Solar Power is gaining traction because it is becoming cheaper than traditional sources of energy. Senator Bernie Sanders announces a plan to subsidize "distributed" solar power (small, at-source energy production). Britain is beginning to subsidize solar power as well. Coal, nuclear, petroleum, they are all subsidized, so why not subsidize power generation that does not cause so many problems for humans and our environment?
MotherJones publishes an article asking, What do we not know about global climate change?
American Legislatures are turning to plans to scrap cap and trade and just please their financial constituents.
Frank Luntz has helped Republicans use the right words to win the political game, now he turns his skills over to environmentalists so that they can re-shape their rhetoric. My guess is that this will be helpful but not as useful as Republicans have made Luntz's skills because Conservatives are usually conformative and Liberals are usually individualists when it comes to their beliefs
The first great idea is selling reusable bags for shopping, the next great idea will be getting consumers to use them. The Guardian reports.
The ipad is built Green, but is it Green if it is just an addition to someone's gadget harem? Grist comments.
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label climate change. Show all posts
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Confusion over how we are degrading our natural environment, but no confusion over how to degrade it
I believe they are calling it the Watergate scandal. Some scientists ignored data that was contrary to their findings in a paper published about two decades ago. Climate Change skeptics are jumping all over it. The article under scrutiny was published in 1990 and is concerned with urban heat bubble heating compared to heating in the atmosphere outside of urban heat bubbles. The scandal does not disprove global warming. Furthermore, global warming is not the only environmental problem. Global warming is only one aspect of global environmental degradation.
The urban heat bubble is due to all of the pavement and black roofs. Painting your roof white is one option, "green roofs" are another option. Scientific American explains.
Obama is trying to create a Green Economy. Part of his plan is increased funding for Nuclear power through research and loans. Depending on your beliefs, this is a victory or a loss.
National Geographic lists resources for learning about freshwater environmental issues.
California attempts to create laws to decrease transportation emissions. The industries being regulated claim that the legislation would violate interstate commerce laws.
Obama wants to uphold his Copenhagen commitments of reducing pollution to 4% below 1990 emissions by 2020. This is pending American National legislation though.
Some centrist democrats are seeking to scrap cap and trade and go for a policy that would do little and give many concessions to polluting industries. Mother Jones reports.
Scientific American attempts to explain some of the many atmospheric characteristics that contribute to the global atmospheric temperature. There are forces both cooling and heating our atmosphere, the temperature we experience is a product of many forces.
And...say hello to genetically modified forests that do not reproduce.
The urban heat bubble is due to all of the pavement and black roofs. Painting your roof white is one option, "green roofs" are another option. Scientific American explains.
Obama is trying to create a Green Economy. Part of his plan is increased funding for Nuclear power through research and loans. Depending on your beliefs, this is a victory or a loss.
National Geographic lists resources for learning about freshwater environmental issues.
California attempts to create laws to decrease transportation emissions. The industries being regulated claim that the legislation would violate interstate commerce laws.
Obama wants to uphold his Copenhagen commitments of reducing pollution to 4% below 1990 emissions by 2020. This is pending American National legislation though.
Some centrist democrats are seeking to scrap cap and trade and go for a policy that would do little and give many concessions to polluting industries. Mother Jones reports.
Scientific American attempts to explain some of the many atmospheric characteristics that contribute to the global atmospheric temperature. There are forces both cooling and heating our atmosphere, the temperature we experience is a product of many forces.
And...say hello to genetically modified forests that do not reproduce.
Friday, November 27, 2009
Obama is Back on for Copenhagen
Obama has announced that he will attend the climate change negotiations in Copenhagen next weekend. This will be the first international climate change negotiations that a US President has ever attended.
Obama and Hu Jintao (China) have talked about climate change, now Obama and Dr. Manmohan Singh (India) talk about climate change and the possibilities for mitigation.
International climate change negotiations between the industrialized and unindustrialized world always come to money, how are poor countries to advance technology when they don't have the money to do so? Gordon Brown has announced that Great Britain will put over $1 billion into a fund that functions to fast track money to poorer countries so they can fund efforts to mitigate and deal with climate change. The fund will grow quickly in the next decade.
Reuters reports on "Det Norske Veritas, a leading international certifier, has drafted standards which businesses ranging from coffee making to diamond sourcing can use to flag sustainability of supply chains, DNV senior executives said."
This is very important for environmental-economics as the consumer needs as much information about their products as they can get. With the expansion of sustainability certifications consumers will see more transparency in the market and can signal the market more intentionally.
The California Energy Commission bans t.v.s that eat too much energy. It will save California a lot of money. This environmentally friendly move would have never been possible without a financial crisis in California.
Innovation in the wind turbine industry makes wind turbines more efficient in their use of land.
A new study says that Americans waste a large amount of their food. From manufacturing, to transporting and selling to the dinner table Americans throw away their food in large amounts. There is much more room for becoming more conscious about our consumption habits.
Obama and Hu Jintao (China) have talked about climate change, now Obama and Dr. Manmohan Singh (India) talk about climate change and the possibilities for mitigation.
International climate change negotiations between the industrialized and unindustrialized world always come to money, how are poor countries to advance technology when they don't have the money to do so? Gordon Brown has announced that Great Britain will put over $1 billion into a fund that functions to fast track money to poorer countries so they can fund efforts to mitigate and deal with climate change. The fund will grow quickly in the next decade.
Reuters reports on "Det Norske Veritas, a leading international certifier, has drafted standards which businesses ranging from coffee making to diamond sourcing can use to flag sustainability of supply chains, DNV senior executives said."
This is very important for environmental-economics as the consumer needs as much information about their products as they can get. With the expansion of sustainability certifications consumers will see more transparency in the market and can signal the market more intentionally.
The California Energy Commission bans t.v.s that eat too much energy. It will save California a lot of money. This environmentally friendly move would have never been possible without a financial crisis in California.
Innovation in the wind turbine industry makes wind turbines more efficient in their use of land.
A new study says that Americans waste a large amount of their food. From manufacturing, to transporting and selling to the dinner table Americans throw away their food in large amounts. There is much more room for becoming more conscious about our consumption habits.
Friday, November 13, 2009
The Time to Act is Now. But, First Do Your Research
The International Energy Agency released a report covering the cost of inaction for abating Climate Change via not reaching a global agreement in Copenhagen this December. A key to the Copenhagen meeting is the USA passing national Climate Change legislation, without the USA little will happen as we are a world leader and the largest polluter in the world. The oil, gas and coal industries are increasing their efforts to kill the US Climate Change bill and supporters of the bill, mainly non-profits, are being outspent in advertising. 14 Democratic Senators have decided to back the coal industry and GRIST highlights this in a report, the Senators back the coal industry by supporting a way to give pollution permits under the national cap and trade bill that would, in effect, give lots of money to large polluters just because they pollute a lot. Giving away so many permits gives polluters money instead of gets money for out government which is currently in a financial crisis.
Standard Oil was John D Rockefeller's Company and its goal was to control the oil market, they were mostly successful until 1911 when they were broken up by the US Congress. Since Standard Oil was broken up into 32 companies they have reformed into several companies that, individually, make more profit than any companies in history (BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and smaller ones like Valero). Since Standard the price of oil has not reflected market fundamentals (supply and demand), speculation on oil pushes the price up, Reuters covers the current state of oil prices and predicts another bubble like last year when oil shot up to $148 a barrel and oil companies broke all records for profits during a global recession.
The International Energy Agency claims that oil reserves have been inflated to not alarm people that we are running out of oil. This map from the Guardian shows Global Oil Reserves, check it out.
The Environmental Defense Fund claims that polls show that the majority of Americans want renewable energy now, and a climate change bill from Congress. The PR against getting out of the coal, oil and natural gas business comes from the coal, oil and natural gas companies claiming that doing anything now would raise energy prices too much. The overall cost of not switching to renewables now is the larger cost that we should be trying to avoid.
A group of Engineering experts claim that it is impossible for Britain to meet its renewable energy targets. A fleet of electric scooters was just put on the market in Britain; progress in environmentalism is still being made.
The Boston Globe published a list of the top ten green technology jobs. They are almost all green collar (environmental blue collar) jobs.
The Journal of Science highlights new study that claims that bad decisions are contagious when a decision maker is influenced by someone they identify with or feel close to. Good thing to be aware of.
Standard Oil was John D Rockefeller's Company and its goal was to control the oil market, they were mostly successful until 1911 when they were broken up by the US Congress. Since Standard Oil was broken up into 32 companies they have reformed into several companies that, individually, make more profit than any companies in history (BP, Shell, Chevron, ExxonMobil, and smaller ones like Valero). Since Standard the price of oil has not reflected market fundamentals (supply and demand), speculation on oil pushes the price up, Reuters covers the current state of oil prices and predicts another bubble like last year when oil shot up to $148 a barrel and oil companies broke all records for profits during a global recession.
The International Energy Agency claims that oil reserves have been inflated to not alarm people that we are running out of oil. This map from the Guardian shows Global Oil Reserves, check it out.
The Environmental Defense Fund claims that polls show that the majority of Americans want renewable energy now, and a climate change bill from Congress. The PR against getting out of the coal, oil and natural gas business comes from the coal, oil and natural gas companies claiming that doing anything now would raise energy prices too much. The overall cost of not switching to renewables now is the larger cost that we should be trying to avoid.
A group of Engineering experts claim that it is impossible for Britain to meet its renewable energy targets. A fleet of electric scooters was just put on the market in Britain; progress in environmentalism is still being made.
The Boston Globe published a list of the top ten green technology jobs. They are almost all green collar (environmental blue collar) jobs.
The Journal of Science highlights new study that claims that bad decisions are contagious when a decision maker is influenced by someone they identify with or feel close to. Good thing to be aware of.
Friday, November 6, 2009
Shaky Ground Ahead, but There is No Where Else to GO
Nanotechnology is the next frontier for technology and could potentially solve a lot of environmental problems. An article in Science highlights a study that analyzes the safety of one application of nanotechnology. This is very important because while nanotechnology could be the greatest wonder of the future we need to ensure it is safe for us as well. The conclusion is that nanotechnology is safe when carefully used.
The Guardian gives an overview of Green Investment in celebration of England's National Ethical Investment Week. The trick is to get a positive return on your investment. Reuters published an article about big wind companies in Europe, Germany especially, are in line to receive government funds to support their business. Wind power is growing and is a potential investment opportunity. A similar article from Reuters compares investment in Wind and Solar companies.
The US government is dithering, as conservative pundits would say, over Copenhagen. The US is refusing to give a definite number that it will reduce carbon emissions to. A failure in Copenhagen would draw the agreement out placing the needs of our environment behind the needs of industry. The argument from industry is that any environmental regulation will kill jobs, as if they care about jobs! Coal and oil are some of the most profitable industries in the world and can afford to bring us energy while not poising us and our environment.
Democrats in the US Senate show that they can play hardball too and pass a Climate Change plan in a key Senate Committee while Republicans were boycotting the effort and not showing up to meetings. At least someone in our government cares about environmentalism and the UN Copenhagen negotiations, hopefully this will spur more positive attention on reaching an agreement in Copenhagen.
A study about discussing climate change is published and covers why, psychologically, people have a hard time understanding and believing in the existence of climate change.
Finally! A universal cell phone charger will come onto the market. Mother Jones reports.
Another oil spill, this time in the Red Sea. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a precedent setting case that paved the way for oil companies to continue spilling oil without much repercussion. The original settlement of the case required Exxon to pay $5 billion , one year's revenue at the time, but their lawyers got that number down to $.5 billion and oil spills are still cheaper to let happen than prevent. The Christian Science Monitor reports, and is a great source for news from a different perspective than large news sources with vested interests.
US and the EU continue to allow chemicals to be manufactured that are not safe for humans or our environment. The EU has decided to act, and this article highlighting the affect of some chemicals on the development of gender in children discusses the issue.
The Guardian gives an overview of Green Investment in celebration of England's National Ethical Investment Week. The trick is to get a positive return on your investment. Reuters published an article about big wind companies in Europe, Germany especially, are in line to receive government funds to support their business. Wind power is growing and is a potential investment opportunity. A similar article from Reuters compares investment in Wind and Solar companies.
The US government is dithering, as conservative pundits would say, over Copenhagen. The US is refusing to give a definite number that it will reduce carbon emissions to. A failure in Copenhagen would draw the agreement out placing the needs of our environment behind the needs of industry. The argument from industry is that any environmental regulation will kill jobs, as if they care about jobs! Coal and oil are some of the most profitable industries in the world and can afford to bring us energy while not poising us and our environment.
Democrats in the US Senate show that they can play hardball too and pass a Climate Change plan in a key Senate Committee while Republicans were boycotting the effort and not showing up to meetings. At least someone in our government cares about environmentalism and the UN Copenhagen negotiations, hopefully this will spur more positive attention on reaching an agreement in Copenhagen.
A study about discussing climate change is published and covers why, psychologically, people have a hard time understanding and believing in the existence of climate change.
Finally! A universal cell phone charger will come onto the market. Mother Jones reports.
Another oil spill, this time in the Red Sea. The Exxon Valdez oil spill was a precedent setting case that paved the way for oil companies to continue spilling oil without much repercussion. The original settlement of the case required Exxon to pay $5 billion , one year's revenue at the time, but their lawyers got that number down to $.5 billion and oil spills are still cheaper to let happen than prevent. The Christian Science Monitor reports, and is a great source for news from a different perspective than large news sources with vested interests.
US and the EU continue to allow chemicals to be manufactured that are not safe for humans or our environment. The EU has decided to act, and this article highlighting the affect of some chemicals on the development of gender in children discusses the issue.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Stumbling Foreword
An alternative annual report for Chevron was drafted. It highlights the human and environmental cost of Chevron's activities around the world and shines light on why we want a different system of procuring energy. Check out the site and the report.
With Obama in the whitehouse new coal fired power plants were supposed to not be built again, but the administration is rescinding and now in the Markey-Waxman bill new coal plants will be allowed to be built under certain conditions due to the coal industry's new lobbying effort that touts "clean coal" as the way of the future. The real gem behind "clean coal" is not an effort to protect the health of humans and our environment but is a desperate grasp at the remaining coal reserves that are large enough to power the US and China for the next 350 years. Clean Coal is a sham.
Check out this "off grid" home, it costs over $500,000 to make but it is more environmental than your home. It is shocking to me that people are so willing to spend money on luxury items, many people have homes worth over 1/2 million dollars so why not demand low emissions with your luxury goods? A note about the article: hydrogen power is a technology that is not developing quickly and it emits water vapor, many people do not know that water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Check this funny thing out, the video is gross but helps your imagination become more active about the wide-reaching changes that Climate Change will bring. Apparently mucus blobs occur in the ocean and with recent changes these blobs are becoming more popular; they house dangerous bacteria and viruses and suffocate sea-life.
Climate Change Science needs to be as accurate as possible to help non-believers alter their beliefs. This article from Science reveals a recent study finding that CO2 emissions have been increasing for thousands of years due to natural processes, the earth is naturally heating up as it arises out of an ice age and we are speeding up that process making earth inhospitable to us.
To our knowledge Earth has been through 5 mass extinction periods, this is the 6th. The loss of habitat is the greatest threat, World Resources Institute provides some commentary, figures and facts.
Companies and scientists are trying to harvest hydrocarbons from algea, it would mean oil forever! This article follows a recent college graduate that tried to get a job with one of these projects and was unable. The promises from algae seem to be inflated and the government is throwing millions at it, and like hydrogen battery cells commercial viability is so far off we might be better off focusing on more promising technologies.
The developing world is spending its energy on growing their economy out of poverty, they have been demanding money from the industrialized countries to little avail. These countries will increase emissions greatly for the next several decades with or without our help. We can give them the tools to develop environmentally or we can leave them to act like poor people; poor people do what is necessary for survival today, not tomorrow. If I was in their position I would do no different.
River Delta's are sinking and Science reveals some new studies about it.
With Obama in the whitehouse new coal fired power plants were supposed to not be built again, but the administration is rescinding and now in the Markey-Waxman bill new coal plants will be allowed to be built under certain conditions due to the coal industry's new lobbying effort that touts "clean coal" as the way of the future. The real gem behind "clean coal" is not an effort to protect the health of humans and our environment but is a desperate grasp at the remaining coal reserves that are large enough to power the US and China for the next 350 years. Clean Coal is a sham.
Check out this "off grid" home, it costs over $500,000 to make but it is more environmental than your home. It is shocking to me that people are so willing to spend money on luxury items, many people have homes worth over 1/2 million dollars so why not demand low emissions with your luxury goods? A note about the article: hydrogen power is a technology that is not developing quickly and it emits water vapor, many people do not know that water vapor is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.
Check this funny thing out, the video is gross but helps your imagination become more active about the wide-reaching changes that Climate Change will bring. Apparently mucus blobs occur in the ocean and with recent changes these blobs are becoming more popular; they house dangerous bacteria and viruses and suffocate sea-life.
Climate Change Science needs to be as accurate as possible to help non-believers alter their beliefs. This article from Science reveals a recent study finding that CO2 emissions have been increasing for thousands of years due to natural processes, the earth is naturally heating up as it arises out of an ice age and we are speeding up that process making earth inhospitable to us.
To our knowledge Earth has been through 5 mass extinction periods, this is the 6th. The loss of habitat is the greatest threat, World Resources Institute provides some commentary, figures and facts.
Companies and scientists are trying to harvest hydrocarbons from algea, it would mean oil forever! This article follows a recent college graduate that tried to get a job with one of these projects and was unable. The promises from algae seem to be inflated and the government is throwing millions at it, and like hydrogen battery cells commercial viability is so far off we might be better off focusing on more promising technologies.
The developing world is spending its energy on growing their economy out of poverty, they have been demanding money from the industrialized countries to little avail. These countries will increase emissions greatly for the next several decades with or without our help. We can give them the tools to develop environmentally or we can leave them to act like poor people; poor people do what is necessary for survival today, not tomorrow. If I was in their position I would do no different.
River Delta's are sinking and Science reveals some new studies about it.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Climate Change
It is 2009 and we are still not taking the neccessary actions to mitigate the very real effects of Climate Change that are occuring now and will clearly occur in the future. For a full economic analysis of the effects of Climate Change in the US, read this. Another informative document, can be found by clicking here, and is a report that was completed for the European Commission.
The files are long but were made so that skimming is easy to do.
Both are pdf files, some computers do not have the neccessary software.
The files are long but were made so that skimming is easy to do.
Both are pdf files, some computers do not have the neccessary software.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Change for the better, Politicizing for the worse
With the US government taking climate change as a serious threat politicians and lobbyists now step in to ruin a good intention. The deffinition of "renewable" is now being lobbied. Lobbyists for energy companies that ruin our environment are trying to get federal money for doing what they have always been doing like burning spent coal or capturing methane and re-using it or for burning food waste. The point of subsidizing renewable energy is to help wind and solar and wave to gain a footing in the energy market. Certainly we want companies to do things like capture their waste and re-use it but a federal subsidy is not needed to encourage this. We will see how watered down this vital effort gets.
The world business summit on climate change will occur next weekend and companies like shell are using the rhetoric of change while changing little. Shell's big plan is to just wait for carbon capture technology to develop in the next 10-20years and then use it when it is cheap enough for them to want to use it. Climate Change has a time line and waiting that long to reduce emissions is ineffective in mitigating Climate Change. This summit should be amusing as businesses come together to explain why we should do something about Climate Change while they do very little.
Steven Chu is the US Energy Secretary and he is making some contentious decisions. First, Chu is favoring the building of new coal fired power plants. This is unacceptable because every coal plant built today will burn coal until at least 2050. The understanding of environmentalists was that Chu would not allow another to be built under his watch, Chu is not gung-ho about coal plants, but is giving the nod to build more. Chu is also trying to get some reactors going that turn spent nuclear waste into a form that has a drastically smaller radioactive half-life. By doing this Chu would be making the spent nuclear fuel storage facility planned for mountains in Nevada unneeded. Finally, Chu is reducing the government funding of the hydrogen car, many are mad about this but hydrogen is a nowhere technology that was loved by GM and Bush because they could talk about it all day without the risk of having to make a single hydrogen car because there are too many obstacles for this technology. Also, to get fuel for these cars is so energy intensive it makes the car not the environmental thing that people want it to be.
Restructuring our infrastructure to be more "environmental" creates a lot of jobs!
Pollution damages our bodies we all know, but a study that is highlighted by National Geographic explains some of the newest research on the subject.
Canada is pulling oil out of a thing called the Alberta Tar Sands. It is drastically more energy intensive to get oil from sand fields then from tar deposits. The Alberta Tar Sands have 350 years of extraction left but it is expensive to extract and very costly to the environment as these sands lay below a forest and multiple meters of soil. In the Pacific NW of the US 10% of all oil comes from these sands, this topic is very important and you should research it more.
The world business summit on climate change will occur next weekend and companies like shell are using the rhetoric of change while changing little. Shell's big plan is to just wait for carbon capture technology to develop in the next 10-20years and then use it when it is cheap enough for them to want to use it. Climate Change has a time line and waiting that long to reduce emissions is ineffective in mitigating Climate Change. This summit should be amusing as businesses come together to explain why we should do something about Climate Change while they do very little.
Steven Chu is the US Energy Secretary and he is making some contentious decisions. First, Chu is favoring the building of new coal fired power plants. This is unacceptable because every coal plant built today will burn coal until at least 2050. The understanding of environmentalists was that Chu would not allow another to be built under his watch, Chu is not gung-ho about coal plants, but is giving the nod to build more. Chu is also trying to get some reactors going that turn spent nuclear waste into a form that has a drastically smaller radioactive half-life. By doing this Chu would be making the spent nuclear fuel storage facility planned for mountains in Nevada unneeded. Finally, Chu is reducing the government funding of the hydrogen car, many are mad about this but hydrogen is a nowhere technology that was loved by GM and Bush because they could talk about it all day without the risk of having to make a single hydrogen car because there are too many obstacles for this technology. Also, to get fuel for these cars is so energy intensive it makes the car not the environmental thing that people want it to be.
Restructuring our infrastructure to be more "environmental" creates a lot of jobs!
Pollution damages our bodies we all know, but a study that is highlighted by National Geographic explains some of the newest research on the subject.
Canada is pulling oil out of a thing called the Alberta Tar Sands. It is drastically more energy intensive to get oil from sand fields then from tar deposits. The Alberta Tar Sands have 350 years of extraction left but it is expensive to extract and very costly to the environment as these sands lay below a forest and multiple meters of soil. In the Pacific NW of the US 10% of all oil comes from these sands, this topic is very important and you should research it more.
Friday, May 22, 2009
The US Climate Change Bill
Many are calling this Climate Change Bill a monumental piece of legislation that will change America for ever. Surely it puts the US on a path of regulating CO2 emissions from large industries in America, but there is one very large flaw. As it is negotiated currently, 85% of the permits, which is a certificate saying you can pollute x amount, are being given to companies for free. The argument is that if companies had to all-of-a-sudden start paying for the damage they are doing to our environment and society they could not make as much profit as they currently do. That argument has some validacy, but the problem is that by giving away 85% of the permits for free we are giving companies money for being large pollutors. The money generated from selling permits was going to help makeup for the large US deficit that so many people are worried about.
Arguing that giving permtis for free will allow companies to keep their prices low and this will benefit the consumer is false because the consumer is also the taxpayer that is giving these permits for free. It is all just pushing around money and if Americans weren't so fear ridden when they heard the word tax we could just use a simple tax scheme to tax large emitters of CO2, instead of the complex cap and trade system that takes a permit trading bank, regulators for the market and bank, and regulators that make sure that claims of permanent reductions in emissions are honest.
The Gaurdian covers this story
As well as the Christian Science Monitor
And the economist seems to be the only one that understands what is going on, but maybe that is because they know more about economics
For all of the possible environmental catastrophies that we forsee due to our resource use, if technology advances fast enough many of our problems will dissapear into the past. Australian researchers figured out how to put 10 terabytes onto a single cd, that is 2,000 times the space that a DVD currently holds
The Russians are not doing so bad during this downturn because of their natural gas and oil stock that they sell to Europe. Where will Russia be in 50 years when they have sold off most of their oil and gas reserves and have made no grand effort to adapt to a post fossil fuel dependent world?, if we get there.
Arguing that giving permtis for free will allow companies to keep their prices low and this will benefit the consumer is false because the consumer is also the taxpayer that is giving these permits for free. It is all just pushing around money and if Americans weren't so fear ridden when they heard the word tax we could just use a simple tax scheme to tax large emitters of CO2, instead of the complex cap and trade system that takes a permit trading bank, regulators for the market and bank, and regulators that make sure that claims of permanent reductions in emissions are honest.
The Gaurdian covers this story
As well as the Christian Science Monitor
And the economist seems to be the only one that understands what is going on, but maybe that is because they know more about economics
For all of the possible environmental catastrophies that we forsee due to our resource use, if technology advances fast enough many of our problems will dissapear into the past. Australian researchers figured out how to put 10 terabytes onto a single cd, that is 2,000 times the space that a DVD currently holds
The Russians are not doing so bad during this downturn because of their natural gas and oil stock that they sell to Europe. Where will Russia be in 50 years when they have sold off most of their oil and gas reserves and have made no grand effort to adapt to a post fossil fuel dependent world?, if we get there.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Climate Science Correction and US Climate Bill Changes
Apparently scientists are not perfect. These two articles explain how sea levels will not rise as much as expected from melting ice, one is from the Canada Broadcasting Corporation and the other from the Christian Science Monitor.
Harvesting methane from cows is a double win for environmentalism and the economy, Resources for the Future explains.
Obama's climate change bill is watered down by industry. They always complain about environmental legislation reducing their profits, but their profits are found on degrading the environment, yet it is further complicated because human welfare has been made temporarily dependent on degrading the environment.
The CATO insitute has a short article on "Buy Local," it is an incomplete analysis for sure but opposing beliefs are worth our time.
Harvesting methane from cows is a double win for environmentalism and the economy, Resources for the Future explains.
Obama's climate change bill is watered down by industry. They always complain about environmental legislation reducing their profits, but their profits are found on degrading the environment, yet it is further complicated because human welfare has been made temporarily dependent on degrading the environment.
The CATO insitute has a short article on "Buy Local," it is an incomplete analysis for sure but opposing beliefs are worth our time.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Technology leads the way
Later this year a very important UN Kyoto Meeting of the Parties will occur and many feel that this is our last chance to negotiate a global Climate Change agreement before it is too late and positive feed back mechanisms take over the global ecosystem, changing the earth's climate more than humans would like. Sweden is taking the lead as president of the European Union and will be the lead in the Climate Change negotiations.
The CATO institute is a libertarian organization and is void of a lot of Democrat Republican rhetoric so I enjoy their analyses, their commentary is sometimes disagreeable but their numbers are often spot-on. This article is about the economics of Obama's spending on increasing rail in the US. One note about this article, it states that electrical trains are a poor idea because we have coal fired power plants in America, but we are currently working on phasing out coal fired power plants and equipping them with carbon capture technologies, so i find their argument shallow.
This link is to a pdf so if you do not have the right software the link may not work. This report is made by the Oil Solutions Initiative and is titled "A Framework for Breaking US Oil Dependence."
Increasing energy efficiency for our appliances is being pushed right now and many do not like increased efficiency because it means more overall resource use. I would say that this is no condemnation of increasing energy efficiency because plenty of humans are still poor and want to use more energy, but already rich people using increases in energy efficiencies to use more is a problem.
The Economist provides a good commentary on energy grids in American and how they are changing.
The CATO institute is a libertarian organization and is void of a lot of Democrat Republican rhetoric so I enjoy their analyses, their commentary is sometimes disagreeable but their numbers are often spot-on. This article is about the economics of Obama's spending on increasing rail in the US. One note about this article, it states that electrical trains are a poor idea because we have coal fired power plants in America, but we are currently working on phasing out coal fired power plants and equipping them with carbon capture technologies, so i find their argument shallow.
This link is to a pdf so if you do not have the right software the link may not work. This report is made by the Oil Solutions Initiative and is titled "A Framework for Breaking US Oil Dependence."
Increasing energy efficiency for our appliances is being pushed right now and many do not like increased efficiency because it means more overall resource use. I would say that this is no condemnation of increasing energy efficiency because plenty of humans are still poor and want to use more energy, but already rich people using increases in energy efficiencies to use more is a problem.
The Economist provides a good commentary on energy grids in American and how they are changing.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The world steps up to the Climate Change Challenge
The US is fast tracking climate change legislation in the federal Congress, US industry supports it, now only republicans that are repeating old arguments are the opposition and many republicans are giving up the old rhetoric so they can become involved in the shaping of the legislation.
China is investing more in renewable energy than the US and is figuring out how to become more environmental within Chinese Politics. But, the path will not be smooth as China steps away from their project of building the world's first"green city".
The British government has mandated that every coal fired power plant built from now on has to have a carbon sequestration device attached to it. This will raise the price of coal energy and clear the path for renewable energy to be cheaper for consumers. Also, the US is looking towards never building another coal fired power plant or nuclear power plant ever again.
The downturn is slowing and the world's leaders are looking to establish some permanent changes to create a more stable world economy. The recovery of the global market will decide the inertia for environmentalism and social justice. The world economy stabalizing is good for consumption and can be good for the environment, we will see the results in the next several decades.
Wave technology is developing; with large projects being started now they may be a cornerstone of our energy production in the next decade.
China is investing more in renewable energy than the US and is figuring out how to become more environmental within Chinese Politics. But, the path will not be smooth as China steps away from their project of building the world's first"green city".
The British government has mandated that every coal fired power plant built from now on has to have a carbon sequestration device attached to it. This will raise the price of coal energy and clear the path for renewable energy to be cheaper for consumers. Also, the US is looking towards never building another coal fired power plant or nuclear power plant ever again.
The downturn is slowing and the world's leaders are looking to establish some permanent changes to create a more stable world economy. The recovery of the global market will decide the inertia for environmentalism and social justice. The world economy stabalizing is good for consumption and can be good for the environment, we will see the results in the next several decades.
Wave technology is developing; with large projects being started now they may be a cornerstone of our energy production in the next decade.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A Climate Change Bill: it is late, but it has arrived
Obama is drafting a climate change bill, finally! The climate bill establishes a cap-and-trade system for CO2, an ambiguous issue thus far is how many of the permits for emissions trading will be auctioned off and how many will be given away. This piece from MotherJones explores the subject.
A short article on how when industrial agriculture has to pay for externalities it is not cheaper than organic agriculture.
As money dwindles for investors people that use money to promote causes (ex: environmental, justice, poverty reduction) are less active. The economist gives an interesting article on the subject.
Climate Change will effect everything, even national parks in the US. The CSMonitor reports.
A short article on how when industrial agriculture has to pay for externalities it is not cheaper than organic agriculture.
As money dwindles for investors people that use money to promote causes (ex: environmental, justice, poverty reduction) are less active. The economist gives an interesting article on the subject.
Climate Change will effect everything, even national parks in the US. The CSMonitor reports.
Sunday, February 22, 2009
2/22/09: The world might turn out all right after all
Manufacturing is on the decline all around this globe. While it is advantageous for the environment to have humans manufacturing less stuff, it is wealth that brings environmental protection to urban areas. If a person is poor no coaxing will get them to put the environment before themselves. First comes wealth, then health, and manufacturing will need to be restored to create wealth and health.
During Hillary Clinton's first voyage out of the US as secretary general she visited China and started a movement with the Chinese to protect our environment. The USA and China are the largest polluters in the world, just our two countries making small changes is more powerful than any action from the rest of the world.
Governments of the world are waking up to environmental degradation and are now moving to regulate mercury on a global level. Mercury is one of the worst pollutants we emit in large amounts and is one of the main pollutants emitted by coal fired power plants. A move to regulate mercury on a global level is a move to regulate coal fired power plants, most of which are in China and the USA. With this movement in regulating mercury and the USA's EPA move to regulate CO2 via coal fired power plants they will hopefully only be a memory in 70 years.
Democrats in Congress are planning to present a climate change bill to Obama by the end of the summer.
In imagining the new economy of "green power" many forget the infrastructure that will need to accompany "green projects." To be sustainable and cost effective we need to act very carefully, the doctrine of "any action is good action" is dangerous at this point.
One of the greatest humanitarian efforts and economic efforts is underway in India. A company has created the 2,500 USdollar car. This will bring wealth and opportunity to millions and will bring millions of tons of pollutants to the environment. At 50mpg this little car does little damage for the amount of benefit it will bring the people of India. Wealth before health i say, let them build themselves up then let them sustainably develop. If the industrialized world wanted to address the issues of environmental degradation and poverty at the same time they would help industrialized countries develop sustainably. We talk about it in UN conferences but we do little of it.
The internet is cool, google is cool, but there is much more to come:
This is an article about the future of the internet.
And this is a video about the future of the internet.
During Hillary Clinton's first voyage out of the US as secretary general she visited China and started a movement with the Chinese to protect our environment. The USA and China are the largest polluters in the world, just our two countries making small changes is more powerful than any action from the rest of the world.
Governments of the world are waking up to environmental degradation and are now moving to regulate mercury on a global level. Mercury is one of the worst pollutants we emit in large amounts and is one of the main pollutants emitted by coal fired power plants. A move to regulate mercury on a global level is a move to regulate coal fired power plants, most of which are in China and the USA. With this movement in regulating mercury and the USA's EPA move to regulate CO2 via coal fired power plants they will hopefully only be a memory in 70 years.
Democrats in Congress are planning to present a climate change bill to Obama by the end of the summer.
In imagining the new economy of "green power" many forget the infrastructure that will need to accompany "green projects." To be sustainable and cost effective we need to act very carefully, the doctrine of "any action is good action" is dangerous at this point.
One of the greatest humanitarian efforts and economic efforts is underway in India. A company has created the 2,500 USdollar car. This will bring wealth and opportunity to millions and will bring millions of tons of pollutants to the environment. At 50mpg this little car does little damage for the amount of benefit it will bring the people of India. Wealth before health i say, let them build themselves up then let them sustainably develop. If the industrialized world wanted to address the issues of environmental degradation and poverty at the same time they would help industrialized countries develop sustainably. We talk about it in UN conferences but we do little of it.
The internet is cool, google is cool, but there is much more to come:
This is an article about the future of the internet.
And this is a video about the future of the internet.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
2/1/09: CATO critique
The CATO institute is a Libertarian Economic thinktank and they are brilliant and misled people. i wrote a critique of one of their papers on Climate Change. You can read the article and read my critique. The article from CATO is a very good analysis, but misleading at times.
Here is the article
And here is my critique:
Liberty is defined by freedom from constraint. Libertarians then want non-constraint and a free market with minimal government intervention. For this to function for the benefit of most people price needs to reflect cost. But, there have always been actors in markets creating negative externalities, and it takes constraint to internalize those externalities. I want liberty from bad actors skewing markets, and that takes government intervention. I write this critique to show how Libertarianism can be unrealistic in its quest for liberty.
In the article by CATO titled “What to do about Global Warming” the author, Indur Goklany, delivers an articulate argument for not immediately and rapidly decreasing carbon emissions. The author points out that if we compute the costs, according to his calculations and assumptions, it would be less costly to just continue on our course of carbon emissions and to just pay for the damage (considering the timeline of now until 2085). While I agree with considering the costs and benefits of a policy, some parts of the author’s analysis are shallow and incomplete.
First, there is no discussion of existence value. While existence value is difficult to quantify, the idea behind it is sound: people derive utility from knowing that the environment is of a certain quality. In the scenario of letting Global Warming (GW) continue as it has there is no valuing of the human anguish from letting the natural environment suffer just because “we can pay for it.” Furthermore, the author assumes that natural and physical capitals are interchangeable and misses this distinction by not accounting for non-extractive direct use or passive use value (existence value, option value and quasi-option value).
Second, the author does not include in his analysis the cost of unlikely, yet possible catastrophic events. The scary part about GW is not the chance of catastrophic occurrences but the number of potential catastrophic occurrences. If the mid-Atlantic current slowed, if large amounts of methane were suddenly released from the ocean floor or if a sudden collapse in the web of life occurred then the damage would be larger then we could fathom.
Third, the author admits that his conclusions should only be applied to the timeline of 2085. So, if we let concentrations build up and pay for the damages then we have only addressed problems that will occur by 2085. The author’s proposal could be the most cost effective as applied to the timeline of 2085, but if the cost of dealing with GW soar after 2085 then the entire plan will not have cost-effectively dealt with GW.
Fourth, the author assumes that a world of more wealth is a world where we will put more money towards Research & Development (R&D) of sustainable technologies (assuming that immediately eliminating carbon emissions would reduce greatly the wealth of the world). Markets work off doing what is profitable, and as long as price does not reflect cost markets will not provide for sustainable technologies. For R&D in sustainable technologies to occur in a significant amount it would take internalizing negative externalities which usually requires government intervention. To continue with business as usual without accurate pricing will not supply us with the technologies that are needed to reduce our negative impact on our environment. Technological development will proceed, but not for technologies that make possible substitutions for underpriced coal, wood, natural gas and oil.
Fifth, the author seems to be using the Pareto Criterion to justify the allowance for damage to occur from uncontrolled GW because those with “just claim” will be fully reimbursed for damages incurred. Attempting to get polluters to pay for these damages would be a very complex undertaking; perfect information would be needed on who is emitting carbon, how much they are emitting, and what damages were caused by what and by whom. This information collection system would be overwhelming, and convincing people to pay up for damages done would be a difficult struggle. The author’s policy recommendations hinge on this one, unrealistic plan.
Sixth, once again we are presented with another false choice between two options. We can do both what the author recommends and we can take action to immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions. It would be foolish for reasons that the author points out to just focus on abating GW through immediate carbon emission reductions, but it would also be foolish to not take any action to lower carbon emissions in the near future. We can and should do both.
Here is the article
And here is my critique:
Liberty is defined by freedom from constraint. Libertarians then want non-constraint and a free market with minimal government intervention. For this to function for the benefit of most people price needs to reflect cost. But, there have always been actors in markets creating negative externalities, and it takes constraint to internalize those externalities. I want liberty from bad actors skewing markets, and that takes government intervention. I write this critique to show how Libertarianism can be unrealistic in its quest for liberty.
In the article by CATO titled “What to do about Global Warming” the author, Indur Goklany, delivers an articulate argument for not immediately and rapidly decreasing carbon emissions. The author points out that if we compute the costs, according to his calculations and assumptions, it would be less costly to just continue on our course of carbon emissions and to just pay for the damage (considering the timeline of now until 2085). While I agree with considering the costs and benefits of a policy, some parts of the author’s analysis are shallow and incomplete.
First, there is no discussion of existence value. While existence value is difficult to quantify, the idea behind it is sound: people derive utility from knowing that the environment is of a certain quality. In the scenario of letting Global Warming (GW) continue as it has there is no valuing of the human anguish from letting the natural environment suffer just because “we can pay for it.” Furthermore, the author assumes that natural and physical capitals are interchangeable and misses this distinction by not accounting for non-extractive direct use or passive use value (existence value, option value and quasi-option value).
Second, the author does not include in his analysis the cost of unlikely, yet possible catastrophic events. The scary part about GW is not the chance of catastrophic occurrences but the number of potential catastrophic occurrences. If the mid-Atlantic current slowed, if large amounts of methane were suddenly released from the ocean floor or if a sudden collapse in the web of life occurred then the damage would be larger then we could fathom.
Third, the author admits that his conclusions should only be applied to the timeline of 2085. So, if we let concentrations build up and pay for the damages then we have only addressed problems that will occur by 2085. The author’s proposal could be the most cost effective as applied to the timeline of 2085, but if the cost of dealing with GW soar after 2085 then the entire plan will not have cost-effectively dealt with GW.
Fourth, the author assumes that a world of more wealth is a world where we will put more money towards Research & Development (R&D) of sustainable technologies (assuming that immediately eliminating carbon emissions would reduce greatly the wealth of the world). Markets work off doing what is profitable, and as long as price does not reflect cost markets will not provide for sustainable technologies. For R&D in sustainable technologies to occur in a significant amount it would take internalizing negative externalities which usually requires government intervention. To continue with business as usual without accurate pricing will not supply us with the technologies that are needed to reduce our negative impact on our environment. Technological development will proceed, but not for technologies that make possible substitutions for underpriced coal, wood, natural gas and oil.
Fifth, the author seems to be using the Pareto Criterion to justify the allowance for damage to occur from uncontrolled GW because those with “just claim” will be fully reimbursed for damages incurred. Attempting to get polluters to pay for these damages would be a very complex undertaking; perfect information would be needed on who is emitting carbon, how much they are emitting, and what damages were caused by what and by whom. This information collection system would be overwhelming, and convincing people to pay up for damages done would be a difficult struggle. The author’s policy recommendations hinge on this one, unrealistic plan.
Sixth, once again we are presented with another false choice between two options. We can do both what the author recommends and we can take action to immediately begin to reduce carbon emissions. It would be foolish for reasons that the author points out to just focus on abating GW through immediate carbon emission reductions, but it would also be foolish to not take any action to lower carbon emissions in the near future. We can and should do both.
Sunday, January 25, 2009
1/25/09: Obama the Environmentalist and some more realistic rhetoric on energy and the economic crisis
Obama, he might not fix all of our problems, but he is trying. He is finally doing something that i forgot could happen politically; Obama is raising the the fuel-efficiency standard of vehicles for the nation and not only allowing but encouraging states to follow the more strict standards that California is allowed to set but has been prevented from doing so by the former president Bush II.
So, yes, we all know that according to Global Warming things are heating up including Antarctica, but this article from the BBC discusses the heating of that giant ice cube. If Antactica really does break into pieces it will greatly speed up the rising of the oceans and will augment oceanic patterns. The changes will reverberate. When reading the article notice the language used by the BBC regarding global warming, they seem to still be in the stage of appeasing and addressing global climate change deniers.
Energy Independence is a mine in the battle field of environmentalism dressed up as an end to be sought after. As with the "buy local" movement, it is a good idea so long as you do not do it completely. MotherJones gives a good commentary on the myths of energy independence, be critical of MotherJones' criticalism, but this article is part of the corrections that need to be made to environmental theory and policy.
The CATO Institute is a great place to learn about what is really going on with the economy and what are the purely economic fixes. There has been a lot of political rhetoric and explanation for our current situation. Read this from CATO and make some adjustments to your beliefs and facts.
For political news, Obama is altering the executive order that allows former presidents to control the public releasing of sensitive documents. Obama is making it so that Bush II has to sue Obama just to attempt to keep documents unreleased.
So, yes, we all know that according to Global Warming things are heating up including Antarctica, but this article from the BBC discusses the heating of that giant ice cube. If Antactica really does break into pieces it will greatly speed up the rising of the oceans and will augment oceanic patterns. The changes will reverberate. When reading the article notice the language used by the BBC regarding global warming, they seem to still be in the stage of appeasing and addressing global climate change deniers.
Energy Independence is a mine in the battle field of environmentalism dressed up as an end to be sought after. As with the "buy local" movement, it is a good idea so long as you do not do it completely. MotherJones gives a good commentary on the myths of energy independence, be critical of MotherJones' criticalism, but this article is part of the corrections that need to be made to environmental theory and policy.
The CATO Institute is a great place to learn about what is really going on with the economy and what are the purely economic fixes. There has been a lot of political rhetoric and explanation for our current situation. Read this from CATO and make some adjustments to your beliefs and facts.
For political news, Obama is altering the executive order that allows former presidents to control the public releasing of sensitive documents. Obama is making it so that Bush II has to sue Obama just to attempt to keep documents unreleased.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
