Get Energy Smart! NOW!

Expect lots of global warming denier screaming headline titles about a new paper on climate modeling and the press release on it from Rice University.  The title of that press release:

Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong

Unknown processes account for much of warming in ancient hot spell

“Global warming: Our best guess is likely wrong”.  OMG!!!!  

No one knows exactly how much Earth’s climate will warm due to carbon emissions, but a new study this week suggests scientists’ best predictions about global warming might be incorrect. … “In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record,” said oceanographer Gerald Dickens, a co-author of the study and professor of Earth science at Rice University. “There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models.”

Yet again, a good piece of scientific research and analysis which raises questions about whether climate models are sufficiently robust to explain climate change and all the interacting forcing functions — both natural and manmade.  Yes, it raises questions — meaningful questions.  But, not the questions that deniers will shout from the rooftops and the sorts of implications that we should expect from Senator James Inhofe (R-Exxon).

Having read the press release and the published study, the quick summary:

And, thus, OMG!!!! The climate models might be wrong!!!! The situation might be far worse than they predict!

Amid many astounding and bizaare themes of the 2008 election, one of the most absurd came from the Republican Party’s determined efforts to cast Sarah Palin as one of the nation’s top energy experts. Putting aside the 10,000s (if not 100,000s or even millions) of Americans who are more knowledgeable of energy issues, Palin demonstrated her energy illiteracy on the rare occasions where she faced substantive questioning related to energy or climate issues.

Sarah Palin, in a post-resignation ‘intellectual move’ almost certainly ghost-written by fossil-fuel interests, has a fact-free column in The Washington Post. Looking at this unbridled attack on the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) Act, some core points shine forth.

• As the Governor of the state which had the first displaced persons unquestionably due to Global Warming and whose husband has had his favorite activity (snow machine racing) disrupted due to global warming, Global Warming denier Sarah Palin focuses solely on polluting energy options (and, of course, gives no credence to climate change as something meriting attention).
• Governor Palin, when she thinks energy, thinks down under her feet and into the past. She mentions oil, natural gas, coal, and nuclear power but can’t spare a syllable for renewables, even though several of the most interesting potentials in the nation are in her state. (Such as UTC & Chena Hot Springs low-termperature geothermal.) And, Alaska actually has a rather aggressive RPS target of 50 percent renewable energy by 2025 (announced, by the way, by Governor Palin in January 2009).
• And, of course, Palin is simply repeating deceitful Republican attack lines on climate legislation.  For example, Palin focuses solely on costs, not benefits, in her desire to distort the debate.

Reading this OPED brings one to this Palin campaign slogan:

Sarah “Energy Expert” Palin:

Ready to lead American away from science and back into the past.

And, considering the stream of deceptive, mendacious and mediocre Washington Post opinion pieces related to energy and climate issues, opening The Washington Post to see this misguided OPED leads to a simple question: “Is there any sane person left in the Post management?”

After the fold, let’s take a look at the thoughts of whoever was putting words in Sarah’s name.

[Read more →]

The Republican Party has a serious infection of anti-science syndrome. And, the Republican War on Science clearly has been noticed by scientists. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press came out, yesterday, with a report entitled Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. This is an interesting polling report, on a number of levels. As per the title, let us focus on one item: Scientists and Party affiliation. As can be seen in the table to the right, “Partisan and Ideological Differences”, of 2500 polled scientists, just 6 percent of the polled identify themselves as Republicans (as opposed to 23 percent of the overall population).

As Stephen Colbert put it, “reality has a well-known liberal bias”.  Scientists work in, specialize in understanding reality. Should it shock anyone that they have a liberal bias?

Now, as Republicans continue to proudly flaunt their Anti-Science Syndrome (A.S.S.) suffering Haters of a Livable Economy (H.O.L.E.) credentials, this poll suggests some severe political risks of determined attacks on science and the scientific community on issues like Global Warming.

[Read more →]

<img src=”http://www.energyconversation.org/sites/all/themes/energyco/images/ec_uncle_sam_t.gif” align=”left” />  This coming Monday evening, 13 July, The Energy Conversation will have a public session focused on geothermal energy, appropriately titled “Is American warming up to geothermal energy?“.  This US government sponsored lecture is a free event (okay, $10 for dinner) that occurs on a regular basis at the L’Enfant Plaza Hotel in Washington, DC, bringing together 100s of people from government, industry, think tank, non-profit, and citizens interested in energy and environmental issues.

Featured speakers

• Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) (“Energy Smart Jeff“)
• FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff
• Ed Wall, program manager from the Geothermal Technologies Program at Department of Energy
• Kermit Witherbee, Bureau of Land Management at Department of Interior
• Andrew Sabin, Naval Air Weapons Station Geothermal Program Office

[Read more →]

twit (twt)

tr.v. twit·ted, twit·ting, twits

To taunt, ridicule, or tease, especially for embarrassing mistakes or faults.

n.

1. The act or an instance of twitting.

2. A reproach, gibe, or taunt.

3. Slang A foolishly annoying person.

Senator Clair McCaskill (D-MO) loves twitter. On more than one occasion and re more than one issue, Claire’s Twitter comments have raised eyebrows.

Recently, Twitting Claire posted a message re climate change

According to Claire, people sent in message (after message) reacting ot this line.

In her latest radio interview, Claire repeated this sentiment and added to it.

MCCASKILL: Well, I’m going to make people, my friends on the left, very unhappy and I’m going to make those who don’t think global warming is real very unhappy because I’m probably going to be working with a group of moderates in the middle to try to come up with a bill that doesn’t punish coal-dependent states like Missouri

Already, Claire has received numerous new Twitter messages

• Claire Silberman: Wonder why @clairecmc is willing to sacrifice health for the interests of King Coal. http://bit.ly/hr6m3 Clean energy=healthy families
• Enviroknow: Really disappointing to learn that @clairecmc is in the pocket of Peabody Energy (Big Coal): http://bit.ly/10Nnbb
• Morgan Goodwin: Really disappointing to learn that @clairecmc is in the pocket of Peabody Energy (Big Coal): http://bit.ly/10Nnbb
• Populista: @clairecmc, since I know you read tweets. Your comments about #ACES are a total betrayal of my generation and future generations.

Considering that “Twitting” seems to be the way to communicate with Claire, here are several questions within the XX character limit:

1. RE the  concern about “unfair punishment”, do you believe that coal-users merit some punishment?
2. What is “unfair” vs “fair” punishment for polluting energy usage?
3. Does wastefully burning coal unfairly punish non-coal users around the world?
4. Do realize that Missourians’ pockets would have more money in them due to ACES provisions?
5. Missouri’s citizens (your voters) want clean energy.  Don’t you?
6. Are you really concerned about Missouri’s citizens or is this about about Peabody Energy executives and major stockholders?
7. Are you striving to be Fair and Balanced, placing yourself in the middle between “the left” and global warming deniers?

After the fold, let’s explore each of these questions a little bit.

[Read more →]

That is the question that many Americans will see opening their newspapers tomorrow as a nationwide advertising effort begins to let Americans know that the American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) has a provision restricting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce the Clean Air Act (CAA). The CAA is perhaps the premier legislative achievement to turn around environmental damage that, quite literally, affect every single American with every breath we take.

The ad reads:

The energy bill that passed the House guts a key provision of the Clean Air Act, letting oil refineries and coal plants off the hook for their global warming pollution.

Coal plants are our nation’s oldest and dirtiest polluters.

Thanks to industry lobbying, the bill will provide a lifeline for coal.

More coal means fewer jobs in wind and solar industries, more pollution, and a worsening climate crisis.

MoveOn is calling on the Senate to change this, to maintain the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to enforce, if necessary, Clean Air Act provisions related to reducing how excessive CO2 emissions endanger Americans and the environment (not just through Global Warming impacts but also, for example, through acidification of the oceans).

The Waxman-Markety American Clean Energy and Security (ACES) targets for renewable energy and climate emissions reductions are, to put it simply, far from what they should be. And, let’s put aside “should be”, they are far weaker than they could be.

Let’s stick with 2020 targets for a moment. The bill, as passed by the House, calls for a 17 percent reduction in US CO2 emissions compared to 2005 levels. This target puts the US just a few percent below 1990 emissions levels when the (and now almost certainly outdated and not aggressive enough)  International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls for developed countries to achieve a 25-40 percent reductions in emissions from 1990 levels by 2020.  Thus, the Waxman-Markey target falls far short of what the most authoritative scientific advice recommends.

It also, however, falls short of what is happening in the United States even in the absence of climate regulation.

Another piece of evidence has come out highlighting just how unambitious the ACES climate change targets are when compared to reality.

The latest Department of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA) projection leads to a conclusion that US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will fall by at least 4.3 percent in 2009. This comes after 2008 saw about a 3 percent drop in GHG emissions.   All told, the United States is already nearly half-way to the Waxman-Markey targets nearly 11 years ahead of time and before the legislation has even become law.

Hmmm … the best scientific work strongly supports much stronger targets. Stronger targets would help boost the economy via sparking a green jobs boom.  And, stronger targets are easily achievable via elements already part of law (through the stimulus package) and serious energy efficiency (such as the energy efficiency measures within ACES) and even more investment in clean energy deployment.

Why bother instituting a carbon regime, with all its overhead costs, if the set targets are so short of what they must and can be? Why bother instituting a carbon regime, with its massive subsidies to some of the worst serial polluters, if we can do better without it?
To be clear, legislation instituting a serious climate regime would be good for US security, good for the US economy, good for the future habitability of the nation, good …  And, Senate action to strengthen ACES into something resembling a serious climate regime would be welcome.

[Read more →]

According to the Washington Post, Barack Obama has a serious problem: he is too perfect. Thus, there is much press attention searching for Obama’s character flaws, ever more diligently focusing on Obama’s cigarette usage rather than asking probing questions at press conferences on irrelevancies like energy policy. Considering the fact that the last President was an alcoholic, it seems reasonble to wonder why there is all of this attention on a few cigarettes and not a word on Obama’s drinking problem. A problem, by the way, that he shares with 100s of millions (if not billions around the world) and which is documented as helping wreck havoc on global society.

[Read more →]

Our challenges, opportunities, and solution paths are complex and interrelated. Yet, all too often, we see them individually, not linked and interacting.

To Timbuk3’s My New High Efficiency Toilet, dfarrah commented

I don’t have low flow shower heads, but I rinse up, turn off the water, lather up, then rinse quickly. I think this works out well. …

My response, a recommendation to get a low-flow showerhead.

Do you really think that my method doesn’t save as much as a low flow head running the whole time?

Well, actually, it likely does “save as much” … and perhaps even more. But this is postulating an either / or situation when there is greater power in “and”.
[Read more →]

Putting fuel efficiency feedback systems on the dashboard of every American automobile (both existing and new) could well be one of the most cost effective tools for quick reduction in America’s oil dependency and, as well, to improve traffic safety (and reduce) fatalities.   These feedback systems can be as ‘simple’ as solely providing real-time miles per gallon information or more complicated systems, that might include educational steps to improve drivers’ habits.

The potential power of feedback systems to inform consumers and, in aggregate, change behavior to greater energy (and other) resource efficiency fascinates me.  When it comes to cars and automobiles, the “Prius Effect” is becoming somewhat legendary, with couples arguing about who gets greater fuel efficiency and Prius drivers’ speaking of how the system information is fostering changed driving habits.

Toyota is far from alone in this arena.  One of the differentiators for the new Ford Fusion Hybrid is its “SmartGauge with EcoGuide”.  Having seen material on it and crawled over a Fusion Hybrid at a trade show, I was a bit fascinated by their approach and I made a request. For the past week, I’ve had the pleasure (yes pleasure) of driving a (near) brand-new Fusion Hybrid courtesy of Ford’s test drive program for journalists.  This post is a brief discussion of that feedback system.

[Read more →]