Mandated: Ice Vests For All! (And a Carbon Tax)

The recent heat wave saw me tinkering with my latest invention: an ice-vest/chest personal cooling unit. Tinkering conceptually, at least ;-). But the ice vest is a symptom of a much larger climate concern.

Those with more power than I to affect change need to address it: Congress should mandate personal ice vests for everyone!

No, not really. Actually (or, maybe in addition to?), they need to adopt the economists' simple, one-page answer to climate change: tax carbon emissions.

Henry Jacoby, an economist at MIT's business school, says the one thing you need to do to solve the problem is to tax fossil fuels in proportion to the amount of carbon they release. That would make coal, oil and natural gas more expensive. That's it; that's the whole plan.

So simple but yet so effective. Then again, I'd probably want to add a phase in period of 10 years so as not to shock the economy too badly. Otherwise... let's get on this plan, Congress, pronto!

(Oh, and call me if you want more detailed plans regarding my the hybrid vest/chest air conditioner.)

Goodbye Digg

I'm removing Digg from my feed reader; it serves as home to too many climate deniers more concerned about being right than the possibility that overpopulation is gradually pushing our ecosystem to brink (in more ways than warming).

How You Personally can affect Climate Change

Three simple steps -- easier than changing your light bulbs

What can you do today to help push forward climate change legislation which will, in its small way, slow down ocean acidification and the eventual collapse of the civilization you so snugly live in?

Follow these three simple steps, as outlined by Adam Stein here.

Adam says:

Personal conservation is great, but it’s not nearly as great as political activism. Climate change is a global commons problem, and only coordination on a national and international scale will deliver the long-term emissions reductions necessary to avert the worst effects of global warming.

Now is a particularly propitious time to act. Climate change legislation has already passed in the House, and the Senate version is gaining momentum. World governments gather in Copenhagen in little more than a month to lay the groundwork for a new global accord on greenhouse gas emissions. While neither the U.S. climate bill nor the next round of international negotiations represents the end point of this effort, they are both make-or-break moments.

And let’s be clear about this: passage of a climate bill in the Senate is by no means assured. (Neither is a positive outcome in Copenhagen, for that matter.) Until fairly recently, the situation was looking grim, and only recently have the political tides started to turn. Failure of the bill will be a disaster for both the country and the planet.

Fortunately, increasing the political pressure for action is easier than changing your light bulbs, easier than bicycling to work, easier than eating locally — easier than just about anything else you can do. Here’s how:

1. Download this template letter.
2. Find the names and addresses of your senators here.
3. Fill out one copy of the letter for each Senator, print, sign, stuff, stamp, and mail.

[...] Some senators are definitely going to vote no on the bill, and others are definitely going to vote yes. The most important pressure points are the undecided senators. If your senator is on the following list* and you fail to send a letter, then, well, stop complaining about your neighbor’s Hummer.

* Alaska: Mark Begich, Lisa Murkowski
* Arizona: John McCain
* Arkansas: Blanche Lincoln, Mark Pryor
* Florida: George LeMieux
* Indiana: Evan Bayh
* Iowa: Chuck Grassley
* Louisiana: Mary Landrieu
* Maine: Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins
* Missouri: Claire McCaskill
* Montana: Max Baucus, Jon Tester
* Nebraska: Ben Nelson
* New Hampshire: Judd Gregg
* North Carolina: Kay Hagan
* North Dakota: Byron Dorgan, Kent Conrad
* Ohio: Sherrod Brown
* Pennsylvania: Arlen Specter
* South Carolina: Lindsey Graham
* South Dakota: Tim Johnson
* West Virgina: Robert Byrd, John D. Rockefeller

Of course, even if your senator isn’t on this list, you’re not off the hook. You can still write expressing your hope that the Senate passes a bill this year, or that the final bill includes such-and-such a provision. Most of all, just write!

* This is a broad list of undecideds. Some are probable yes votes, some probable no votes, some in the middle. To make this even more confusing, some of these people may vote yes on cloture but no on the final bill. In any case, all of these votes are important.

Shall We Stop Dithering and Act on Climate?

Actual scientific consensus has it that human activity (which includes C02 release, methane release, positive feedback from increased humidity in the air due to warming over the poles, and so on) is the cause of the current climate shift, a shift which seems to be happening more quickly than any in the geologic record. Solar activity and natural variations have been ruled out by experiments. Truly, they have.

If someone decides that the bulk of the scientists who study climate are not reliable sources of evidence because the evidence is inconvenient, then evidence-based argument becomes useless with that person—they’ve gone to a place where reason can no longer touch them.

I try not to be that kind of person on a wide variety of topics, including this one. But since the scientific method is the best tool we have available to approach truth, it is the tool I apply.

And the truth that seems to be emerging is that Earthly species are dying off as quickly or more quickly than anything we’ve seen in the geologic record—we’re living in the midst of the fifth great extinction.

Unfortunately, trying to develop robust forms of alternative energy only begins to address the problems we face.

Be that as it may, I’m not willing to throw up my hands and say the problem is too big to be solved. I would prefer the human race reach cultural adult hood and move forward; and I don’t even have children.

But alternative energy is a good place to start, because C02 is the biggest contributor to climate change (according to the scientists that study climate, noted above). And there is something we can do: support alternative energy programs,and politicians who support alternative energy programs, even those that from a strictly narrow financial viewpoint will lose money. We need to widen our viewpoint beyond next quarter’s profits and recognize longer term trends. If we can’t use evidence and reason to see wider time horizons and act on our conclusions, the best climate models we have predict we’re going to crash headlong into a breakdown far worse than the current economic recession.

Supreme Court Sides With Navy Over Whales

So much for Pacific whales. I guess the Supreme Court doesn't hold much with the ecosystem's value. I guess they don't think it's important the ecosystem maintains life on earth (life such as, say, Supreme Court justices) through a complex network of species interaction.

This decision was 5-4. Thanks George W. Bush, for stacking the court with science ignoramuses. That'll continue to serve us well long after you're run out town.

http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/11/supreme-court-n.html

Obama Changes The Lightbulbs

After reading this, I had to laugh, because it is true. Individuals can't change the world and make the USA energy independent. But, man, do I try.

In fact, my lightbulbs are CFL, my car hybrid, a portion of my power I purchase from wind farms, I balance the household carbon footprint with Terra Pass, and my batteries are rechargeable. And I'm a freakin' vegetarian partly for environmental reasons!

I think I deserve my own tax credit! Show me the money!

Here's the post that put me briefly in this comedic frame of mind:

http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/obama-are-you-kidding-me-with-the-light-bulbs

Ecosystem Under Assault

What damage can the failed administration do in its last months in office?

Well, among other things, it can attempt to water down the Endangered Species Act.

The ecosystem totters under the assault of too many people reaching for middle class using last-century energy sources. This has put the environment and the components that make it up (living species) under continued and accelerating stress. Please ponder the fact that scientists who make the ecosystem their specialty field of study warn the next great extinction is happening now. Consider further the web-like connections you and I, and every person you know, share with the ecosystem. The planet, it's atmosphere, the creatures, plants, and insects that live their entangled lives upon it are like a woven piece of cloth. Only so many threads can be cut before the whole thing unravels.

Now is not the time to undercut the protections of the Endangered Species Act.

If you believe as I do, write Dirk Kempthorne, secretary of the Interior, to tell him please reconsider. (Click the link to find a the Center for Biological Diversity's easy method of contacting the secretary.)

Risk Habitat to Seek Oil?

A perennial favorite of the current administration has been its practice to use any and every excuse to open ecologically sensitive areas to oil exploration. Since I've kept a blog for several years, I've discussed the various pretexts of the day in previous years, here, and again here.

And now, of course, Bush is pushing hard to open ANWR and other places for drilling, this time using an excuse that at least has surface plausibility: We need relief from crazy gas prices!

Of course, checking into this claim even the tinsiest bit reveals how little relief we could expect if we started drilling today, or indeed, if we had opened ANWR to drilling 7 years ago when Bush first proposed it.

Rather than reposting/updating entries from my old blog in a "From The Vault" entry, I thought I'd actually provide you an interesting crosspost from the blog of the Green Skeptic, who spends a lot more time following energy than I do these days, in a piece called: Energy: Drilling for Oil Offshore and in ANWR; Has the Time Come?

In this piece, the Green Skeptic takes a look at all the pressures to drill, and wonders, if perhaps it might be the thing to do after all. Why don't you give it a read and decide?

I'm wondering whether it may be time to reconsider drilling offshore, and to take a hard look at whether the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) can be developed for oil in an environmentally favorable way.

I'm not saying we should go ahead with either, but I do think we need to put both considerations on the table, put aside our emotions, look at the real impacts, weigh the options, and then decide.

There are several things we need to factor into our consideration:

1. Our dependence upon fossil fuels is not going away any time soon.

2. There are, according to some sources familiar with the situation, relatively abundant remaining sources of fossil fuels, offshore and on land. Most agree they will take too long to develop to have immediate impact, but they may extend the time-frame for alternatives to replace fossil fuels. And with prices what they are now, it's looking like now may be the time when these sources are actually viable.

3. It is not known whether ANWR is a viable source; there is little baseline data with which to make such a call. Some say the oil industry may be betting on the fact that developing ANWR will allow the life of Alaska's pipeline to extend beyond 2030, and make it more viable to recover smaller pools throughout the region.

4. Developing ANWR is likely to have little impact on today's prices. In a report last May, the Department of Energy estimated that it will result in a reduction of only 75 cents a barrel.

5. A recent study by the federal government's Energy Information Administration projects, in the best-case scenario, developing ANWR will engender a price reduction of around $1.44/barrel by 2027.

The same study claims drilling off the coasts of the US won't affect prices until 2030, as reported in the New York Times.

6. Global consumption of oil reached 85.2 million barrels a day in 2008, up from last year's 76.3 million. Another study, to be released this fall by the International Energy Agency (IEA), projects consumption will rise to 116 million barrels next year.

7. New techniques, such as directional drilling will continue to reduce the footprint per well-head on Alaska's North Slope, but there remains the issue of roads, housing, pipelines, and other facilities needed to bring the oil to market.

Those impacts could still be huge in ANWR, which is used by polar bears, caribou, and other animals as they search for places to give birth. (Birth is the most vulnerable stage in the life-cycle of some species.) Other biologists familiar with the area claim the stated impacts may be overdone.

As for the coasts, there are worthy concerns about impacts on human coastal communities, especially those that rely on fishing or tourism for their livelihoods. Our neighbors to the north and south have increased their off-shore development over the past decade with little or marginal impact on the environment.

8. New off-shore development will also take years to put in place.

9. Finally, there is a shortage of deep water drill-ships for offshore development, which are currently booked for the next five years, and we may be looking at a long time horizon with very little short-term impact.

Still, impact is impact, and while we're looking at alternative energy development, perhaps we need to consider how we will meet demand for fossil fuels while alternatives build momentum.

High demand, low supply rules the day. But if the benefits of off-shore and ANWR development are a long way off, is it worth the risk? Can we do without it? What if it can be demonstrated that the environmental impacts are negligible? What if, as Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska announced last week, we could put revenues in service of alternative energy projects?

I am not advocating a position for or against such development; I'm simply calling for a rational, emotion-free analysis before we move forward or rule it out.

Hmmm... still seems like far too little return in exchange for the potential to destroy yet more ecological preserves. But, I'm biased. I personally want to stack the odds in favor of humans surviving into the next millennia, as opposed to maximizing odds we won't have another depression in the next decade.

If Twitter dies...

When Twitter is over capacity, how can I post my pithy comments quickly and easily, too quickly and easily to think better of them?

Like, "For the first time in human history, ice is on course to disappear entirely from the North Pole this year."

On a slightly related note--when did Digg get overrun by lunatic climate change deniers? Just because you don't think global warming is real doesn't change reality, Digg-lunatics. Do you drive a car? Do you use the internet every day to check your email and connect to Digg? Do you go to the doctor? Do you talk on a cell phone? Do you use global positioning "beamed" down from satellites? All brought to you by science. And now, the scientific consensus among researchers who study climate say global climate change is real, and dealing with it must begin now, now ten years from now.

See? When Twitter dies, I have to post here and vent my spleen. On twitter, the 140 character limit spares you this.

350

A number worthwhile knowing.

I Wish My Chemistry Teacher Was This Cool

When my friends and I reminisce back to high school, some of our biggest laughs come when we recall how insanely poorly equipped our chemistry teacher was for teaching. I wish this guy had been our teacher.



(hat tip to Steven Sullivan for this heads-up)