July 18th, 2009 · Comments Off on Energy Bookshelf: Dummied Energy Efficiency
When writing a review, the desired state is to write positive; hopefully having had an excellent experience with, then, the pleasure of sharing that with others. Sadly, not all life’s experiences are joyful.
Rik DeGunther has an empire of Energy for Dummies books. He writes well. And, it is clear that he has real knowledge. These are the sort of books that one would like to write: go out, buy, it will answer all your questions and help (us all) solve some real problems. Sadly, there are issues — small and large — that force a real questioning as to whether these are books that we should have on our Energy Bookshelves.
Let’s take a look at one, Energy Efficient Homes for Dummies, for examples of these problems. Written clearly (often even enjoyable to read) with much advice between the covers that would be worth following. Interspersed, however, is misleading, confusing, and even out-of-place material. Follow me after the fold for some examples.
has today dealt a body blow to global warming skeptics by releasing findings exposing the lack of credibility of dissenting scientists challenging man-made global warming
July 15th, 2009 · Comments Off on Thirty years later: “A Crisis of Confidence”
Thirty years ago, on 15 July 1979, President Jimmy Carter gave the “Crisis of Confidence” speech which, sadly, remains all too relevant today. This speech was amid the second oil crisis, well before our knowledge of Global Warming being so strongly supported by science. Even so, with the exception of a few items (such as the emphasis on coal and shale to be exploited), Carter’s recommendations would make sense to execute today. 30 years later, read the speech and/or listen to it.
This past weekend, Australian youth gathered for PowerShift Australia. And, they ‘flashed’ Sydney’s Opera House.
This is the latest (could we say greatest?) videos from the Australian Youth Climate Coalition (AYCC), a coalition of 22 member and partner youth organisations from across Australia.
Around the globe, youth are seizing the mantle to bring attention to the urgency for serious action to turn the tide on Global Warming’s rising seas.
Let’s face facts, to far too many, for far too long, “environmentalism” has seemed a lilly-white activity, something for people with enough resources to engage in caring about the environment. And, in some ways, there is some truth to this perspective. As Jerome Ringo put it in
I joined the Louisian WIldlife Federation in 1991. At that time, the Louisiana Wildlife Federation was the largest environmental organization in the state; it had about 24,000 members. When I joined, I was the only black member. Today, the membership has fallen to about 19,000. And, today, I am the only black member. What I found in Louisiana, as well as in the rest of this country, is that the conservation movement lacked diversity, and there was a lack of involvement of women, people of color, or of the poor …
Poor people are more concerned about next month’s rent. The melting of the glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro is not an issue for low-income Americans.
Jerome Ringo, “Accelerating the Shift to Green Energy”, Greenfestival Reader, pp. 83-84
While it is hard to call activism on climate change and efforts for green jobs lilly-white when people like Van Jones (and Barack Obama and Hilda Solis) are among the strongest voices for change, the African American community, as a community, has not been heavily engaged in the efforts to drive America toward a clean energy future despite the very serious issues of environmental justice and impacts on African American communities across the nation.
“This is a breakthrough moment on the path to our clean energy future,” said John Grant, National Wildlife Federation Board of Directors and CEO of 100 Black Men of Atlanta. “Clean energy is the key that will unlock millions of jobs, and the NAACP’s support is vital to ensuring that those jobs help to rebuild urban areas.”
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:
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:
The study examines a 10,000 (or so) year period (Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum (about 55 million years ago)) which saw a 70% increase in carbon and applies modeling seeking to examine the impact of anything from a 50% increase (400 ppm) to a quadrupling of carbon concentrations (1000 ppm+) in a several hundred year program.
The PETM saw a 7 degree C (13 degree F) increase in temperature over 10,000 years, roughly a 1 degree F increase in temperature every 970 years. Roughly, during the anthropocene era (modern times), there has been a 1 degree F increase in temperature over the last century — an order of magnitude faster than what seems to have occurred during the PETM period.
If anything, this suggests situation might be far worse than current models predict because a 70% increase in Co2 saw a 7 degree C increase in temperature which is well beyond anything predicted by a 70% increase in Co2 levels over pre-industrial era carbon dioxide concentrations (or roughly 450 ppm).
A first order conclusion from reading the published study:
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.
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.
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.
July 10th, 2009 · Comments Off on Earth Power: Some Geothermal Talk
<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.
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:
RE the concern about “unfair punishment”, do you believe that coal-users merit some punishment?
What is “unfair” vs “fair” punishment for polluting energy usage?
Does wastefully burning coal unfairly punish non-coal users around the world?
Do realize that Missourians’ pockets would have more money in them due to ACES provisions?
entitled 
t)