Get Energy Smart! NOW!

We should acknowledge benefits to Sarah Palin’s continued prominence in American society and political discussion. If nothing else, Palin opening her mouth is a jobs program to keep fact checkers busy at work. Her truthiness-laden Going Rogue should have us all going rouge (red) faced with frustration at the her page-after-page liberties with truth and fact.

Let’s focus, for a brief moment, on some examples where Sarah “Energy Expert” Palin has played it fast and loose with issues related to energy and climate change.

Sarah has long championed Global Warming denial, even as her state is on the front lines of climate change and even though Palin’s hubby’s favorite activity is already facing negative impacts due to a warming globe.  Thus, it is no surprise that Palin embraces false talking points on climate mitigation policies.  On pages 390-391, Palin embraces debunked analysis to assert that climate legislation will hurt those lower on the economic spectrum even as analyses from such biased and partisan organizations like the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) have concluded that those lowest on the economic spectrum (the bottom 25%) will benefit economically from the (already too weak to gain all the potential benefits) Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy & Security Act that passed the House earlier this year.

Energy efficiency is perhaps the clearest no-brainer that should be embraced by all (except, perhaps, those who make their living selling as much energy (polluting or otherwise) as possible). “Negawatts” can provide additional power for a fraction of the cost of additional powerplants — not matter their type.  Sadly, Alaskan buildings (especially private homes) have a deservedly atrocious reputation for energy inefficiency even in the face of the most brutal weather and with some of the highest energy prices Americans face. (There are many reasons for this, including an antiquated tax code that fosters foolish building practices: leaving siding (and thus insulation) off one side of a home can count it as ‘unfinished’ with lower real estate taxes for two years. At the end of two years, many owners don’t bother to then add that additional insulation/siding.)  In rejecting $25 million in the stimulus package to help in energy efficiency, Palin falsely asserted that this money would drive national control of Alaska’s building code. Even though that error has been documented in the past, it is repeated yet again in Palin’s Going Rogue with the Truth.

And, so on …

One of the most angering, on a fundamental level, is this blatantly misleading Palin falsehood:

PALIN: Describing her resistance to federal stimulus money, Palin describes Alaska as a practical, libertarian haven of independent Americans who don’t want ”help” from government busybodies.

THE FACTS: Alaska is also one of the states most dependent on federal subsidies, receiving much more assistance from Washington than it pays in federal taxes. A study for the nonpartisan Tax Foundation found that in 2005, the state received $1.84 for every dollar it sent to Washington.

So many in states heavily dependent on resources from the Federal government (e.g., from taxpayers in other states) scream anti-government rhetoric even while fattening themselves at the trough of federal assistance.  And, in this case, the Tax Foundation actually understates the case significantly. Unlike elsewhere in the country, Alaskans are able to claim for themselves 100% of the revenue from resources extracted from federal lands in their state.  The oil pumped in Alaska comes from wells on Federal, not state or private, lands for the most part. That $1500 or so annual royalty check distributed to Alaskans represents a huge additional subsidy.  In fact, if done appropriately, on a per capita national basis, Alaskans would receive not $1500 or so but the same figure as all Americans, perhaps $2.50 to $3, depending on oil prices.

[Read more →]

Earlier this year, columnist George Will sparked controversy with claims that global ice levels were the same as (if not greater than) 30 years earlier. This was part of George Will’s retread truthiness and deception in his widely syndicated columns falsely asserting that global warming is not happening.

With his Will-ful Deceit, Will spun this distortion of scientific study on multiple levels: he wrote “now” with data tha was months old; the data did not show what he asserted; he wrote based on misreporting in a global warming denier site; the material was out-of-date when he wrote “now”; he wrote of area coverage but not total mass (it isn’t just the area coverage, but also how thick the ice is: what is the total ice) and he focused his points on global sea ice coverage (e.g., Arctic and Antarctic Ice) when the scientific community is prinicipally focused on Arctic ice as the ‘canary in the coal mine’ since Antarctic ice coverage is predicted to be more variable and disappear at a (far) slower rate than predicted with the Arctic.

Considering George’s deep fascination with reporting on ice coverage, should we expect a breathless Will reporting of the latest news from the Arctic?

Amid what Will (and too many other deniers) falsely state is an 11-year cooling period (due to 1998 being (perhaps) the hottest year on record for natural cycles coming on top of human-driven global warming), Arctic ice coverage (and mass) is now at a lower level than it was in the year of least ice coverage, 2007.

(See more robust chart, but without the November data, here.)

PS: In response to the title, the answer is certainly: NO! Will has no interest in engaging in truthful discussions to help educate the public and move the dialogue forward toward real solutions to real problems.

[Read more →]

Since diving into the deep end when it comes to energy issues, almost every day sees new fascinating concepts, approaches, and technologies. Fascinating … exciting … even hope inspiring at times. And, as well, as the passion builds, so many of these are truly Energy COOL.

When determining how to prioritize action using, by definition, limited resources, one criteria should be whether something is ‘win-win-win’, offering benefits across multiple arenas for the same investment dollars. If one of those wins is ‘paying for itself’, then the prioritization should go even higher. With this conception, greening schools should be a true national priority as it is a path to improve educational performance, reduce fossil-fuel energy use, improve health (of students and communities), and provide other benefits even while saving money.

Now, there are many things to be done with existing school buildings (from putting in sky lights in gyms and making roofs high albedo (“cool roof”) or green roofs or renewable energy generation facilities (both solar thermal and solar electric) to better heating controls to …) even while it should be national policy that all new school structures should be on the leading (LEEDing?) edge of sustainable construction.

Amid all this is the reality that school systems around the country have become heavily dependent on temporary structures to handle students during renovations, fluctuating student populations, and/or provide a cheaper (up front) response to growing student populations than building new schools or expanding existing ones. Some 36 percent of America’s schools systems have nearly 400,000 “temporary” trailers deployed. Thus, it is far too typical to see ‘trailer parks’ eating up lawn space around American public schools. These trailers are, all too often, far from paragons of energy efficiency and environmental friendliness. Often poorly insulated, with inefficient heating/cooling systems, these trailers evidently have worse health care and student performance statistics than can be found with students sitting in regular classrooms just 10s of feet away.

Project FROG seeks to address this problem (or, perhaps more accurately, this opportunity for improvement). FROG stands for Flexible Response to Ongoing Growth.

There are several core elements to Project FROG’s approach:

• Pre-Fab Manufacturing: Building elements are constructed basically via industrial lines, enabling greater productivity, less waste, and faster construction time on location.
• Computer modeling: Whether of daylighting or water flow, upfront investment in understanding the entire site dynamics enables construction of a facility that will cost far less over time to maintain/operate while enabling better performance.
• Integration of Sustainability and Performance: For example, daylighting is a core element for FROG projects.  Whether in the office, factory, or school environment, study after study has shown improved performance and improved helath with increased daylighting and decreased artificial light.
• Cost effectiveness: Due to the pre-fab approach, Project FROG facilities offer the opportunity for savings not just through operations but also (especially against construction) in the up-front acquisition costs.

Project FROG isn’t simply aimed at temporary facilities, as their basic philosophy of modular construction with high environmental and energy standards is applicable to a wide range of public construction requirements, from day care centers to bus stations to offices to …

They argue that going with Project Frog is smart for these reasons:

• “Better” buildings with energy efficiency, strong safety standards, and construction well above building code standards for safety and interior health.
• “Greener” with recycled construction materials, near zero onsite waste, and 50% or lower life-cycle energy use compared to standard construction.
• “Faster” due to computer aided design, module-based approach, and onsite assembly (rather than construction).
• “Cheaper” to buy (asserting a 25-40% savings over traditional construction) with a 25-40% reduction in overall operating costs.

And, by the way, that is putting aside that students (and teachers) perform better in “green” schools, that greening buildings contributes to community health, and addressing building energy (and resource) inefficiency is an important tool for addressing our energy and climate challenges.

Right now, for students (and teachers) condemned to them, portable trailers are a blight on our educational landscape.  Project FROG offers a path for cleaning up that blight and changing a social dynamic: rather than dreading assignment to a trailer, students (and teachers) might battle for the opportunity.

Some sources on Green Schools:

• Green Schools.NET
• Alliance to Save Energy Green Schools Program
• Project Green Schools (New England focused) (Note that there are many state/regional sites & groups. See, for example, Michigan Green Schools.)
• USGDC Green School Buildings
• Green Schools Alliance
• Media & Policy Center Growing Greener Schools (with PBS documentary to come)
• National Wildlife Federation Eco-Schools

Hat tip to JetsonGreen.

NOTE: This is a highly favorable discussion of Project FROG. Please recognize that I have not seen independent verification / auditing / verification of their claims. Project FROG was one of Building Green.com’s top 2009 products.

This guest post from B Amer provides one attendee’s perspective on a Bill McKibben speech.

Having faced (almost literally) hellish conditions with record-breaking fires nearly beyond description, Australia’s first responders are organizing to help foster a stronger national response to Global Warming.

Here is a video about their efforts:

Elizabeth Kolbert is one of the most beautiful and, often, thoughtful reporters on energy and environmental issues. In the latest New Yorker, she turned a quite critical pen to the Super Freaky Economists with her review of SuperFreakonomics.
[Read more →]

Sad-to-say, the air waves and oped pages and blog posts have been filled with Steven Levitt’s and Steven Dubner’s shallow, truthiness-laden Superfreakonomics.   The continued attention feeds on itself, as ignoring the deceptions and the mediocre interviews booked due to the authors’ Super(freaky)star status has the problem of giving it credence due to non-truthful truthiness and misleading mediocrity on the critical issue of climate change science and other issues. There essentially innumerable works more worthy of our attention and engagement, even if we constrain ourselves simply to books also published in 2009.

Thus, after the fold, ten books published this year that are more worthy of your time and money that the shallow distortions from the Super Freaky Economists of Superfreakonomics.

[Read more →]

There are all too many denier efforts to confuse and distort the discussion related to climate change. One element of this, which all too often ends up in the press, is to suggest that the random and anti-science voice of deniers, some form of group “petitioning” against a society’s climate-change statement, somehow merits equal weight against the huge body of science and the huge number of scientists who “are behind the headlines.

Spend a few moments with Rachel Pike to get a perspective on the extent of work “behind the headlines”. As she comments,

It is such a large community that our annual meeting is the largest scientific meeting in the world.

Hat tip to Greenfyre, who provides a range of worthwhile links in The science behind a climate change headline.

This is a powerful video from World Wildlife Fund. Take the moment to watch … and, as you wish, share. (And, if you wish, rate it at Youtube.)

This is a call for President Barack Obama to go to Copenhagen.

The “ABC” call?

A. Help developing countries and fragile ecosystems cope with climate impacts.
B. Guarantee access to clean technologies to all countries.
C. Save the world’s forests.

Is it as simple as ABC? No, but these aren’t bad items to call out for attention.

From the video after a list of countries that are moving toward substantive action to reduce emissions:

Question: So, why would the United States stand in everybody’s way?
Answer: I don’t know.

The video ends:

Do you think he knows how to get to Copenhagen?

Actually, this isn’t quite what the American Physical Society (APS) said, but that short-hand doesn’t really misrepresent what occurred.

For several months now, Global Warming deniers (no, not “skeptics”, but active purveyors of misinformation demonstrating severe anti-science syndrome) have sought to get the APS to turn aside from the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change. The APS’s consideration of the deniers’ “silly petition” was warmly (and loudly) proclaimed among those seeking to distort the national (and global) discussion re Global Warming and the bests paths forward to mitigate against catastrophic climate change. (See Science Bypass for a 128 page tour de force analysis by John Mashey.) Yesterday, the APS leadership council did an ‘in your face’ response to these efforts to promote unscientific arguments.

Council of the American Physical Society has overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to replace the Society’s 2007 Statement on Climate Change with a version that raised doubts about global warming.

No equivocation.

No stepping back from the 2007 statement which rests as APS policy.

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.

Have to wonder whether those who gleefully discussed the petition, APS consideration of it, and (their belief in) the potential for a reversal of the earlier statement will take any meaningful message from yet another major scientific institution, yet again, stating that the scientific evidence is clear that humanity is the leading actor in driving global warming and that we must act to reduce emissions … or face quite significant consequences.

Note: Last month, scientific institutions released a statement about climate change.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. …

contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.

Who were those minor little organizations that put their institutional power and reputation behind those words?

• American Association for the Advancement of Science
• American Chemical Society
• American Geophysical Union
• American Institute of Biological Sciences
• American Meteorological Society
• American Society of Agronomy
• American Society of Plant Biologists
• American Statistical Association
• Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
• Botanical Society of America
• Crop Science Society of America
• Ecological Society of America
• Natural Science Collections
• Alliance Organization of Biological Field Stations
• Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
• Society of Systematic Biologists
• Soil Science Society of America
• University Corporation for Atmospheric Research

APS’s continuing review of the petition is what led to it not being among them.

And, a month later, the APS Council Overwhelmingly Rejects Proposal to Replace Society’s Current Climate Change Statement and, implicitly, joins those 18 institutions in seeking to inject science into the policy discussion about how best to tackle climate change.

PS: For a direct slap down of climate deniers, see Australian PM Rudd takes Global Warming Deniers to the Shed for a Spanking

[Read more →]