Watching this parade reinforces that ‘Climate Change’ and ‘Global Warming’ (let alone climate chaos or catastrophic climate chaos or …) appear to be banned four-letter phrases in the Obama Administation lexicon.
Yesterday, the President was in Boulder City, Nevada, standing in front of a solar electricity facility speaking about clean energy.
Boulder City is the first stop on a tour where I’ll be talking about what we’re calling an all-of-the-above energy strategy — all of the above. A strategy that relies on producing more oil and gas here in America, but also more biofuels, more fuel-efficient cars, more wind power and, as you can see, a whole lot more solar power.
This is the largest solar plant of its kind anywhere in the country. That’s worth applauding. (Applause.) Every year, you produce enough clean energy to power around 17,000 homes. And that’s just the beginning. Things are going so well that another plant is already under construction down the road that will eventually power another 45,000 homes. And a third plant is in development that will be, one day, able to power around 66,000 homes.
Yesterday, the President spoke forcefully about clean energy and the potential to create jobs with clean energy projects without a syllable on how solar power means less carbon dioxide and fewer mercury poisonings per kWh and allows us to light our homes while protecting our children’s future.
Now, under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. (Applause.) That’s important to know. Over the last three years, I’ve directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We’re opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We’ve quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We’ve added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the Earth and then some.
During the speech, the President announced a plan to accelerate approval of a major pipeline and plans to move forward with reviewing the Keystone XL pipeline. Nothing, though, about the health risks from burning fossil fuels (estimated by the National Academies of Sciences (NAS) at over $100 billion a year in costs) and how much carbon the U.S. emits in its transportation system.
Now, look to the paragraph as to why Keystone XL merited further examination:
Now, right now, a company called TransCanada has applied to build a new pipeline to speed more oil from Cushing to state-of-the-art refineries down on the Gulf Coast. And today, I’m directing my administration to cut through the red tape, break through the bureaucratic hurdles, and make this project a priority, to go ahead and get it done. (Applause.)
Now, you wouldn’t know all this from listening to the television set. (Laughter.) This whole issue of the Keystone pipeline had generated, obviously, a lot of controversy and a lot of politics. And that’s because the original route from Canada into the United States was planned through an area in Nebraska that supplies some drinking water for nearly 2 million Americans, and irrigation for a good portion of America’s croplands. And Nebraskans of all political stripes — including the Republican governor there — raised some concerns about the safety and wisdom of that route.
Why was (is) Keystone controversial? Because “Nebraskans … raised some concerns abou the safety and wisdom of that route …” Nothing, nada, on the climate change (and other environmental) implications of fostering increased exploitation of Canadian Tar Sands.
That is, perhaps, because ‘climate change’ and ‘global warming’ (let alone climate chaos or catastrophic climate chaos or …) appear to be banned four-letter phrases in the Obama Administation lexicon.
The President’s speech in Nevada, yesterday, focused on “clean energy”. “Clean Energy Jobs” and economic competition with the PRC and the Congressional Flat Earth Society all were part of the President’s discussion but the President discussed “clean energy” without a sentence linking clean-energy developments to reducing fossil fuel impacts on American health nor even an aside comment how moving to clean energy is critical to any hopes we have to mitigate climate change and protect the nation from catastrophic climate chaos. The President could have spoken about how these are win-win investments due to the economic value streams and the importance of reducing climate (and other environmental) risks/costs. But, no, “climate change” is a four-letter word.
Today, the President spoke forcefully about how much oil production has increased during his Administration and bragged about new pipelines without giving any hint that the nation’s oil addiction creates health and other costs while increasing our risks from catastrophic climate chaos.
Let us be clear, we cannot make rational choices about our energy system without considering economic and environmental and climate issues — abandoning conversation about the complex systems-of-systems challenges and opportunities inhibits moving toward sensible solutions.
And if you think about it, “all of the above” is not a particularly coherent energy policy, not if one worries about climate change. Burning all the oil you can and then putting up a solar panel is like drinking six martinis at lunch and then downing a VitaminWater. You’re still a drunk — just one with your daily requirement of C and D. If a presidential candidate said they had an “all of the above” foreign policy, where every other nation was an equal ally, they’d be thought lightweight or even dangerous. But with energy, it apparently seems politic to insist we need never make a choice. Or at least to tailor your talking points to your audience.
Within the White House, Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, is most likely the key coordinating person in the White House staff for the President’s energy speeches and almost certainly has had an opportunity to weigh in on the development of them. In light of the stunning silence on climate issues in these speeches, one has to wonder why Zichal’s title isn’t changed to “Deputy Assistant to the President for All-of-the-Above Energy”.
NOTE:
The avoidance of “climate change” and “global warming” isn’t isolated to just these speeches but are notable in their absence throughout the Administration’s discussion of energy issues. The State of the Union address, The Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future: One-Year Progress Report, and so many other documents and speeches notable for how absent “climate change” issues are from the discussion.
“We’ve had a good day,” Obama continued. “It’s warm every place. It gets you a little nervous about what’s happening to global temperatures. But when it’s 75 degrees in Chicago in the beginning of March it gets you thinking…”
“Something’s wrong,” Oprah interjected.
“Yeah,” Obama said in passing. “On other hand we really have enjoyed the nice weather.”
Considering the freakishly hot heat wave hitting most of the nation, with new high temperature records outpacing new low temperature records at a 20-to-1 pace (literally an order of magnitude greater imbalance than imbalanced 2001-2010 period), President Obama can’t riff off Oprah’s “something’s wrong” to lay out why clean-energy investments are so critically important? He can’t take a moment to contrast reality when it comes to climate science issues with the anti-science syndrome suffering Congressional Flat Earthers? While the President can take a British Prime Minister to a March Madness game, he can’t take the time to discuss the March Madness that is an eerie sign of mounting global weirding?
For those entranced with the written word and learning, a truly painful life event is seeing the intellectual and ethical withering of someone whose work once had great meaning and merited true respect. New York Times / Dot Earth journalist Andrew Revkin stands as one of the more important and notable environmental journalists over the past several decades. Revkin’s books take us from the burning challenges of environmental activism in the Amazon to the chilly Arctic to a skillful laydown of basic climate science. He has had a myriad of meaningful articles including, for example, a serious role in making known the Bush-Cheney Administration’s war on science. Andrew Revkin was, with reason, for a long time a name to be trusted when it came to providing valued and insightful traditional “mainstream” media reporting on environmental issues.
Regretfully, the reasons for dutiful respect have withered in recent years as he has, amid ‘the climate wars’, seem more interested in balanced — above truthful — reporting. His piece asserting falsely an equivalency between dutiful climate denier George Will and Vice President Al Gore provides a texbook example of the problem.
But Kloor’s post also draws parallels between the Daisey affair and the saga of Peter Gleick, the water analyst and climate communicator who lied to obtain documents from the Heartland Institute, his arch foes in the climate communication wars.
Is it O.K. to lie on the way to telling a greater truth? The short answer is also the right one.
No.
I agree with Kloor that this comment also applies to climate discourse, although, as I’ve said before, the Gleick affair was not simply a matter of ethics, but also efficacy.
If one’s goal is to build public trust in climate science, and to demand an ethical approach to tending the global commons, demolishing one’s credibility and handing ammunition to foes is probably not a viable strategy.
Note that Revkin’s piece is entitled “Narrative Before Truth”. While others have more extensively examined the ethical issues with this post, let us play a small game: this section is 145 words out of a total of 224 words. Revkin is referencing a Keith Kloor post. I read Revkin’s post and, before heading to the Kloor post (being at least somewhat aware of Kloor’s perspective on Gleick), felt sure that Kloor had a long diatribe as to Peter Gleick’s actions in regard to Heartland Institute. In fact, while I think Kloor’s aside misguided, Kloor’s commentary relating Gleick to Daisy is an 11 word parenthetical comment in a 750 word post. Let’s take a look:
[Daisey] was wrong that embellishing his story would help, that bad behavior in service of a good cause ever does.
That’s one take home lesson (which apologists for Peter Gleick’s recent deceit seem tone deaf to) for those who champion any cause.
Seriously. I read Revkin before going to Kloor. I had to reread — and then search to confirm — Kloor’s post to make sure that the reference to Gleick was just a parenthetical comment that one can read as relevant for discussion as it comes just after a long extract that ended “he was wrong that embellishing his story would help, that bad behavior in service of a good cause ever does.” If one reads Kloor’s parenthetical statement as referring to that “bad behavior …” phrase, I might disagree with Kloor but this is something about which one can have an honest debate and discussion. (As debate exists over the ethics of Gleick’s actions and whether it would be ethical for a journalist.)
(While Kloor makes a stronger statement within the comments (“So you don’t see any existing cautionary lessons from the Gleick affair?”), that was in direct response to a commentator. To be clear, Kloor might be quite ready to make a far more direct comparison and attack considering his record of re Peter Gleick. Maybe Andrew Revkin is so comfortable with Kloor’s perspective on Gleick that he has read between the lines and is comfortable making the leap from Kloor’s parenthetical statement mid-way through a long post directly to a damning end quote. )
“Narrative before truth” seems to an accurate way to describe Andrew Revkin’s post.
Calling Gleick a “water analyst and climate communicator” rather than scientist.
Implying (certainly to this reader) that Keith Kloor had spent significant effort in the post laying how Daisey and Gleick were paralleled.
Yet again asserting that Gleick’s efforts to uncover conspiracy to undermine science education and confuse the public about climate science demolished his credibility. [Note that this is a clear reversal of Revkin’s past walking away from that comment, where he said “I will acknowledge that certain phrases, written in haste, were overstated. Gleick’s reputation and credibility are seriously damaged, not necessarily in ruins or destroyed.”]
And, well, finding that the most important linkage on climate discussions from Daisey (someone who embellished and strayed from factual discussion) was a climate scientist who uncovered information (by methods for which he has apologized for) about efforts to undermine truth rather than focusing on those (including those who Revkin frequently quotes and relies on) who play fast and loose with respect for scientific discourse in their climate disinformation efforts seeking to undermine public understand of the risks of catastrophic climate chaos.
All of these provide examples of someone putting a narrative of balance between activist climate scientists and anti-science syndrome sufferers rather than someone seeking to provide truthful discussion.
Narrative before truth, indeed.
It is painful to have a hero rotting away before one’s eyes …
The point of the story is that some sources consistently make up crap in the interest of a larger narrative. That was Mike Daisey. It is also what most climate science deniers do, which is why I prefer to call them disinformers.
The lesson is for journalists is to avoid those folks like the plague since you can’t trust anything they say, quoting them will probably screw up your story, and consistently relying on their perspective may harm your reputation.
Now here is where the story gets weird. Instead of drawing the obvious analogy between what Daisey did and what the disinformers do, Andy Revkin and others are actually trying to compare Daisey to … wait for it … climatologist Peter Gleick! As we will see, this is, ironically, how a desired narrative trumps all plausibility.
And, perhaps Revkin should look to NPR and the implications of faux balance for science reporting. (And here and here : “With these words, NPR commits itself as an organization to avoid the worst excesses of ‘he said, she said’ journalism. It says to itself that a report characterized by false balance is a false report.” This, of course, has direct relevance to the Daisey affair and NPR’s handling of it.)
I oft-times describe myself as a ‘systems-of-systems’ thinker (not engineer), fascinated by how (oft-times radically) different things interact in ways and for results unrealizable if we rest in a stove-piped consideration of some narrow part of a problem or the world. While the domains I focus on, our e3 (economic, energy, environmental) challenges and opportunities, are what I see as critical for my children’s and nation’s future security, this focus also creates great enjoyment as I am constantly learning and constantly gaining understanding of system dynamics and interactions. Honestly, since my first recollection, I’ve thought this way — and it took a long time to realize that this isn’t how most people view the world and address challenges/opportunities. Rarely am I in a place where such thinking is a dominant part of the social milieu but one such opportunity is coming up next week when Affordable Comfort Inc (ACI) will be holding their annual conference in Baltimore, Md.
a national nonprofit organization that has become the go-to resource for information, education and best practices in an area of residential building construction that has become known as Home Performance and Weatherization. ACI connects the professional contractors and technicians on the front lines with the newest building science information from industry experts.
Seeking energy efficiency in a home is a complicated systems-of-system issue. What types and how much insulation creates what sort of impact in terms of required / desired heating and cooling systems (HVAC)? How do lighting options impact cooling requirements? How does one get a homeowner to understand the various ‘paybacks’ from an energy retrofit (that can include not just $ savings but increased comfort, reduced maintenance, lower carbon footprint, higher resale value, …) and convert that into a prioritization of efforts within a budget? How much is technology and structure the driver vs occupant usage/behaviors and how does one influence the second (the occupant) to maximize the benefits of the first (the technical system)? What is the “right” home heating solution … for San Francisco or Wyoming or Boston or …? Etc … “Home performance and weatherization” is a complex systems of systems set of challenges and opportunities.
ACI National (pdf) pulls together, much as ACI claims above, an extremely diverse group who all bring a window on the system-of-system issues in home energy performance. And the conversations — from formal presentations to debates at the bar to early in the morning — often reflect efforts to understand the complex interactions and make sense of them.
While this systems-of-systems perspective isn’t the only reason marking ACI National as a high-value event to attend. In the conference, it is not unusual to have conversations (debates even) with Ph.D. researchers, Corporate executives, people with 30 years in the business, and the person who just started crawling in attics a few months ago treating each other as equals — engaged and learning from each other, each bringing value ‘to the table’ that the others’ can learn from and absorb into their effort to foster an improved understanding of the residential energy system-of-systems.
Also, somewhat in the ‘no regrets strategy‘ model, ACI National is an environment where ‘ideology’ is often left at the doorstep. At last year’s event, I had businessman state explicitly that he didn’t believe in global warming but “it didn’t matter” since he thought “anyone who doesn’t realize that energy efficiency is a smart thing to do is an idiot who wouldn’t care if their money were falling out of a hole in their pocket.” With that statement of global warming science skepticism out of the way, in the first moment of the conversation, we then fell into a deep discussion of what he thought the best payoffs were for his clients versus what the clients put on the top of the agenda.
All in all, while some might see Darryl Hannah’s presentation as a major attraction, the ability to be surrounded by ‘system-of-system thinkers’ (even if they don’t see themselves), wander an exhibit hall with some fascinating companies, and have the chance to be caught in a hallway debate between a data crunching researcher and the person who crawls in attics every day are the real reasons to spend several days in Baltimore next week.
As per a post the other day, discussing how to advertise electric vehicles (EVs/HEVs/PHEVs) (see some great ads after the fold), what the White Zombie enables is highlighting electric vehicle values and opportunities to crowds who might reject (disdain, ignore, …) ‘green’ but will be intrigued by other value streams. Just as Greening an Office can lead to higher profitability and productivity, the White Zombie shows that ‘greening’ an old vehicle can lead to greater acceleration and the opportunities to leave others in the dust — although, not breathing fumes from the exhaust.
This public service video — from an actual Chevy owner (as you’ll see by the production quality) and Plug-In America — speaks to many of the values and value streams that actual people look to when it comes to the return-on-investment from buying an electric vehicle (PHEV or EV). Quiet enough to listen to birds while driving … control over your own fuel future … paying for American workers to install solar panels (or, okay, build nuclear reactors or put up wind turbines or …) rather than paying for the world’s newest tallest building overseas … or
Why did Jeff U’Ren make this spot? Simply put, because he was underwhelmed by Chevy’s Volt advertisements and, well, “They never mentioned the damn plug.”
No, we’re not talking about the right-wing American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) efforts to push radically conservative corporative legislation through state legislative bodies (such as ALEC re climate change) but Alec Baldwin. Perhaps sparked by global warming denier Jim Inhofe’s recent appearance on the Rachel Maddow Show, Baldwin launched a series of tweets attacking Inhofe:
Fareed Zaharia was on with Anderson Cooper in what is an informative and interesting interview which CNN has entitled: Zakaria: Republicans are pandering on gas prices. Zakaria lays out numerous ways in which Newt Gingrich’s “$2.50 gallon of gas” and Republican attacks on President Obama re gas prices are at odds with reality. (Although, Zakaria doesn’t take the next step and address the Republican Agenda to Raise Prices At The Pump.) Zakaria made a major error … not in the interview but in his promotion of it.
For neither refined product nor for overall crude oil is it true that this is “for the first time”. While it was decades ago, the United States was long a net exporter of both crude oil and refined product.
While Zakaria, with numerous people reacting to his error, send out a correction:
Correction: For the first time, the #US is exporting rather than importing
Again, this is not “for the first time” but at least Zakaria corrected from crude oil to gas (though ‘refined product’ is more accurate than ‘gas’).
However, the issue to watch. Zakaria only has, at the moment of typing this, 147,551 Twitter followers. However, the error doesn’t stop there. Zakaria’s first tweet is, well, tweeting around the world with some ‘loud’ and prominent voices passing along his mistake. Here are just two examples:
Of course, these are just two of Zakaria’s nearly 150,000 followers. How many 1000s of other erroneous retweets will occur contributing a fundamental misunderstanding of America’s energy situation?
I’ve written, previously, about how difficult it is to get people who live in master metered communities to care about efficient use of water, gas and electricity when they never see a utility bill. It can be done but it’s a hard slog. The most effective way to reduce consumption in these buildings is to upgrade inefficient central systems and install more efficient common area lighting. Master metered multi family housing is older housing stock in urban areas and these improvements cost money. There are other demands on older buildings that take priority…sometimes because of a crisis.
Systems are failing (in my condo’s case it’s the elevators, exterior light poles, converter risers for the heating and a/c, an old roof, need for new pool deck, and …) If you think that’s a murderous list, consider another decades old County condo high rise that’s hit for a $12 million repair of its indoor, below ground garage!
The economic downturn has condos hurting because of loss of monthly fees (delinquencies and foreclosures)
Utility costs and local taxes continue to rise
Fortunately for our building several things fell into place enabling us to make some central system improvements that will save money for many years to come and at very little cost. First, we were able to receive a grant from the State of Maryland to conduct an energy audit. We knew our local electric utility, PEPCO, had in place an incentive program which would pay for part of the cost of energy efficient upgrades, but the remainder of the cost of still seemed prohibitive to our board.
Our condo is located in Montgomery County, Maryland. The County decided to use some of the funds received from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) for energy efficiency efforts in existing buildings (see reference to BAM below). Our building was one of about 24 projects that received County grant to undertake upgrades identified in the audit. Among the projects included in the grant and nearing completion:
upgrade of our chiller motors and HVAC pumps
more efficient air circulation handlers in the hallways
changed exit lights on all floors to LED lighting.
upgrading our garage lighting to be more energy efficient by using more efficient bulbs (T-8) and partial sensor activated lighting.
We put light sensors in the laundry/trash areas and the exercise room (but that was not included in the County grant).
Next on my agenda is a program sponsored by PEPCO providing free CFLs, low flow showerheads, aerators for kitchen and bathroom faucets and smart power strips for every unit upon request of the owner.
My dream list for future improvements includes:
A green roof with
Solar hot water
A rainscape garden to capture runoff
Permeable pavers for the pool deck
New and energy efficient elevators
Our building is one of the many older master metered multi-family units in our County. (A County association is forming. The Alliance of Master Metered Community Associations draft mission statement after the fold.) Most urban areas in country have an inventory of these types of buildings and many recognize the unique energy wasting issues of they present. For example, in the Bay Area of California (BAM) ARRA money was used to retrofit some older buildings. According to reporting on this program (see LIIFund, report pdf link under “green development”), this program had some real successes. Auditing of 32 buildings showed:
Utility savings from 10 to 47 percent in master metered buildings with an average of 26 percent in savings.
Per unit savings of $270 per unit … per year
Hmmm … what unit owner wouldn’t want to see $270 more in their pocket each year … tax free .. year-in, year out?
Have to say, when I first saw the news headlines, I had an ‘aw s..t’ moment. Really not the best way to wake up in the morning. While it seemed at odds with what I sensed, that individual concept can be at odds with the reality. After all, I’m the type who hangs around with inspiring PowerShifters and that could influence my perspective on the Millenials.
Well, it turns out that the study might be a bit more skewed than the Associated Press reporting suggested. Follow after the fold for some examples.
While Newt Gingrich travels the country extolling the power of a magical plan to lower gasoline prices (perhaps revolving around unicorns towing our cars), a simple fact:
The Republican policy agenda will lead to increased gasoline prices at the pump in the short, near, mid, and long term while undermining the American economy and American security.
While there are a plethora of other elements, let’s narrow down to just four key Republican agenda items:
Bellicosity over Iran (and elsewhere) raises short and near-term prices and threatens mid-term increases;
Promoting Keystone XL pipeline will increase prices in the near and mid-term;
“Drill, Baby, Drill” will have minimal impact in the mid-term while raising prices in the long-term; and,
Opposing increased CAFE standards has helped foster today’s high prices and will increase prices in the mid and long term.
While Newt Gingrich travels the country extolling the power of a magical plan to lower gasoline prices (perhaps revolving around