Despite his significant backing of (that unicorn like notion of) “clean coal” and opening of huge areas of Federal land for increased coal production, the coal industry is bankrolling an aggressive campaign against President Obama — embraced with passion by the Republican Party — arguing that there is a “War on Coal”. These coal barons want no regulations between them and increased profitability — not protections for workers, not protections of local communities from mountain-top removal debris, not protections of fetuses from mercury poisoning from coal emissions, and certainly not any protections of our society’s future prosperity and viability through control of greenhouse gas emissions. The coal barons are putting massive amounts of money into efforts to drive Democrats out of office and seeking to froth up coal-country anger.
In the face of these shrill “war on coal” claims, it is worth noting that some of the most thoughtful paragraphs ever to appear in an American newspaper about coal came recently from a coal-country paper, the Roanoke Times, in an editorial entitled “Enemies of Coal“. [Read more →]
October 9th, 2012 · Comments Off on “More Fair, More Simple” George Allen’s Grammatical and Philosophical Failures …
Virginia Republican Senate candidate George Allen evidently is enamoured with word “more”. Listening to his debate with Governor Tim Kaine, George used the words “more fair” and “more simple” to describe his philosophical concepts behind tax codes that would lower the wealthiest income tax cuts. While many use the “do I want to drink a beer with the candidate” question as influential for deciding what to do in the voting booth, one of my preferred short hand questions: “Would I want the person to teach my children?” Simply put, my elementary school children would not get away with saying “more fair” and “more simple”. In fact, while brushing her hair during the debate (as she wanted me to change the channel), my eight-year old daughter said “No. Doesn’t he know that it is “fairer” and “simpler”?” Cutting to the core: George Allen, not smarter than a third grader.
While George Allen’s grammar might grate, his policy concepts and ideological are the real issues of concern.
When it comes to energy, George Allen’s rhetorical flourishes during the debate might have captured the attention of the poorly informed and ingratiated him with his fossil fuel financial backers, but his truthiness-laden misdirections, misrepresentations and half-truths were in support of policies that — if enacted — would impoverish the Commonwealth of Virginia and endanger the Union’s future.
This guest post comes from Professor Scott Mandia. Professor Mandia addresses the significant discussion of climate change issues driven by moderator Jim Lehrer’s probing questions during the first 2012 Presidential debate.
“The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe.” President Barack Obama
“We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means a military second to none,” he said. “I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.” Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney
Based on these two comments from the debate last night, one would conclude that President Obama would never avoid talking about a serious national security issue and that Mitt Romney respects the opinion of our military leaders. And, being a Republican, one might also assume Romney respects the opinions of our financial experts.
WRONG, and WRONG, and WRONG.
Dr. Georges Benjamin, Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, made this point quite clearly inhis recent statement:
Climate change is one of the most serious health threats facing our nation. Yet few Americans are aware of the very real consequences of climate change on the health of our communities, our families and our children.
We need to… convince the world that humanity really is the most important species endangered by climate change.
In a2010 statement, 33 of the top generals and admirals in the United States stated:
Climate change is making the world a more dangerous place. It’s threatening America’s security. The Pentagon and security leaders of both parties consider climate disruption to be a “threat multiplier” – it exacerbates existing problems by decreasing stability, increasing conflict, and incubating the socioeconomic conditions that foster terrorist recruitment. The State Department, the National Intelligence Council and the CIA all agree, and all are planning for future climate-based threats. America’s billion-dollar-a-day dependence on oil makes us vulnerable to unstable and unfriendly regimes.
A2010 statement from 268 investors representing assets of more than US$15 trillion:
Several leading studies indicate that the systemic shocks to regional and global economies from climate change will be substantial and will worsen the longer world governments wait to take sufficient policy action.
So clearly our health, military, and financial experts agree that human-caused climate change poses a very real threat to our health, safety, and financial security.
But here is what each candidate said about climate change:
Mitt Romney has a love in his heart — yet he wants to defund all the things he loves except the one killing us.
“I love Big Bird.” And he “likes PBS” but he wants to defund it.
“I love great schools” although he doesn’t see a Federal role for it (even as he likes what the Secretary of Education is doing in it).
“Now, I like green energy as well” but his energy policy concept doesn’t include energy efficiency (that “invisible energy” which is the most powerful of ‘green’ energies) and attacks wind and solar energy
All of these things that Mitt “loves” and “likes” will be defunded and destroyed if his policy concepts are enacted.
On the other hand, what does Mitt “like” that will get support?
I like coal. I’m going to make sure we continue to burn clean coal. People in the coal industry feel like it’s getting crushed by your policies.
What a load of …! Here are a few examples why …
It is interesting that Mitt wants to discuss what “people in the coal industry feel like” rather than confronting market reality: the booming natural gas industry (with extremely low natural gas prices) means that existing coal plants simply aren’t competitive in the market place. And, with technological and business developments, “new” coal plants are simply uncompetitive against not just natural gas but, in ever-more market areas with each day, coal isn’t competitive with new wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, hydropower, and other emergent electricity options.
“Make sure we continue to burn clean coal.” Where is the intrepid reporter who is going to ask the Romney campaign some simple questions: Where are we “burn[ing] clean coal” today that we will “continue” into the future? What does Mitt Romney mean by “Clean Coal”?
Yes, when it comes to Mitt’s likes and loves, the only ones that would get support in a Romney Administration are those that are bad for America and Americans.
Considering Mitt’s “I like coal”, perhaps a better “Denver debate in short” would be:
In the vein of Network and “I’m mad as hell and not going to take it anymore”, “Weathergirl” is audacious enough to explain, with the passion it merits, the seriousness of our climate situation. Enjoy the humor of and weep with the truth of Weathergirl Goes Rogue 2: Still Hot, Still Crazy.
This summer’s droughts in the American Midwest have pushed corn and wheat prices above their previous highs in 2011 and out of the reach of the world’s poorest, threatening to trigger a new wave of global unrest — perhaps even a second Arab Spring.
NECSI has shown that surges in unrest coincided with food price peaks in 2007-01 and 2010-11 [7]. During much of August and September, the price of wheat exceeded the high of $8.94 of February 2011, by which time the events of Arab Spring were underway.
Climate disruption is a very serious player in 2012’s high food prices (think drought in the United States, to start with). And, with mounting climate chaos, we can only expect sort of climate change-driven disruption to the global agricultural system to occur more frequently and with more devastating impacts.
In the June 2012 National Defense magazine, Lawrence Farrell, Jr, the National Defense Industrial Association (NDIA)’s national director asked the question: “New American Oil Boom: Will it Slow DoD’s Renewable Energy Momentum?” Farrell’s OPED laid out a reasoned case as to why it remains in the U.S. national interest — and in the Defense Department’s interest — to continue pursuing energy efficiency and renewable energy, even with shale natural gas and shale oil production increases.
Not surprisingly, Farrell’s OPED engendered responses both online and in the magazine. This all became apparent to me when picking up a copy of the August 2012 National Defense at the NDIA display table at the 2012 GreenGov conference. A few days later, I opened the issue and the following words jumped out:
The administration and Defense are all hung up on human-caused global warming ….
erroneous assumptions built into United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) models. The resulting flawed projections of global temperature, which are now challenged by a wide body of scientific authorities, do not reflect the actual global temperature history nor its steady value since 1998.
The sooner we reject the global warming theory and get on with the “boom,” the sooner Defense can develop strategic plans based on greater independence from foreign sources.
These words came in a letter signed by Admiral Thomas Hayward, US Navy (retired), who served as the Chief of Naval Operations, Vice Admiral Ed Briggs, USN (retired), and Captain Deke Forbes, USN (Ret.). Note that term, in the letter, “authorities”. In the letters section of a military magazine, a retired four-star officer (who headed one of the nation’s military services) is a pretty serious authority who carries serious weight as an authority — a question to ask is whether this “authority” applies to the issue at hand.
To make something clear, Hayward’s letter is — in no small part — an attack on the military’s biofuels program. While I disagree with ADM Hayward, et al, about the question as to whether there is a military role in the development of alternative fuels to advance national security interests, this is an arena for legitimate policy debate, discussion, and dispute. However, this debate, discussion, and dispute should be based on facts and participants should engage truthfully in issues of such fundamental national security.
When it comes to that mandate, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof/evidence. The three authors statements when it comes to climate change / global warming are (at best) misleading and disingenuous if not outright falsehoods.
“now challenged by a wide body of scientific authorities“: What is meant by “scientific authorities”? Seeing those words, most people might think of groups and institutions like the National Academies of Science (US), the Royal Academies of Science (UK, NZ, Australia, Swedish, Irish, etc), the American Geophysical Union (AGU), American Metereological Society (AMS), American Physical Society, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), etc … If we look to the world’s scientific institutions, they are united in backing climate science: that the globe is warming, that humanity is a driving factor, that this could have significant implications, and that we should work to reduce humanity’s impact. Perhaps the three authors believe that the world’s scientists and the scientific community are in a secret cabal to deceive people and are absolutely unethical in their science and scientific work. This is a serious charge, even if simply implied, and — as above — extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
“sooner we reject the global warming theory”. Sigh (again). There isn’t a thing called “Global Warming Theory“. Rather, there is group of scientific findings and principles that have been well understood for decades, in some cases, centuries, that are implemented all the time by engineers, meteorologists, atmospheric scientists, and others that have to do with energy, gases, and planetary systems. It has been known for over a century that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would warm it. In recent decades as the warming has happened, as predicted, we’ve learn exactly what many of the effects of that warming are and we have most recently found out that some of the effects are much worse than we thought. Questioning the science of climate change by singling out a “Global Warming Theory” is like questioning our ability to build a safe and effective Nuclear Navy by singling out one of those crazy “Nuclear Decay” theories that people who think aliens walk among us use to get around the theory of relativity and allow rapid space travel.
“steady value since 1998.” is a well-worn canard to confuse. No one serious about climate science says (a) that there is no natural variation in weather patterns nor (b) that humanity is the only thing that matters. 1998 was hot because of the significant 1997/98 El Nino. However, as to no warming since, the 2000s were hotter globally than the 1990s, the 1990s hotter than the 1980s, the 1980s hotter than the 1970s. (By the way, the authors’ perspective is made clear here — there are few ‘skeptics’ out there any more who continue to assert that the planet isn’t warming.) When one speaks to climate, one speaks to trends and longer periods. One does not peg everything on a specific year as these three authors did. That “inconvenient fact” is nonexistent if one starts at 1997 or 1999 rather than 1998. And, well, if one uses (more appropriately) 30-year trend lines, that global warming pattern is quite clear. The following graphic gives an understanding of the games being played by picking “1998” rather than looking for long-term impacts. (The below doesn’t include 2011 and 2012’s record breaking temperatures.)
Perhaps the authors, all three retired U.S. Navy officers, should spend some time listening to and talking with Rear Admiral David Titley, U.S. Navy, the Assistant Deputy Chief of Naval Operations for Information Dominance. Prior to this post, Titley was the Oceanographer of the Navy and head of Task Force Climate . RADM Titley once was a “hard-core skeptic” until he examined the evidence and, as a scientist, was open to the evidence convincing of the reality of global warming and of humanity’s role in driving global warming.
Extreme claims require extreme evidence. While the letters’ three authors have, by their title and the careers / experiences those titles exude, established authority when it comes to issues of military operations, capabilities, and other defense programs, one must wonder whether their ranks confer them the same “authority” when it comes to scientific issues. Considering how the assertions in their letter fly in the face of the world’s top scientific associations, National Defense‘s editors should have required the authors to provide substantive evidence to support their accusations and claims before National Defense published these misleading — if not more accurately described as false — words.
Sadly, attacks on climate science are significantly driven by political agendas. In no small part, that agenda is very closely connected to the opening of the letter: taking climate science seriously requires taking a serious look at our energy use patterns and opportunities for paths forward different than those of the past. And, those threatened by those shifts — such as fossil fuel companies — fund significant efforts to confuse the public about the realities of climate science. ADM Hayward and his coauthors provide, it seems, a good example of the success of those disinformation efforts.
PS:
In addition, when it comes to ADM Hayward/et al’s letter, let us be clear: Larry Farrell did not mention climate change. He spoke to other significant issues – such as the global nature of the oil market, vulnerability of those markets, and the Achilles Heel that fossil fuel dependency places on U.S. military forces.
RADM Titley’s TED talk follows. He said that this should be called a “reformed smoker’s brief” — of one who had moved from “hard-core skeptic” to someone convinced that climate change is one of the most serious challenges of the 21st century.
September 30th, 2012 · Comments Off on Green Festival DC … interesting/valuable few hours
While I plan to return to this, for a more substantive discussion when I have time, I spent several hours at the Green Festival, DC, yesterday and found this worthwhile.
At the DC Convention Center, today is the second/last day and I would recommend this to others.
Among (many) interesting, surprising, enjoyable items:
Electric / otherwise bikes: There are a number of interesting electric bikes companies and concepts there. How about, for example, a ‘cargo’/food service electric bike that has a solar panel on top of its cargo space. Think about this … a trickle recharging of the electric assist for the bike even as your are pedaling. And, an electric assist bike that has the ability to pull something like 700 lbs of cargo. Hmmm … how about moving a couch with that electric assist bike?
Fair trade cloth frisbees: As a (sigh, former) fanatic ultimate frisbee player, frisbees can catch my eye. The only purchase at the Green Festival: a fair trade cotton frisbee weaved in Guatemala. Foldable for taking along with the kids to a park to throw around with friends and I won’t wince when it hits the pavement (the edges won’t get scratched).
A hand-held device to measure the contaminants in clothing products. Found that the ACCO ‘giveaway’ business card holder made from recycled products was well within the safe lead limits and that the lead that registered likely came mainly from the printed on logo and not the product itself.
Ford: Ford is a major sponsor of the Green Festival, with handling the waste (recycling, compost, and (minimal) landfill). They are there gunning for Toyota and, well, as a Toyota (Prius) owner, they do a pretty convincing case. The floor display is strong, highlighting how they are using bio-based products increasingly in their cars (seats and otherwise), with a salsa to taste made solely from ingredients used for the car. Yumm … Test drove two cars and, well, my kids (who, for their age, are pretty knowledgeable efficient car consumers) were enthusiastic about both of them.
I need to run to do some family things … but recommend, highly, going to Green Festival, DC, today if you are in the DC area.
Comments Off on Green Festival DC … interesting/valuable few hoursTags:Energy
September 29th, 2012 · Comments Off on Coal, Oil, Gas (COG) Spokesman Hits Radical Environmentalists
Gene Vashing speaks for “Coal, Oil, Gas America” about how environmentalists seek to destroy the job creation opportunities due to significant fossil fuel use.
Now you see we’re just COGs in this great machine we call America …Coal, Oil, Gas … Why, that’s just nature.
The Romney-Ryan energy plan has been appropriately castigated for embracing and enshrining fossil fuels while disdaining and dismissing renewable energy systems (and, well, totally ignoring energy efficiency). (One could say that the Romney-Ryan campaign is rejecting energy from heaven and embracing (with passion) energy from hell.) With mindless ‘Drill, Baby, Drill’ cheering, enraptured sonnets for Keystone XL, and falsehood-driven claims of a ‘War on Coal’, too many seem to be missing fundamental realities about the Romney energy plan: it will raise costs for Americans.
Let’s put aside that executing the myopic embrace of fossil fuels would greatly exacerbate health impacts from pollution, climate change, and other “externalities’ (fossil) foolishly kept out of the contractual price(s) of our energy system. Even without counting these devastatingly serious costs, the Romney-Ryan plan would likely raise America’s and Americans’ energy costs. Why?
In capitalism, basic supply/demand curves rule in a clean market space. Energy efficiency comes in at lower price than energy production in our buildings and in our transportation. Through abandoning any pretense of targeting demand destruction and solely focusing on supply, the Romney-Ryan plan emphasizes the more expensive side of the equation and would put the nation on a spiral of ever-increasing energy costs/prices.
When it comes to oil, tomorrow’s oil sources are more expensive than yesterday’s. Shale oil, tar sands, deep offshore oil, drilling in the Arctic are not only more polluting but also more expensive. Jed Clampett like discoveries of ‘bubbling crude‘ are a thing of the past.
And …
Let’s take a short moment to consider electricity prices.
The Romney-Ryan pained claims of a “War on Coal” fundamentally misrepresents the situation. Coal demand in the U.S. electricity system isn’t collapsing due to government policy but from a simple reality: coal cannot compete, on a cost basis, with natural gas nor with energy efficiency. And, new coal plants are not cost-competitive against wind systems nor natural gas electricity. Simply put, the market is working to drive coal out of America’s electricity supply.
the nation’s electric utilities used 18 percent less coal in the first half of 2012 than they did in 2011, and 27 percent less than they did during the peak year, 2008.
As of earlier this year, coal usage in the electricity industry has fallen to 1986 levels. In fact, coal is now down to roughly one-third of America’s electricity generation and heading lower. And, this is being driven by market economics — that market which is (after, perhaps, reducing taxes on the wealthiest Americans) seemingly at the core of Mitt Romney’s political agenda. Coal is falling off the table as a fuel of choice for the electricity industry because, simply, it can’t compete and is more expensive than other options.
By rejecting energy efficiency, by rejecting clean-energy options (that would remove the risks of fluctuating and rising energy prices), by promoting coal as central to America’s future energy system, the Romney-Ryan energy ‘plan’ would raise America’s and Americans’ energy prices.
…
And, oh by the way, moving beyond energy “prices”, let us be clear: execution of the Romney-Ryan energy agenda would increase, horribly, the costs of America’s and Americans energy use through worsened health, productivity, environmental, and climate change impacts.
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (ret’d) opens The Burden‘s trailer with these words:
Oil, natural gas, coal have been very good for the United States …
Key to his words: “have been”.
Rich natural resources have been key to America’s emergence, over the centuries, into a global powerhouse. Combined with (regulated) capitalism enabling best practices (mainly) to come to top, freedom of speech within a democratic society, and an open embrace of people from around the world, America’s rich fossil fuel resources were critical for U.S. development: from the coal powering Civil War railroads and steamships, to America’s oil fueling the Allies in World War II, to the natural gas fueling chemical industry advances, fossil fuels had a serious role in making America great.
However, fossil fuels have turned from a great enabler into a serious Achilles’ Heel. The risks are economic, environmental, and — on a very fundamental level — national security in nature. In a process that has taken decades to mature (with significant movement forward, by the way, during the Bush Administration), the U.S. military is (all the military services are) becoming ever more aware of the risks from dependency on fossil fuel energy sources and the opportunities that emerge from embracing energy efficiency and renewable energy (EE/RE).
These benefits range from very tactical (increased range for vehicles, ships, and aircraft), to operational (reduced requirements for fuel convoys and fuel escorts freeing up forces and creating operational flexibility), to strategic (reduced oil dependency could change the national security relationship with the Middle East). And, the benefits will come from reduced casualties, increased capabilities, reduced financial costs, and other valuable impacts.
Gov. Jerry Brown signed the Energy Security Coordination Act (S.B. 1409) into law today, which will direct the governor of research and planning to coordinate energy policies with the U.S. Department of Defense in order to resolve conflicts that might arise in the military’s research, development, and deployment of clean energy in California. The bill, which passed unanimously in the Senate and with only two ‘no’ votes in the Assembly, was sponsored by Operation Free, parent organization of the Truman National Security Project.
Related: Coherent discussion of Energy Smart military practices and thinking are a key path to fostering a more informed and, well, even bipartisan energy discussion. See here.
