amount, wind turbines.)On It's time to stop accepting the claim that we 'can't' switch to renewable energy posted 2 years, 2 months ago 21 Responses

  • Nice efficiency, Larry

    1 Wh = 3,600 joules = 3.6 kilojoules

    Larry's bike on level terrain: 11 Wh/mi

    11 Wh/mi = 39.6 kj/mi

    1 mi = 1.6 km; 39.6 kj/mi x 1 mi/1.6 km = 24.75 kj/km

    If my math is correct, Larry's bike requires 24.75 kilojoules per kilometer on level terrain.

    If these statistics are correct (though there may be reason to believe they aren't), then in 2001:

    • A domestic airliner required 2,550 kj/p-km.
    • A car required 2,358 kj/p-km.
    • A bus required 2,424 kj/p-km.
    • A train required 1,377 kj/p-km.

    So Larry uses 1% of the energy per mile as these motorized sources. And his 25 kilojoules are from renewable energy.

    Well done, Larry.On The real deal on hybrid bike technology posted 2 years, 2 months ago 6 Responses

  • Smithfield Foods Labor Dispute

    Speaking of Smithfield, their giant Tar Heel, NC, pork plant is not unionized.  At the company's recent shareholder meeting, the UFCW once again made clear (through protests and negotiations) its desire to unionize it (which it has been trying to do for 15 years).

    The company says it would be "more than happy" to have an election among workers to decide if the plant should be unionized, but its questionable how much we can trust that statement when, according to a 2005 Human Rights Watch report, the company has been violently anti-union at the Tar Heel plant in the past.

    Smithfield workers have sought union representation from UFCW since soon after the plant opened in 1992. In the Unfair Advantage case study of the Tar Heel plant, Human Rights Watch found "not only abuses of workers' rights by management but also troubling actions by state and local authorities ... state power was used to interfere with workers' freedom of association in violation of international human rights norms.

    [...]

    The company is quite clear about its continued opposition to unionization of the Tar Heel plant. In a written statement to Human Rights Watch it said:

    We do not believe a union is necessary or would be helpful to our employees at our Tar Heel, North Carolina plant...

    [...]

    In 1997, the union lost an election at the Tar Heel plant after a campaign marked by unlawful intimidation, coercion, and violence.

    [...]

    [In a National Labor Relations Board trial in 1998 and 1999,] the judge found that Smithfield illegally:


    • threatened to discharge union supporters and to close the plant if workers chose union representation;
    • threatened to call the INS to report immigrant workers if workers chose union representation;
    • threatened the use of violence against workers engaged in organizing activities;
    • threatened to blacklist workers who supported the union;
    • harassed, intimidated, and coerced workers who supported the union;
    • disciplined, suspended, and fired many workers because of their support for the union;
    • spied on workers engaged in lawful union activities;
    • asked workers to spy on other workers' union activity;
    • grilled workers about other workers' union activities;
    • suppressed workers' right to freely discuss the union in non-work areas on non-work time and to demonstrate support for the union at work by wearing unobtrusive union insignia;
    • confiscated lawful union literature being lawfully distributed by workers;
    • applied a gag rule against union supporters while giving union opponents free rein;
    • applied work rules strictly against union supporters but not against union opponents.

    The judge concluded that the widespread company violations made the election un-free and unfair...

    That sure puts the phrase "more than happy" into an interesting perspective.On How globalization is smothering U.S. fruit and vegetable farms posted 2 years, 3 months ago 11 Responses

  • A comprehensive, encouraging article

    Kudos to Ms. Solnit for covering a lot of efforts in one well-written piece.  I agree with caniscandida that the article is fascinating.

    As an outsider who came down to NOLA to volunteer for a couple weeks last September (hard to believe it has almost been a year already), I hope that these good efforts can weather the political entanglement that is overseeing New Orleans' recovery.

    Ed Blakely, an experienced planner who was appointed planning czar a while back, has done a lot to try and coordinate the planning effort, but from what I hear there is more political red tape than there are crawfish in Louisiana, and it's contributing to the slow recovery.

    I know several other universities also have programs helping out various areas of New Orleans.  The Univeristy of North Carolina has a program in Gentilly, and DePaul University in Chicago has a program in the Tulane Canal neighborhood.  But I'm sure there are many, many other institutions of higher learning, in addition to those mentioned above, which are helping.On The Nation reports on sustainable revitalization of the New Orleans neighborhood posted 2 years, 3 months ago 3 Responses

  • Finding the right nuanced view

    This issue, as so many here on Gristmill, seems to me not one of black & white, but of many shades of the rainbow.  Why is it that we cannot be happy buying local, organic tomatoes in season, while still happily supporting a fair-trade, organic, shade-grown, bird-friendly, non-sweatshop, etc., etc., coffee farmer in Guatemala?

    Good point, kmp.  I think what Tom is arguing against is regularly importing a large percentage of our food, organic or not, from long distances.

    No one is harping about supplementing seasonal food from farmers' markets with some Fair Trade, organic specialty food products.  Indeed, goods like coffee or tea have less of a carbon impact from transportation, because they are relatively light in weight; in fact, when we drink Guatemalan coffee, it's mostly local due to the water we use to brew it.

    What's not sustainable is getting most of your diet from Cascadian Farms or other large organic brands.  Consider Chad Heeter's article, My Saudi Arabian Breakfast:

    Coming from another hemisphere, my raspberries take an even longer fossil-fueled journey to my neighborhood. Though packaged in a plastic bag labeled Cascadian Farms (which perhaps hints at a birthplace in the good old Cascade mountains of northwest Washington), the small print on the back, stamped "A Product of Chile," tells all -- and what it speaks of is a 5,800-mile journey to Northern California.

    This is a good example of why local beats organic, ceteris paribus.On Is it really a savior for smallholder farmers in the global south? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

  • Darwin's Nightmare and Jane Jacobs

    To those trying to inject rationality into the food export dependence of less developed countries, I suggest you view Darwin's Nightmare, a documentary about the invasive lake perch in Lake Victoria, the European demand for perch filets that necessitates such an imbalanced system, and the impoverished, hungry Tanzanians who are left to chew on the fish carcasses after the filets have been air-cargoed north.

    Something is to be said for self-sufficiency in economic regions.  Of course, almost since the dawn of civilization has there been trade, and no region can be 100% self-sufficient, but to rely on exporting goods in order to buy other goods abroad is playing with fire.

    In Cities and the Wealth of Nations, Jane Jacobs stresses the importance of import replacement with locally made goods, so as to not be dependent on the whims of outside markets.  She makes the case of Uruguay, which after World War II was heavily dependent on exporting meat and a few other goods.  When European economies rebounded and started producing their own meat, Uruguay's economy took a huge hit because of its export dependence.  It was not ready to manufacture the goods it formerly had the money to import, and inflation and poverty grew.

    We have more of a moral obligation to help less developed countries become primarily self-reliant than to perpetuate their dependence on foreign markets.  I'm not advocating abolishing food trade, and I wholeheartedly support buying Fair Trade (especially for specialty products), but it should be an exception to the rule of each region producing most of its food for itself.On Is it really a savior for smallholder farmers in the global south? posted 2 years, 3 months ago 17 Responses

  • Culture plays a role

    It's heartening to hear about these two urban agriculture organizations.

    Sometimes, though, noble efforts such as the two mentioned have to do battle with the prevailing urban culture, which is to get food for cheap without working to prepare it.

    In the something-for-nothing society in which we live, the manual-labor-for-vegetables tradeoff, no matter how vital urban agriculture will be for saving ourselves in a post--cheap energy future, just is not that appealing to the mainstream.On Sustainable food meets social justice posted 2 years, 8 months ago 1 Response

  • Bering Strait Railway

    Up by Nome in Alaska, you can still see some old, abandoned railway cars that were supposed to link to the lower 48.

    There has in the past been a definite (if small) movement to get a railroad up to the Bering Strait, and then a tunnel under the Diomedes to Far East Russia.  The problem is that there is no contiguous, connected transportation route even close to the Bering Strait, either on the Russian or Alaskan side.  (That's what made Tim Harvey's recent trek around the world on his own power to raise awareness of global warming all the more impressive.)  In Alaska, the only two pathways to extend far west of suburban Anchorage in the south, and Fairbanks in the north, more or less, are the Iditarod trail and the Yukon River.

    When former AK Gov. Frank Murkowski met with Boris Yelstin not too long ago and mentioned such a rail connection, people thought it was quite hilarious because it was around the same time of him advocating for the bridges to nowhere.  But it's an interesting idea to ponder.On A step closer to trains replacing plane journeys posted 2 years, 8 months ago 3 Responses

  • Portland and Betting

    JMG, thanks for posting that strongly-worded email your friend sent.  Although I try to keep up with what Portland is doing ('cause there's a chance I may move there in 6 months), I didn't know about the Peak Oil task force.  Once again the city sets an eco-model for others to follow.

    Alistair, it's not me that's proposing the bet.  It's Jason, and I have a half a mind to take him up on the bet as well, given we talk about specifics.

    I am an Oil Drum user (under the same moniker) but there are not enough hours in the day for me to follow it regularly.  For a lot of the articles, you have to dive in, not just gloss over them like you can with some of Grist's.

    Speaking of hours in the day, it's already 3:30 AM and I gotta go to work "tomorrow".On Doom and gloom gets it wrong again posted 2 years, 8 months ago 51 Responses

  • Irresponsible blog entry and joke of an article

    The New York Times article is a joke, and in no way does it prove that "the doom and gloom crowd gets it wrong."

    If anything, it makes it more plausible that peak oil is here or coming very soon (if it didn't already happen in May of 2005).

    Are we really supposed to believe that mentioning enhanced recovery in a few small fields (Kern in California and Duri in Indonesia) balances out the mounting evidence that peak oil is at the latest very soon?  Give me a break.  These fields are chump change compared to Ghawar, Cantarell, and the North Sea, which are all in decline.

    Just look at what's being said in the article...

    The oil industry is well known for seeking out new sources of fossil fuel in far-flung places, from the icy plains of Siberia to the deep waters off West Africa. But now the quest for new discoveries is taking place alongside a much less exotic search that is crucial to the world's energy supplies. Oil companies are returning to old or mature fields partly because there are few virgin places left to explore

    Oil companies have been...injecting all sorts of exotic gases and liquids into oil fields, including water and soap, natural gas, carbon dioxide and even hydrogen sulfide, a foul-smelling and poisonous gas.

    Does this look like an industry that is swimming in an ocean of oil or does it smell of an industry increasingly desparate to suck every bit of oil they can from their dwindling wells?  You tell me.

    but the theory being debunked is that it's happened already or about to happen or that it's going to lead to major catastrophe. The answer to all seems to be no, no, and no.

    I second the several skeptics of Jason's above quote, and I ask you, Jason, if the answer to the question of whether peak oil has already happened or is about to happen is emphatically "no," why hasn't world oil production reached higher than its level in May of 2005?

    Just because oil didn't peak in the 1970s doesn't mean it's not peaking now.  In fact, one of Matthew Simmons's arguments is that Saudi Arabia's racheting up production to make up for Iran's sudden, post-Islamic Revolution decline in 1979 and the early 80s seriously harmed the future productivity of those Saudi fields.

    I hate to break it to you, but a few case studies of minor oil fields and a few quotes from impartial oil optimists does not constitute the "available evidence" on world oil production.

    What a sloppy blog entry.On Doom and gloom gets it wrong again posted 2 years, 8 months ago 51 Responses

  • Burden of proof is on nuke advocates not opponents

    Karen,

    I can't speak to trends among environmentalists either increasingly supporting or increasingly rejecting nuclear power (or staying the same).

    However, I do take issue with several of the necessary conditions you demand for opposing nuclear power.

    we can keep total temperature increase below 2 C without nuclear power, with plenty of room for error

    I'm not sure that nuclear power could achieve this anyway.  In the time it takes to commission, permit, fund, and build a host of new nuclear plants, we could, if we made a concerted, collective effort, achieve great strides in renewable energy capacity (wind power was the second largest growing power sector in the US, behind natural gas) and both kinds of conservation (efficiency and conscious choice).

    Nonetheless, you are right that we nuclear opponents should have a plan to decrease the likelihood of a 2 C increase.  Some of us do; George Monbiot's a good start.  And I think it is possible, with enough work, to come up with a plan.

    the advantages of keeping the increase in the Earth's temperature even lower are outweighed by the disadvantages of nuclear power (these arguments need numbers, such as so many people will die from this year's use of nuclear power, from....),

    if even one coal power plant is built, let alone hundreds of GW over the next decade, that coal plant is safer than nuclear for the following reasons (numbers again),

    These two are variations of the "false dichotomy" fallacy I referenced above.  Nuclear power opponents need not prove that coal is safer than nuclear because it's not the only alternative to nuclear.  And the former variation begs the question by assuming that nuclear power is the only way of keeping the earth's temperatures low enough.

    the US is disproportionately responsible for the GHG in the atmosphere and should be disproportionately responsible for reducing the world's GHG. If we can reduce our GHG emissions even faster we have a moral obligation, and this includes preferring nuclear power to baseload natural gas. The counter-argument to that is....

    The counter-argument begins with exorcising the archaic thought that renewable energy is only some token solution at best.  If you look at wind energy capacity by state, for instance, you realize that a lack of will (political, business-wise) is what is stopping it.  Fifteen states still don't have a drop of wind power capacity, yet I'm pretty sure the wind still blows there.  Four of these states are in the Mid-Atlantic region and have huge potential for off-shore wind -- 330 GW, according to the study mentioned in the link.  Even if that is overstated by a factor of 2, 165 GW is still HUGE.  330 GW is about 10 percent of our current consumption -- and this is just from mid-Atlantic offshore wind farms.

    The burden of proof falls on nuclear advocates, not opponents.On Sigh posted 2 years, 9 months ago 22 Responses

  • Can Fort McMurray handle it?

    It's not exactly a utopia up there.

    Alberta's inability to provide the necessary municipal and social infrastructure to keep pace with oil sand developments is beginning to make life in the north "intolerable."

    "The population of Fort McMurray has doubled in nine years and...there is a shortfall of nearly 3,000 homes, 17 police officers and two public schools. Housing prices are outrageous, (the average house is now over $500,000), there are half as many doctors as are needed, and the lifestyle has become, in the words of one 14 year resident, 'intolerable.'

    The assault rate is nearly twice the provincial average; its drug offences are triple. Population continues to grow at about 10 per cent a year. The city needs a new water treatment plant, police station, recreation centre and fire hall.

    And they want to lure more people up there?On Skills shortage in Alberta posted 2 years, 9 months ago 1 Response

  • The False Dichotomy of Nuclear Power Proponents

    One thing that annoys me about the nuclear power debate is when nuclear apologists (like at least one of the commenters in this thread) bring up the false dichotomy fallacy that its "either nuclear or coal."

    David's sixth (one-sentence) paragraph that cuts through this fallacy is as important as his third paragraph on the lack of time that nuclear power could offset carbon emissions when it comes to expounding why nuclear power should not be pursued.

    Recently, I had a bitter exchange on Daily Kos with a staunch nuclear advocate who is very passionate about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and occasionally writes knowledgable diares.

    I took great offense when he not only accused me of supporting coal power (and stopped just short of implicating me in coal-related deaths), but also said, incredibly, that being anti-nuclear is absolutely identical to being pro-coal.  Leibniz must have turned over in his grave after that.

    Before we even get into the technical issues of nuclear power, its apologists must argue why we even need it in the first place.  They must argue that the amount of energy we now consume is necessary to our well-being, or at least that our well-being demands an energy level only supportable (while taking into account climate change) by nuclear energy.

    So I ask nuclear apologists: are we too lazy to practice enough conservation and efficiency (in both our daily lives and our public policies, which affect our daily lives) to meet our energy demand with a well-planned renewable energy system?  Isn't relying on large nuclear plants just a cop out of truly building a sustainable way of life?

    The whole rallying cry for nuclear is based on the dubious assumption that we need all this energy that we currently consume.  This is a very un-environmentalist sentiment in my mind, and asserting it betrays the un-environmentalist in Brand, Patrick Moore, and others who support nuclear power yet would still call themselves environmentalists.

    You might think we need all this energy, but that is archaic thinking.  If you would have, for instance, attended the very informative talk I attended tonight on energy-efficient houses, you could see that not even half our energy consumption is inevitable.

    We don't need nuclear power.  We need conservation + efficiency + renewables, and we need people acting on those three principles as soon as possible.On Sigh posted 2 years, 9 months ago 22 Responses

  • Organic Lingonberries?

    I don't shop at IKEA anymore, but I did in college and enjoyed it despite my usual abhorrence for the "big box" experience, not to mention their environmental and social problems.  (This is probably because IKEA is set up differently than most big box stores in that it actually tries for an atmosphere through its displays instead of the drab heaps of crap in long, mundane aisles that usual big box stores aspire to.)

    Nonetheless, what I admire from this interview is IKEA's and Mr. Bergmark's reversal of the normal modus operandi for large businesses.  IKEA does a lot, and talks a little.  Usually, businesses drool endlessly over their eco-tokenism, using more energy promoting it than actually implementing it.  So it's refreshing to hear this from Mr. Bergmark:

    We're definitely not the company that wants to ring the big bell and do a lot of heavy marketing. Actions like the blue bag campaign, now, that's fine, but you will not see campaigns on billboards.
    On An interview with IKEA sustainability director Thomas Bergmark posted 2 years, 9 months ago 9 Responses

  • Pardon my pimpin'

    I penned (or keyed, rather) a Daily Kos diary on the virtues of Smart Growth.

    To make this comment not simply a pimpin', I definitely recommend not only the National Geographic smart growth interactive tour, but all their other smart growth vs. sprawl stuff.

    For elementary school teachers, they have a ton of lesson plans teaching kids about sprawl and how to build better communities.On Cool feature in Nat'l Geo posted 2 years, 9 months ago 2 Responses

  • Inefficiency of Planes, Trains, and Slow Stuff

    basically, speed has to be de-glamorised.

    Fortunately, tico, there are some answers to that challenge: slow food, slow cities, traffic calming.  Makes you want to breathe a sigh of relief, eh?

    I started taking the train for most of my long distance travel a couple years ago (though I still take a plane every once in a while when convenience lures me -- that is, when it actually is more convenient to fly).  It's such an enjoyable experience: you can meet random people and have interesting conversations.  Just on my last train trip trip I talked with a neuroscience PhD student, a woman who lived in Israel in 1973 during the Yom Kippur war, an Amish father traveling to a doctor in Mexico, a guy traveling from Pennsylvania to Seattle, and a tourist from Taiwan.

    As for TheSSG's comment, the BTS keeps data on energy intensity of passenger modes.  Even when you don't take into account water vapor, planes were already almost twice as inefficient as planes.  In 2001, the last year for which train statistics are available, trains used 2,100 btu/passenger mile, and planes averaged over 3,900 btu/pm.  When you add in the water vapor problem Gar mentioned, planes rise above every other mode in their negative effect on global warming.On When is it necessary, and what are the alternatives? posted 2 years, 9 months ago 39 Responses

  • The UK can count their blessings

    Considering this bit of news, the British can breathe a sigh of relief for now.On Blair gets thumb in eye posted 2 years, 9 months ago 3 Responses

  • I wonder what the life cycle cost...

    ...of a bike is.On Prius consumes more energy in lifetime than Cherokee posted 2 years, 9 months ago 52 Responses

  • *Everyone* cares about the environment

    As long as they don't have to do anything about it.

    See, the problem with saying that everyone cares about the environment is that it is so watered down as to not mean anything.

    There is an infinite difference between a nebulous, nonbinding "care" (kind of like how everyone "cares" about starving children in Africa) and actually doing something about it.

    It's more plausible that most Americans view environmentalists' message as too extreme because any message that calls for us to scale back our fossil fuel gluttony falls on the extremity of our probable action spectrum.

    So I reject Luntz's implication that environmentalists are to blame for their message not being more popular.  True (i.e. non-light-green) environmentalists have an uphill battle because what they're asking for -- conservation -- is challenging, albeit ethical.  It's "hard work," as a certain man in Washington is fond of saying.

    American culture has shaped us to be hard working, but this applies to our work schedule, not our self-restraint.  Especially since the hubris of World War II victory was channeled into the splurge of suburbia and then exurbia, we have been incapable as a people of restricting our energy and land use, and thus our deleterious impact on the natural environment.

    That is why "efficiency" mitigations are now extremely popular, but conservation is lagging behind.  There are 1,000 calls for driving hybrid vehicles for every call to bike instead of driving.  There are 1,000 platitudes for Wal-Mart's CFL ambitions for every call to buy your vegetables from a CSA.  There are 1,000 reminders to keep your tires properly inflated to every mention of Smart Growth. Don't get me wrong; I think efficiency mitigations are a good thing and that hybrid cars are a good thing for people who are in situations where a car is convenient.  It's just that they are mitigations: they're much easier to implement in one's own lifestyle, but they are also less effective in the overall picture.

    This uncovers the hypocritical juxtaposition of the term "conservation" in Luntz's formula.  He stresses the political expedience of labeling oneself a "conservationist" while simultaneously stressing the political expedience of terms that are expedient precisely because they stop short of calling for conservation: "Energy independence. Energy self-sufficiency. Energy security. Energy diversity."  When no one challenges this contradictory rhetoric, you can have people who call themselves conservationists without the obligation to call for an ounce of energy conservation.

    In my mind the real rhetorical challenge for American environmentalists has been, and will continue to be, dissolving the Catch-22 whereby their message is only popular when it's insubstantial, and always unpopular when it's substantial.  Their challenge is to dissolve it before it's too late.

    As George Monbiot says, "My fear is not that people will stop talking about climate change. My fear is that they will talk us to Kingdom Come."  Talking us to Kingdom Come: that sounds like an apt description of Frank Luntz's job.On GOP strategist Frank Luntz argues enviros are failing -- and they're mean to boot posted 2 years, 9 months ago 35 Responses

  • Making up for lost hydropower generation

    It also added information from a discredited 2002 Rand report, that said power from the dams could be made up by conservation and renewables, and added $3 billion in potential fish costs...

    Even if the report is discredited, who says the four dams' generating capacity can't be made up by conservation and renewables?  It certainly can.

    Hydropower is the most problematic "clean" energy option, not only with regard to restricting fish migration, but to depriving watersheds of enough water (exhibit A: Lake Chad), causing extra flooding in some cases, and, in some tropical climates, being responsible for the emission of large amounts of methane (by causing more dying vegetation in their reservoirs).

    Not all of these problems may apply to the four Lower Snake River dams, but conservation and other renewables are much more preferable.On David James Duncan rows through a wheat field to save salmon -- and we've got pictures posted 2 years, 10 months ago 16 Responses

  • Possible reasons

    This is Stevens we're talking about, so an ulterior motive is a mathematical certainty.

    I second that sentiment.  The chance that this move is clean from front to back seems pretty small.

    One possibility is that the Alaska Climate Impact Assessment Commission has started holding public meetings.  This commission was created through a concurrent resolution in the 2006 state legislative session (one of a handful of good bills in that session).  Although both AK legislative chambers had Republican majorities, it was championed by a Democrat from Kotzebue (read: way, way up in the north and west of the state) Reggie Joule, and managed to pass.

    If the commission brings clearly to Alaskans' attention what I suspect they are increasingly beginning to see -- the extent of global warming's impact, already, on northern Alaska (less permafrost, retreating glaciers, forest problems, and of course the plight of polar bears, to name just a few issues) -- Stevens's move might be somewhat of a shield against a political backlash.

    Then again, he's Ted Stevens; I'm not sure if he cares a lick about a political backlash at this point in his political career.  This could be, as you said, David, a ploy to build support for establishing a "series of tubes" in ANWR.On We are down the rabbit hole posted 2 years, 10 months ago 1 Response

  • Because you totally need an SUV for outdoor fun

    Because hiking, biking, walking, running, swimming, camping, canoeing, kayaking, climbing, diving, skiing, sledding, birding, fishing, sailing, hunting, baseball, football, golf, tennis, cricket, picnics, and stargazing obviously aren't fun.

    Hi, ARC, I'm Earth.  Have we met?On Really posted 2 years, 11 months ago 9 Responses

  • On deep-sixing things

    And we ought to deep-six this peer-review obsession anyway.

    Heh heh, that explains a lot.On 'CO2 doesn't lead, it lags'--Turns out CO2 rise is both a cause and an effect of warming posted 2 years, 11 months ago 43 Responses

  • Caption

    Terror strikes the Santorum children after God fails to deliver another Senatorial election for incumbent Rick Santorum.  God was defeated 59-41 by Mother Nature in Tuesday's midterm elections.On Leave your caption ideas in comments posted 3 years ago 18 Responses

  • Being open to spiritual possibilities

    This thread is threatening to turn into a whole village of straw persons, the latest of which being yours, JJW.  I know the above post was your last, but I wanted to get a response on the record.

    I don't think you should dismiss your nervousness over using the term "hyper-rationalism," because, contrary to what you claim, I don't believe Jason or anyone else on this long thread fits that description.  Neither, for that matter, does Sam Harris.

    The final chapter of the latter's The End of Faith, called "Experiments in Consciousness," discusses what transcendental possibilities may be available without casting rationalism aside.  He talks about breaking free, consciously, of the sense of "I" -- our notion of self-distinct-from-world -- through meditation and reflection.  If we can mentally reach that point, then such an experience is felt, and real insofar as it is felt.

    This is radically different than a "narrative" religion (a term I use) where the believer is supposed to believe that certain things happened historically, e.g. Christ ascending into heaven.  This is the constricting thing about the Big Three monotheistic religions (and others): your spiritual capacities are called on to worship some figure from folklore, rather than being focused back inward to the source of those capacities.

    I admit to some naivete in the details of Buddhist meditation, but I believe that, when meditating, if one has trouble at first focusing on one's self, then it helps to focus on one common physical object, like a lamp or flower.  Such a "primitive" focus is only a booster step towards more refined, self-focused reflection.  But this is equivalent to the ultimate focus for traditional monotheism.  The believer is supposed to focus on some historical figure, e.g. God, Allah, Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Spirit.

    We can do better than that.  We can do better if we are open to reflection without the constraints of dogmatic baggage.  In this sense, mysticism in a rational context (like Harris's mysticism) is more, dare I say, transcendental, than the realms of Christianity, Islam, or Judaism (and others).

    Incidentally, Harris was criticized by fundamentalist atheists (i.e. the real hyperrationalists) for writing this last chapter.  But I don't think anyone on this board has been critical of the possibilities of mysticism in a rational context.On Energy is better spent elsewhere posted 3 years, 1 month ago 93 Responses

  • More Sam Harris

    In addition to the excerpt I quoted and the article Jason links to above:

    Reply to a ChristianOn Energy is better spent elsewhere posted 3 years, 1 month ago 93 Responses

  • On Respecting Opinions and Religious Tolerance

    For all the preaching about religious tolerance on this quite lengthy and interesting discussion (I dream of the day one of my blog articles gets 60 comments), there has been little implication from anyone except Jason about necessary limits of tolerance.

    The boundary between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable in religious tolerance is clearly articulated in Sam Harris's The End of Faith:

    It should be easy enough to see that belief in the full efficacy of prayer, for instance, becomes an emphatically public concern the moment it is actually put into practice: the moment a surgeon lays aside his worldly instruments and attempts to suture his patients with prayer, or a pilot tries to land a passenger jet with nothing but repetitions of the word "Hallelujah" applied to the controls, we are swiftly delivered from the provinces of private faith to those of a criminal court. (p. 44)

    Which makes clear Jason's point that religion is not a sound basis for public policy.  Almost by definition a religion based on a gallimaufry of diverse folklore (such as the three main monotheistic religions, plus many others) cannot be a sound facilitator of universally applied laws.

    So at some point we have to say, "No, certain religious beliefs simply are not compatible with certain environmental precepts."  If you truly believe that the Rapture is coming in your lifetime (as 22% of Americans do), then why must you worry about the state of the earth after that?  Who will be on earth after Judgement Day?  I'm not sure if a library of books on religious tolerance could get the fundamentalist out of this "James Watt dilemma."

    Herein lies one of the many philosophical mines for environmentalist in the field of organizing fundamentalist Christians: you cannot get a Bible literalist to care about preserving habitat if the Rapture will make such a principle irrelevant when, for instance, all the things described in Revelation 8:6-13 happen to the earth.

    I agree with the practical side of the argument: environmentalists most certainly should try to reach out to evangelicals.  But, to the extent that the principles of environmentalism are contradicted by the principles of a ritualistic, organized religion, either we will fail in our attempt, or the believer will change his or her principles.On Energy is better spent elsewhere posted 3 years, 1 month ago 93 Responses

  • CNT's LEED Platinum Building

    I toured CNT's LEED Platinum building this past summer.  I can say that it was simply amazing.  Every aspect of it was included with green building principles in mind.  If only everyone's office environment could be like that, besides a lighter footprint, we'd have much less office stress.On LEED is expanding to neighborhoods, and Doug Farr is leading the way posted 3 years, 1 month ago 2 Responses

  • The Worth of Words

    I sit and type. But no matter how many thousands of words I crank out, nothing I do amounts to anything next to these scruffy law students who actually get up in the morning and climb into kayaks.

    Don't forget that there are other people who are inspired to action by those thousands of words.On My trip to the Oregon coast posted 3 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

  • Underestimation

    Boy, not very halcyon days for juvenile salmon wanting to make something of themselves.  Not only do they have to avoid clouds of sea lice, many have to run a gauntlet of dams that also adversely affect their survival chances.  And once they get to sea, if they're Pacific Salmon, they many even face an invasive threat to Atlantic Salmon.  (The latter have been discovered off the AK coasts, not sure about further south.)

    And it's probably even worse for salmon than the study indicates.

    "The analysis in this paper almost certainly underestimates the total mortality of juvenile salmon, " said study co-author Dr. Neil Frazer, a physicist at the University of Hawai'i. "We considered only the direct effects of sea lice on fish survival. We did not include the secondary effects of increased predation on infected fish."
    On Really posted 3 years, 1 month ago 4 Responses

  • The case for limiting air travel

    The fight to limit air travel is not hopeless.  In fact, it might be aided by the fact that the scarcity of oil in the coming years and its effect on jet fuel prices will make air travel prohibitively expensive in the near future.

    Despite the interesting alternative you mention, which you admit is "woefully inadequate and slow" in the development, there is simply nothing in the short term to replace petroleum-based jet fuel.

    But one would hope that the urgency to combat global warming alone could motivate many people to refrain from air travel as much as possible.

    For the record, simply saying one biofuel is better than the other doesn't equate with "joining the side" of it.  If you read my whole comment instead of, apparently, picking and choosing certain statements, you'd know that I questioned the viability of even cellulosic ethanol, which is still very much in its experimental phase.

    I hope Branson doesn't make this mistake.

    If you read the whole article, you'd realize that he already has made the mistake - unless he reneges on his promises - deciding to invest $400 million in Vinod Khosla's ill-planned ethanol plants.On Virgin founder's $3 billion climate pledge heralds new era in philanthropy posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses

  • Again Grist falls for corporate greenwashing

    Hmm, how to deal with the recent wave of corporate greenwashing seeping into the environmental discourse?  It sure is tempting to gush over each token commitment by heretofore-notorious climate offenders.  But we must continually ask the question as to whether such commitments are enough, because an "at-least-they're-doing-something" attitude is out of the question this late in the climate change solutions game.

    From what I know of Sir Richard Branson, he has failed this test.  Yes, he plans to invest in clean energy over 10 years.  But, as George Monbiot has pointed out on his new website, Turn Up The Heat,

    The problem is this: that the climate change crisis has to be addressed right now. We can't wait for a new fuel to be developed in the unspecified future. Unless massive steps to curb carbon emissions are taken immediately, it will be too late to prevent some of the worst effects of global warming.
    In the meantime, Branson's airplanes will only be worsening global warming.  He plans to expand the number of business class seats over the next three years, making his planes less efficient per passenger.

    This is really bad news for global warming, since Monbiot calculates that "Virgin Atlantic's planes [already] produce 7.4 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year," or the equivalent of 6.2 million times the sustainable level of carbon dioxide emissions per person per year.

    If he really wanted to do something substantial about climate change, he would begin phasing out airline routes right now.  Flying is one of the worst forms of transportation as far as global warming goes, not only for the carbon dioxide each flight spews out, but also because of the water vapor it leaves in the atmosphere (which almost certainly exacerbates global warming).  But of course, that makes no sense from a profit standpoint.  After all, he admits that his greenwashing is "less a charitable endeavor than a brand-building, revenue-producing tactic."

    Furthermore, since when is it responsible environmental journalism to uncritically report on $400 million biofuels investments and "state-of-the-art ethanol plants"?  I know Grist has rightfully shed a critical light on biofuels in the past (for example, just a week ago), so why not here?  Don't want to burst Branson's light green bubble?  The article did not report whether any of the $400 million will be connected to destructive palm oil plantations (PDF) in Indonesia or Malaysia.

    The article also failed to critically analyze Vinod Khosla's ethanol plants, despite the fact that at least one reliable blog, The Oil Drum, has thoroughly debunked his ethanol panacea.

    Nor are questions raised about whether cellulosic ethanol (which, I agree, is a much better alternative than corn ethanol) can actually be implemented on a broad scale.  As biofuel expert John Bennemann points out to the contrary,

    these visions of tens of billions of gallons ethanol per year from biomass must, by all reasonable analysis, be considered a distant possibility not an imminent accomplishment...
    Moreover, if Branson expects the airline industry to smoothly transition to a new fuel that probably can't even come close to satisfying the fuel demand for the world's automobile fleet, his level of optimism should at least be noted with a critical eye.  In this article, it wasn't.  In its place was the cornucopian belief that ethanol can reasonably be made into a "mainstream phenomenon."

    Even if airplanes could be powered by ethanol, there are major safety issues to overcome, as Monbiot mentions:

    A long and detailed report by researchers at Imperial College, London looked into the potential for using ethanol as an aviation fuel. It has a flashpoint of 12°C, which "would present major safety dangers." It also emits acetaldehyde at low power settings, "bringing localised health problems around airports, especially for ground support staff." For these reasons, ethanol is "unsuitable as a jet fuel"(12).

    I am a pretty faithful Grist reader, and believe that it is unsurpassed on the internet in terms of the breadth plus depth of its reporting, but the more I read articles like this (of the "at-least-they're-doing-something" variety), the more it acquires the feel of a corporate press room.

    I'd suggest everyone read Monbiot's entire article on Sir Richard Branson as a counterpoint to the uncritical, pat-on-the-back journalism displayed here.On Virgin founder's $3 billion climate pledge heralds new era in philanthropy posted 3 years, 2 months ago 5 Responses