One premise to Gore's argument now questionable [Update: Or maybe not]
Personally, I'm an agnostic on global warming. It seems reasonable that we've played a role in the changing climate, but as to how much of a role, I can't tell. There's a lot of partisan-based arguing going on, and I have a hard time separating fact from spin. But as of today, the scientific community cannot claim consensus on human-induced global warming:
The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.
Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors".
In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."
According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."
Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."
To me, this doesn't make Gore's proposals invalid, but it lessens the urgency. Ten years is pretty aggressive even if there were consensus on HIGW. Since there isn't that consensus, why potentially upend our economy to make it happen? And Gore still needs to answer the question of whether or not nuclear energy is "truly clean". Coal-based power plants belch out plenty of CO2, but it looks like we really don't have to phase them out so quickly.
My own take is that we to address energy comprehensively. We need to expand and diversify our energy base, all the while lessening our dependence on non-renewable resources. I get concerned about rapid government-mandated shifts, so by all means let's set targets but phase them. We should develop more solar, more wind, more nuclear, more natural gas. We should develop use more hybrids, more fuel cells and more biofuels for our automobiles. However, I'm with McCain that we shouldn't be distorting free markets with ethanol subsidies because they affect our food supply and food prices. We can get rid of ethanol tariffs. To help soften the rapid rise in oil prices, we should expand our domestic oil resources through offshore drilling, oil shale, oil sands, etc. We need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, especially from dysfunctional countries in the Middle East and Venezuela.
Update: I don't know when the blog was updated, but it was updated. Quote: "After publication of this story, the APS responded with a statement that its Physics and Society Forum is merely one unit within the APS, and its views do not reflect those of the Society at large."
Eh. This is why I don't write much on environmental issues. In any case, ten years sounds like a rush to me, especially if sweeping government mandates are involved.
--
"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Bird Dog's blog
- Login or register to post comments
That is, that the so-called consensus on the existence and extent of AGW doesn't exist, and that the claim of consensus is being used to shout down dissenters. (One forvm member said "never trust a Republican on science" in response to a post on the subject.) It's nice to see some additional verification.
I disagree strongly with your thoughts on timing, though. The time to make energy independence a national priority began way back when Carter was president. We can't afford to wait ten years, or even a year. I don't care in the least if that means joining hands with environmentalists who I think are misapplying the science, or who want clean energy for different reasons than I do. The end here is way too important to worry about the means, or about what convinces people to support the goal.
I'm working on a diary that will feature what to me is the best and most comprehensive state energy plan in the country, the one put together by Montana's governor Gov. Brian Schweitzer and the Montana Environmental Information Center. Perhaps predictably, it's been ignored by both candidates.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
)Opinions expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the views of the APS or of the Forum." This newsletter is not a journal of the APS and it is not peer reviewed."
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The lack of consensus within the APS confirms that there's not a consensus on AGW. Which really is all I've ever said.
PS: Um, I said in my post that I'm not smirking.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If one person in the world believes that the moon is made of green cheese does that mean there is no consensus on the subject?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And if you seriously believe in your moon/green cheese comparison, you aren't going to be convinced by the facts, or by the years of debate on the subject. There are multi-hundred comment diaries on the subject here that you can look at if you have a genuine interest and an open mind on the "consensus" issue; I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for you.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in your view if you can find one scientist anywhere who disagrees with a particular theory then there is no consensus. (And yes I've read some of those multi-hundred comment diaries).
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )have a point. But in fact there isn't, and you don't. Even within the supposed consensus you have huge variations in terms of the numbers, the reliability of predictions, paleoclimatology, likely effect of remedial steps, or even the precise mechanism supposedly raising temperatures. Not to mention virtually no discussion of the economic effects on this country of the IPCC's and Gore's proposals. So when someone whips out the "everyone says look out,we're all gonna die" refrain, they are talking about a consensus that doesn't exist.
I'm wondering which diary you read where I suggested that one dissenter breaks a consensus. That's a silly straw-man argument that I don't remember anyone ever making here. So no, in fact you don't get it.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )it's just that anytime anyone mentions Al Gore he goes off like this for a few hours.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And BD posted it, not me.
But while we're on the subject of glaring hypocrisy, Gore astoundingly has actually increased his energy gluttony while scolding us to dramtically reduce ours. Conclusion: he knows that a lot of what he's saying we must do to save the Earth is such BS that he won't even do it himself, he thinks his audience of believers are idiots who won't notice this. or both.
But you are right in a way, after awhile my arm gets tired beating Pinyata Man with a stick.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It keeps his coat nice and shiny, and the increased activity is good for his heart.
--Excess on occasion is exhilarating. It prevents moderation from acquiring the deadening effect of a habit. - W. Somerset Maugham
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )---ooo---
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )9
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )All the other kids are doing it.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to the point of abandoning the fourth amendment and condoning torture, today's modern Republican Conservative just doesn't seem to get the idea that a carbon-free electrical generation grid makes sense from a national security point of view. Nothing would inspire the various badly-behaved players in OPEC behave faster than the inability to enrich themselves with petrodollars due to falling demand.
I would think that even the most rabid global warming skeptic, someone with world-class levels of stupidity (e.g. James Inhofe) would see the national security benefits of an electric grid that doesn't rely on foreign fuel sources to keep it running.
- Login or register to post comments
)He's just another cheapjack politician riding a wave, in a manner that is not any more strident than what we hear from many liberal pols. Collectively they know less about science than the pigs that live in my back yard.
With the exception of the partisan snipe, your first sentence makes complete sense, as does your point about the bandits, recidivists and kleptocrats that make up OPEC. We've known that OPEC is the economic enemy of this country since the first gas crisis in the days of Gerald Ford. What have we done about it? We both know the answer.
But national security is only a part of the whole, which is the economic security that comes with energy independence. Unfortunately, Obama doesn't seem to agree w/r/t nuclear power, the linchpin of any energy independence and carbon reduction plan.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )perhaps because I grew up in the backyard of the Knolls Atomic Power Lab. KAPL sits a bit to my south, and the Naval Nuclear Power Training Unit just to the northwest. Neither facility has ever had an accident that I know of, and, according to an engineer I once knew who worked there, the radiation dose from a chest X-ray would set off more alarms than any industrial exposure on site.
That said, the construction of nuclear plants can't be rushed. Say "Chernobyl" slowly five times to understand why. I'm in favor of nuclear plants, especially here in the Northeast where neither wind nor sun are all that plentiful. But we're not going to be able to bring them on line quickly.
Wind plants don't have that problem. (And the oft-repeated tale of bird strikes seems overblown.) They're easy to put up, and easy to feed into the existing grid. As far as I'm concerned, we can't build 'em too fast.
Large-scale solar would be great in the Southwest, and smaller-scale arrays in other places for local power generation would be a welcome addition to the mix. But I'm not sure the economies of manufacture are at a point where they're ready for the big leagues yet.
The depressing thing about all of this is that the military and economic security benefits of alternate energy sources seems to have been drowned out in the past two decades worth of partisan foot-stamping. (And yes, I plead guilty to my own share of it.) We should have been addressing this problem back when Carter was President- you're absolutely right about that. Unfortunately, we didn't, and I fear that the American standard of living is going to take an otherwise unnecessary hit, thanks to our shortsightedness.
I don't know why it took Al Gore to talk about this publicly. But I guarantee this: with the price of heating oil headed for $5 a gallon, people will be talking about it a lot this winter.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Took me a minute or two, though.
I've never been a Carter fan, but will be the first to admit that he not only saw the problem in detail but tried very hard to get Congress and the country to do something about it. Unfortunately, no one cared back then, and no one's willing to be killed as the messenger now.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and I'm saying that as someone who thinks we should expand electricity production from nuclear sources. People in this country are just too afraid of it. There may be a few more new plants built but we won't see any massive increase in nuclear power in this country.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )by twenty years of enviro propaganda. Time to call to account the people who've been fanatically spouting this hogwash and bitterly fighting any effort to get new plants on line in this country. A quick look at France's energy infrastructure or China's nuke plans is all it should take.
It's been obvious for years that the shutdown of the aging plants we are left with will have a major impact on greenhouse gas emissions. No reported effect yet on the "nukes are evil" mantra, though.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and more recently a couple of near misses in this country and in Japan are not enviro propaganda. They actually happened. I agree that it can be done much better than it has been done and France is a good example. But the fact is that it wasn't done that way.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )nuclear. Now how can it be pro-nuclear, Blaise, you might ask. Well, think about it this way: Chernobyl put an end to the cavalier attitude about nuclear power generation. For the rest of human civilization, we'll remember that accident, in the same we learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The world of the late 20th Century got ugly as hell, and nobody ever set off a nuclear bomb. We learned.
Anti- ... echh, that case is pretty clear. I'm neither pro- nor anti- nuke, I'd like to consider myself a man of science, persuadable by the facts, especially if they run contrary to the way I think. There was a day when I was scared stiff of nuclear power. I used to do guard duty on a nuclear tac site, I was nobody special. We all pulled some duty there. So I set to learning everything I could about nuclear power. Changed my mind about a lot of things. Met a US Navy nuclear specialist who framed the debate in a way which still sticks to me.
Nuclear is an option. It's not going to solve our short term problem. It's got huge up-front costs. But it is an option, and no option should be ignored.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )AFAIK, every nuclear power plant in the US that's had some sort of failure has shut down and performed as designed, with no threat to public health or safety.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to any discussion of a nuclear powerplants run per regulations and with oversight. Check out how that disaster happened if you haven't already.
How long ago was Three Mile Island and how many people were injured or killed in that incident? (Answer here.)
The China Syndrome was pure enviro propaganda from start to finish, but it remains potent to this day. Many people still think it was a true story instead of a complete fabrication.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sorry, tomsyl: but stating that "Chernobyl has no relevance... to any discussion of a nuclear powerplant..." is about as strong an argument as saying that "Operation Overlord (or Gettysburg, or Waterloo) has no relevance in a discussion of military history" - simply because the technology has improved? Certainly a nuclear power plant built to 21st-Century American standards is vastly likelier to be safer than one built in the 1970's USSR - but when it comes to radiation issues, the stark facts of the terrible personal and environmental damage occasioned by the Chenobyl accident can't just be waved away, or "wished" out of public consciousness.
And as for The China Syndrome: it may be fiction, or even "pure enviro propaganda" - but the issues it depicted DID (and/or DO) exist: after all, "catastrophic earthquake" scenarios - a staple of disaster movies - are "fictional" as well: does this mean we should ignore enforcing building codes in seismically-active areas?
(PS: FWIW I have no personal objections to the expansion of nuclear power-generation capabilities in the US: I just think that to sell the public (who, after all, do have some say in what goes on in this country) on the idea, the safety of the process has to be addressed first and foremost: public fears aren't entirely baseless)
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )would be to imagine that (1) this is Russia, (2) there is no regulatory oversight during construction or operation of nuclear powerplants in this or other Western countries, (3) massive falsification of construction and maintenance records [one of the pipe dreams of The China Syndrome], (4) criminal incompetence in the operation of the powerplant, (5) fundamental design defects in the reactor safety and control systems, (6) material construction defects in the reactor control rod system, (7) massive mechanical failures of all safety systems simultaneously, and (7) fatal ignorance and miscommunication among the various groups operating and testing the reactor. And the reactor can't be one built according to current standards. All of these problems occurring simultaneously in the RBMK type of graphite-modulated reactor that was built only in Russia could cause another Chernobyl.
Three Mile Island was an evacuation in anticipation of a serious reactor leak that never occurred. No one was hurt and the type of reactor involved (which is now off-line) couldn't be built under new regulations.
The theme of The China Syndrome was -surprise- corporate greed and corruption, not an intrinsic failure of reactor technology. (Remember Fonda and Douglas staring at those x-rays of welds?) The "melting a hole in the ground" scenario is impossible with current reactor designs, and likely was impossible back then.
People who oppose nuclear power can always come up with multi-part scenarios in which they claim a meltdown could occur. Everything in life is a calculated risk, and this one is low enough that people have to chose between the effective ban on nuclear plants that has been in place for decades and reduced carbon emissions. We can't have both.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )There were some indictments handed down in the Davis-Besse nuclear incident because employees of the company falsified safety and inspection records. It was sheer luck more than anything else that saved us from a serious accident. The sad reality is that greed and corruption are part of the human condition.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )hole corrosion issue at Davis-Besse. Link. An inspection that the NRC had agreed previously to postpone, b/t/w.
I'm no fan of power companies in this or any other context. If your point is that they will lie, cheat or steal when the opportunity presents itself, what's new? The history of war profiteering has many examples of private companies lying to and cheating the government in ways that have actually cost lives.
This hardly is a China Syndrome situation, even just in terms of the malfeasance. If you are saying it is an event that occurred that raised a serious safety issue, I agree. But if you are claiming that this is at all common, or that it is a reason not to build new nuclear power plants, you are propagandizing.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )To quote me
It was sheer luck more than anything else that saved us from a serious accident.
The luck part was that an accident did not happen after the severe corrosion had developed -- but before the inspection found the hole. Got it?
By the way the link you posted has nothing to do with the incident that I was referring to.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )hole. There was no divine intervention, nor did strident anti-nuke protesters play any role.
If this is the biggest issue you can raise against nuke plants, you don't have much. Any private enterprise dealing with inherently dangerous technology has to be watched - that's why we have regulatory commissions like the NRC.
Here is the link I intended to post; it is an interim report of the various problems that led to the shutdown. Subsequent documents on the HRC website show conditions imposed before a restart would be allowed, then confirm those conditions were met. Nothing earthshaking, just details of how the system worked and avoided a potential problem with the reactor. Whic didn't happen.
So, over to you to document your "sheer luck" hypothesis.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Once again try reading what I actually wrote.
The hole in the reactor pressure vessel head developed and while the hole was eventually discovered (by work being done on another item) the reactor was in a compromised state. Instead of 6 inches of carbon steel and 3/16 of stainless only 3/16 of an inch of stainless was holding the pressure. The thin stainless steel lining was not meant to provide structural integrity. It was meant to protect the carbon steel layer from corrosion. Yes it held but that was where the luck came in since that was not it's purpose. That's as clear as I can make it but I'm sure you can go on for hundreds of posts distorting things in your own mind (if no where else).
I am not antinuke. I've said this clearly several times already in this thread in direct response to posts of yours but you still keep acting as if I am. The only conclusion that makes sense is that you are deliberately distorting my position. Fine if that makes you feel good about yourself. Carry on as you see fit. Your real argument is not with me it's with the American public that has made it's position on nuclear power clear. That's and argument you can't win though so I guess you have to keep babbling on about the enviro bogeyman. You really don't seem to have much of an understanding of human nature. Yes coal plants are environmentally worse than nuclear. The nature of the dangers are different though and humans are wired so that we are more concerned about catastrophic dangers even if they are low probability. Thats why 9-11 affected us so much even though 30 times as many Americans die every year from medical mistakes than died in the Twin Towers.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent ).
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )does attributing things to people that they have not said become a posting violation?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Allow me to go through your weak point: sheer luck. When he comes back "inspection and not sheer luck" that is, strictly speaking true, but only in the most parsimonious reading. In a larger sense, you are correct: Davis-Besse came close to a breach condition and the records were falsified, and human nature is the elephant in the living room.
But he's already talking out of both sides of his mouth. He stipulates to If your point is that they will lie, cheat or steal when the opportunity presents itself, what's new? The history of war profiteering has many examples of private companies lying to and cheating the government in ways that have actually cost lives..
His subsequent paragraph is mere self-contradiction. But if you are claiming that this is at all common, or that it is a reason not to build new nuclear power plants, you are propagandizing.
That's classic reversal. You've demonstrated the fact we can't engineer human fallibility and malfeasance out of the reactor. He's forced to admit as much. It doesn't matter how common or uncommon such things may be, it is a non-zero factor which absolutely must be considered as a reason in any consideration of nuclear power.
Don't worry too much. Tomsyl's a great guy, but those of us who parse these things carefully see the self-contradiction. Maybe that's too harsh, because I do like Tomsyl, he is a strong thinker and this is after all a bunch of old guys with strong opinions. You actually won the round by forcing the injection of human nature into the debate. It's the one aspect we can't engineer out of the problem. That's why I back the Navy model: they have the discipline and rigor required to address this very problem, something no civilian agency can hope to duplicate.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )telling someone they have "poor comprehension" rather than saying "you're putting words in my mouth" is an easy call.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You know boys, a nuclear reactor is a lot like women. You just have to read the manual and press the right button.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and attacking your imaginary enviro bogeymen why don't you tell us how you would convince the American public that a drastically expanded nuclear program would be safe? Convince them enough so they wouldn't mind a new nuclear plant being built next to them?
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )AFA NIMBY-itis, I'm sure you know that it's incurable. No one wants a refinery, a coal-burning power plant or a sewage treatment facility built next to them either. The truth about the safety record of the nuclear industry her and abroad doesn't make good headlines.
I don't know what you mean by "drastically expanded nuclear program." I suppose that if you haven't built a new plant in twenty years, one new plant is an infinitely larger number. But I've never suggested that the power grid should principally tie into nuke plants, just that a clean energy future requires much more than wind and the sun can provide. So I'll turn the tables and ask you whether you think either of those technologies are ready now to take over the load from decommissioned coal, oil and LNG-burning plants.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )If things get bad enough, people will accept nuclear plants. Hell, they'll demand them. Let's hope we're smart enough to use the Navy's small reactor technology when the time comes.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )which solves multiple problems - big reduction in plant footprint and consequent NIMBY reduction, better dispersal of generation infrastructure into nodes, qucker regulatory approval, better safety record, lower staffing demands so reduction of human error element that's played a key role in every convenntional reactor afccident AFAIK, applicability of mass preduction economies, and even potential export of sealed units with appropriate oversight to third-world coal buring countries.
When do you think the economy will force people to accept these? I've heard that heating prices in the East this winter will go up by more than 25% over the already high prices of last year.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Heating oil is already well over $4 a gallon around here, and I'd bet it's going up some more.
Like everything else, the poor and elderly will get hit first, as they're the most apt to be living in poorly insulated houses with old and inefficient furnaces. My guess is that it will take a rash of news stories about Grandma freezing to death (or a family dying in a fire due to their improperly installed wood stove) to get things moving.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )more easily if we do not fight about whether the old reactor technology was "safe" or not.
If the goal is to deploy new technology, saying to the greens:
"OK, you were right then but this is what is different now"
will win over more moderates than:
"Stupid Luddite greens! Nothing ever changes with them!"
Of course, for some being "Right" is more important than moving forward. ;-)
= = =
Me? I would enthusiastically support new nuke plants in exchange for closing every coal plant that cannot achieve zero carbon emissions through some version of sequestration.
I'd also heavily fund research into gene-mod microbes that excrete crude oil (perhaps fed with CO2 sequestered from coal plants)
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )But if it's all the same to you I'd prefer that the Greens be the ones to get out of the way--with them having been wrong and all.
--- Login or register to post comments
| parent )to the point of abandoning the first amendment and condoning surrender, today's modern Democratic Liberal just doesn't seem to get…
Geesh, why even bother?
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Since I don't recall you drooling over the naked Iraqi porn from Abu Grhaib, I assumed you didn't fit into the torture fan category. If necessary, I stand corrected.
How about addressing the argument, though: tell me how decreasing fossil-fuel use in the US would be bad for national security. One caveat, please. Before screaming "it'll wreck the economeee" like an eight-year-old girl, please be sure to explain how the run-up in the national debt to finance the war in Iraq and the recent spike in energy prices has been an economic net gain.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )or at least one of his handlers.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but just for fun, I'll repeat the question:
What is the national security downside to moving the electrical grid off of fossil fuels?
That's as snark free as I can make it, Mac.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That doesn't have as definitive an answer as we might hope. The immediate problem is that there isn't any known source of energy that eliminates the security issues. They might shift the focus of the issues, for instance, maybe the House of Saud gives way to Canada, Niger or Russia, but they don't eliminate them.
Even the invention of a "new" source, doesn't necessarily mean there won't be some key component, either in the source itself, or the technologies to produce or use it, that will only be available from a handful of sources around the world. Suddenly, Buttcrackistan could be in the crosshairs of every developed and developing country in the world.
In the immediate term, the biggest security downside to artificially limiting our options to "carbon free" alternatives, is that we'll tie one hand behind our back economically, and since we're the fat cats who bankroll the entire free world's defense capability, neither we or a good chunk of the globe can afford for us to lag.
The proper perspective is to understand that like a clean environment, a "carbon free" grid, is a luxury item. Seriously. Believe it or not, saving the planet for future generations is at the top of Maslow's pyramid, not the base. If you don't believe me, visit a poor or developing country and see how much they care about pollution. Therefore, the irony is the only economies that can afford to the even think about CO2, must by definition be rich enough to care or want to care. Yet, the richest, and trying to become the richest, are using the most energy and bellowing out the most CO2.
Quite the conundrum, if you cripple the richest economies because they at this moment feel in the lap of luxury, it won't take very long in the lap of sacrifice before hardly anybody gives a poop about Gore or the IPCC. Further, if you hinder or cripple the world's economy, we'll be cutting off our nose to spite our face, because we are going to have to literally invent our way out of this. Only very rich countries have the capital and inclination to invent luxury goods.
Finally, just to make things gloomier; keep in mind that the initial switch to hydrocarbons was viewed as a clean solution to a looming environmental disaster (and it was) it just created a whole new set of problems not anticipated. So will the next "solution".
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )relatively, here. The most important issues are survival - water, food, clothing and shelter; energy is spent to acquire these at any cost.
I was going to make up a diary on this issue. In my rural travels in the last month, as much as the environmental purist in me was dismayed by the explosion in pollution in our villages, I was also pretty surprised at the extent to which resources are utilised to extract the last drop of value.
Examples include motorcycle taxis, or buses, or trucks or even cars - almost every one I saw was fully loaded/considerably overloaded. Seeing one person inside a car in rural areas is almost impossible. To me that tells 2 things - (1) there is a heck of a lot of demand for transport vehicles enough for capacity expansion in the motor industry to fill the next few decades (2) as a result CO2 pollution from our part of the world is going to blow away any commensurate reductions from any other part. I've been reading about this for months, but seeing the situation directly has made a difference.
I think what Mr Gore is talking about is leadership on this issue. It is almost certain that we (or China) will not provide leadership on the CO2 reduction issue. We will try to stay, or weasel out of (or simply ignore) every IPCC fiat. Seeing the US agreeing with us on non-compliance with IPCC recommendations helps our politicians, of course.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )India will use coal to satisfy its electrification needs regardless of carbon emissions issues. Is that your understanding of the Indian government's policy, or is he just speaking as IPCC head?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Coal and nuclear are our preferred options. However, our local State Government has, for example, given a green light to all industry to set up captive power plants to produce electricity from any source, especially in rural areas - this basically now allows anyone to do almost anything sans regulation, or to be more precise, with active government support, to get power. Laissez-faire on steroids, as it were.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )in that one doesn't necessarily have to choose between a carbon economy and a "hamstrung" economy. Energy-efficient vehicles, for example, could be a boon for a high-tech economy. Not to mention a world entering a global Hubbert peak. Being the first to discover and develop a true alternative source of energy, well that's pretty much the keys to the kingdom right there.
So, while individual laws and regulations might impair the US economy and should be avoided where possible, the general move towards developing post-carbon technology seems wise and prudent.
As for developing nations, well, the yearning masses are also ravening masses, and resource depletion is not a good way to maintain an economic edge, long term.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )It's not false or otherwise. The carbon economy is the only thing capable of innovating, investing in, and producing a solution. Yes, cheap renewable clean energy is the Holy Grail; however, if it were cheap or easy to find (and there weren't those pesky laws of physics) we'd already know what it is. However, at this point, there isn't any identified source of any kind that won't hit peak in a relatively short time frame.
I suspect that the key innovation of this age may not be a completely new source of energy at all, but it could be superconductor or a storage device that suddenly makes existing ones more practical or sustainable.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You're right that renewable energy won't be cheap (at least initially) or easy (at least at the start.) But even if you ignore global warming (which would be dumb) the simple fact is that we may well have hit peak oil already. Isn't it possible that the reason Saudi Arabia isn't increasing production is because they can't? Or won't be able to sustain it for long?
Do we really want to continue to rely on the mercies of OPEC exporters? Is oil worth a potential war with China and/or India? I know your answer is to drill more: for the sake of argument, let's say we do. What do you suggest if nothing much pans out?
Sure, coal sounds good, but I don't see anyone shoveling it into their car. You need liquid fuels for efficient IC engines.
Hiding our head in the sand is futile, Mac. The post-carbon economy is coming whether we like it or not. We can either try to get out in front and lead the parade, or become a poorer and more desperate nation fighting with other third-world countries over the last dwindling crude reserves.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Sure, coal sounds good, but I don't see anyone shoveling it into their car. You need liquid fuels for efficient IC engines.
And the technology to turn coal and diesel into gasoline has been around for a while. Yeah, it's problematic with respect to CO2, but it'll definitely tide us over for the next few decades.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )unfortunately the engineering is proving to be a lot tougher than people thought.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In literal terms it is an identified source, but the engineering issues you mention are indeed pesky. I'm not inclined to think they're impossible though, just a matter of time.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is almost certainly going to produce a lot more energy than it is now. Again, complex engineering problems that in theory have quite simple solutions (better photovoltaics, better, maybe superconducting capacitors, etc.) -- someone just has to go looking for them.
But yeah, there should be a lot more work on fusion now than there is. Theoretically infinite fuel supply, huge energy output.
--Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you're a mile away and you have their shoes. -JH
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Wind power and solar no security issues to the US, unless an Organization of Wind Producing States were to appear. The costs of wind generated power are known, and aren't subject to political manipulation by unfriendly countries. The same will be true of solar. Even nukes do better in this regard: Canada is apt to be a more reliable supplier of uranium than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is of oil.
I also have to disagree with your assessment of Gore's plan as "tying the economy's hand behind its back." I think the upward spiral in oil prices (combined with the decline of the dollar) is doing that now.
We do need fossil fuels for transportation in the short to medium term. Everything else needs to be weaned off oil ASAP.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...an Organization of Wind Producing States, it's called the UN.
Both Wind and Solar have scale issues regarding space and storage.
Saudi Arabia and Venezuela were once considered reliable suppliers, the future and how countries behave once they get leverage is unpredictable.
The price of oil makes other alternatives more viable, which then attracts capital and provides market incentives to innovate. Speeches only produce CO2.
--“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.”
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Right now, the President has the power to order a warrantless wiretap of any American -- and has asserted the power to kidnap and hold incognito any person it chooses to designate as a "terrorist."
If you belong to a Republican Party which did not vote in lock-step for FISA and whose highest officeholder is not George W. Bush, then now's a very good time to bring that up.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And jettisoned his principles in the process, at least in the eyes of some of his supporters?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )And lost, due to the lock-step votes of Republicans against such an Amendment and the weakness of some of his fellow Senators.
As versus the originators and unabashed supporters of the bill.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )his supporters believe he'd promised to do. Which was my only point. If you want to say "this poison kills, but that one only makes you really sick for eight years", be my guest.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I would never dream of standing in the way of someone who had the capacity to see the Democratic Party's or the Republican Party's institution or standardbearers as even vaguely comparable. Though I have to admit, I'm surprised you aren't giving us a play-by-play of Nader's recent visit.
You are correct, though, that the Amendment vote was for show -- no one could reasonably expect any Republican lawmaker to act with decency, so it was sure to fail.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You still haven't sddressed that. Is it really that hard for you to say something negative about your candidate? Have you seen the light now on why retrospective immunity for telecoms is a Good Thing? Or are you still working on a way to blame Osama's yes vote on the Republicans?
I didn't know Nader was even here - hope he wasn't that guy I hit when he was crossing agaist the light on Queen Street. I wonder if he'll let me snap a shot of him sitting in my Corvair convertible pretending that he's driving it.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )The Republican Party is a Fascist institution, and Obama should not have caved to it and its Traditional Media enablers.
--It's impossible to debate if people simply hold beliefs that have no grounding in reality.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )...stupid notion that the GOP is a "Fascist institution" (by the very definition of the term, the Democrats are equally fascist if not more so, as I wrote here), which GOPers and media folks forced Obama to cave? Show me.
--"I want America to know that I'm, like, totally ready to lead." -- Paris Hilton
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I still don't get the "Obama caved to the Rs" part. If conservatives have a way of forcing Obama to vote against his will for programs they favor and he's aganst on principle, I'd really like to know the details. It's not possible that he would go against his own stated principles just to get elected, is it?
Or put another way, why don't you just slip the trannie from D back to R and give up on this one?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )That's the charitable interpretation. The less charitable interpretation is that he expects to be President soon and does not care to be restricted by the Bill of Rights.
If he "caved", it was a massive strategic error, because he handed the Republicans a beautiful opportunity by flip-flopping on his earlier promise to filibuster any bill that contained telecom immunity.
The standard lefty point of view is that when Reid, Pelosi, Obama, etc. go along with Bush on "national security" issues, they are making a political calculation. That sounds more and more like wishful thinking to this lefty. I find it more likely that our political class has collectively, and correctly, decided that the American public no longer cares about abuses of power by the government.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )and significance of the retroactive telcom immunity (litigating that would have been a bonanza for lawyers and no one else IMO) but it does seem to be a funadamental break with his often-stated position on civil liberty priorities. Some of the reactions I've seen on line about it have been genuinely nasty, though, so there seems to be at least a part of the left that won't ignore this.
Welcome to the world of "not the best guy, but the best guy who is running" world, I guess.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Well, yeah, in the same sense that the death penalty is a bonanza for lawyers. But in both cases, there's a larger issue at stake, too -- what economists call "moral hazard" and most normal people simply call "justice". I'm frustrated that so few conservatives, who I think of as my natural allies in this kind of argument, seem not to appreciate the fact that if we don't punish corporations for breaking the law, they will never stop breaking it.
Whenever I hear a conservative commentator or politician sternly warn that lawsuits against telcos would have a "chilling effect" on their willingness to comply with future illegal requests from the executive branch, I feel like I've landed in Opposite World. My main hope is that an Obama victory will give conservatives reasons to care about checks and balances again.
--The other day I heard that ignorance and apathy are sweeping the country. I didn't know that, but I don't really care.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I think there should be a "chilling effect" on breaking the law. Apparently that depends on which laws and who's trying to break them.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )You'll have to ask him why he wants telecoms to have special treatment. Perhaps it's somewhere on his website.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )is similar to yours, it's good politics to not give McCain any cracks or leverage that he can try to exploit at this time. Smart politics, but I'm not happy with it as policy.
--I blame it all on the Internet
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Courtesy of Professor Turley.
There are other high ranking Democrats (Jay =cough= =cough= Rockefeller) who would be highly embarrassed if ALL the truth were revealed. Not being an actual super-hero, Obama is constrained by political realities.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I know just enough about Rockefeller to ignore him as the quintessential limo liberal, so I don't know what you're talking about.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Just a few isolated incidents of conservatives failing conservatism as per usual and under the carpet it will go.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )An isolated incident of a liberal failing liberalism (and leaving some extremely pissed off supporters)? Down the rabbit hole it will go.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Obama knows that if all of the FISA felonies were exposed there are top Democrats who would go down as well as top Republicans. Far more Republicans, but that "poison pill" was planted to help protect those in the Administration.
My favored route?
Grant amnesty, immunity, or let Bush pardon. Then in 2009 put the guilty before a Congressional committee in public and under oath and compel a confession of the felony (after all there is immunity/amnesty/pardon) on penalty of perjury.
--Fence post turtles -- They don't get up there by themselves, some moron had to put 'em there.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )he wasn't happy with everything that was in the bill but a bill was certainly going to pass and the bill he voted for was the best compromise available, something that happens with regularity in the Senate as well you know. Exercising his responsibilities as a Senator has cost him politically with the Liberal base and it would have been a lot easier to just not show up for the vote like St John. So what does that tell us about Obama as opposed to McCain?
Note that no filibuster effort was ever mounted against the bill making his earlier promise moot.
--GW Bush, leading contender for worst President ever.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )A calculated political maneuver and studied move to the center that may have backfired with the more stident elements of his base. Like you said, something any politician does and will do to get elected. Which tends to prove that Obama is just like any politician, not the Messiah of changes, dreams, hope, rope-a-dope, etc.
How did the fact that the FISA bill would pass anyway conceivably force Obama to vote for it? In the past Democrts have taken pride in and given press conferences over their refusal to vote in favor of legislation they claim will compromise civil liberties. Remember Harry Reid's famous "Wel killed th Patriot Act" press conference? Why didnb't Obama do tha here? Answer: his staff told him it would affect his election chances. This really is easy to see, though it may be hard for some to accept.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )While I'm generally inclined to agree with you, this...
...isn't quite right. Coal is by far the largest single fuel source used to generate electricity in the United States, and even though we import coal, we actually produce more than we use.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )but coal not burned for power plants 1) doesn't cause massive amounts of air and water pollution, and 2) is available for gassification and conversion to liquid fuel.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Since Al Gore is in favor it must be resisted at all costs.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )I had this naive belief that many scientists are apolitical. But that was before I realized that to his fans, Gore knows more than ten physicists combined. so when he says that the technology exists today to practically and economically build pollution-free coal plants, you can take it to the bank. Wait, he already said that. Why is the head of the IPCC (Gore's co-Nobel winner, no less) contradicting Al on that subject, and saying that India will use coal for electricity generation regardless of the environmental consequences?
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )Here's the APS Official Climate Change Statement:
- Login or register to post comments
)the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms.
I don't think that "enhanced effort" includes shouting down and ostracizing people who don't toe the Gore party line.
--In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
- Login or register to post comments
| parent )In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth
Mars probably warmed due to dust storms. Pluto probably warmed due to methane trapping heat, a seasonal effect; Triton's warming is likely also seasonal. Jupiter is more complicated (see comments) and I won't pretend to be able to summarize it in a single sentence.
With respect to solar activity, Mockton seems to be cherry-picking, as that convenient "70 years" might suggest. Flux from the sun rose around the 1940s and leveled off, while temperature rose in the 1940s but then again in the 1970s (figure). Here is another interpretation of the data, just an article found at random (emphasis mine):
Come, my friends. 'Tis not too late to seek a newer world -- Tennyson
- Login or register to post comments
)but there's no excuse for not sequestering the CO2. I envision a scenario where instead of our current hugely inefficient burning methodologies, we retrofit our coal-burners to better utilize the energy. The retrofits are amazingly simple: powder the coal, grab the methane and other volatiles before the final oxidation.
As for eliminating the stack emissions, that's an easily managed trick. Recapture every calorie possible in flue gas: how many ancillary processes require heat? Thousands. We pass the cooled-off gas through a steam bath, capture the sulfur, itself a valuable chemical. The resulting acid steam is fed to acidophilic bacteria such as Thermoplasma acidophilum which has only been found in burning coal mines.
We know what's happening in terms of acidifying lakes. It's not that things don't grow in acidified solutions, they do. We need to stop the acidification of the atmosphere and oceans, to save the corals. There are species, acidophilic chemoautotrophs, the very archeobacteria which gave us oxygen to begin with. They thrive in that horrible soup of sulfuric and carbonic acid we're busily puffing out our smokestacks. At the bottom of the oceans, at the smoker vents, whole ecosystems depend on this model. It's criminally stupid not to capture these otherwise valuable chemicals in solution. We need the mercury from the coal for the new long-life lightbulbs, not in our fish. Everything we think of as hideous pollution has a place in some industrial process.