Earlier this year ND AG Wayne Stenehjem took a trip to St. Paul to try to rattle the cage there and intimidate Minnesota into reversing the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007, which aimed "to bolster investments in renewable power, increase energy conservation and decrease Minnesota's contribution to global warming."
Stenehjem has also decided that the North Dakota stance is that pollutors should not be regulated, and this is shown by his joining a legal challenge (pdf press release) to the EPA's endangerment finding on greenhouse gases. Stenehjem trots out the tired canards of "massive regulation" and "unelected bureaucracy". He says Congress should be in charge of such regulation, even though he is most certainly another who says that but really means that he wants no regulation at all.
The $500,000 the legislature set aside for Stenehjem to challenge Minnesota's Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 seems to be burning a hole in his pocket because now Stenehjem has his mind on a similar attack on California's efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
The excuse Stenehjem uses to support doing fossil fuel industry bidding is that attempts to limit greenhouse gas emissions violate the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. But basically the reasoning is that clean and sustainable energy have to be fought because they are bad for coal companies.
What might be the next step? If you decrease your energy bill by increasing your energy efficiency, are you also making business too hard for those angelic coal and oil industries and need to be sued too? Would a solar panel on your house or electric car hinder pollutors abilities to make profits across state borders and necessitate hauling you into court to litigate you into buying more dirty energy?
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Great Plains Energy Expo 2010, Day 1
Today marks the end of Senator Dorgan's Great Plains Energy Expo & Showcase, and in the Herald we got a taste from two of the main speakers from the first day - Clarence Cazalot Jr. (president/CEO of Marathon Oil) and Arun Majumdar (director of the DOE Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy).
Both Cazalot and Majumdar said about the best you could reasonably expect considering the venue and the mindless state energy mantra of "all of the above". Both hit on how we need to shift away from fossil fuels, find ways to use energy more efficiently and less of it, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Of course we got reminded also how addicted we are to fossil fuels (not surprising coming from the head of a by-definition dirty fossil fuel company, though in that category Marathon is about as good as it gets) and how we need technological breakthroughs in energy (not surprising coming from someone who is basically tasked with shepherding them).
Granted I cannot say exactly what else there is at the Expo, but that at least shows it is not all "drill, baby, drill", coal-hugging, salivating over oil sands, and ignorance to denial of climate science. There is something to cheer in what Cazalot and Majumdar said, but that is not enough to shield it (or at least between the lines) from any criticism.
My concern over what Majumdar says is that it could re-enforce a vague mindset of some techno-magic that will save us if we throw a little bit of money into research. We certainly need to innovate and invent, but that does not replace mitigation efforts, which we should be undertaking now. We are not in some movie where just when we see and widely understand how bad things have gotten some scientist will walk out of the lab with a new solution that immediately reverses all the damage and returns things to "normal". The longer we basically do nothing the more very long-term damage we are doing and the more we redefine "normal" away from what we have known.
Again, obviously Cazalot is going to sing some praises of oil and gas, but saying we need a "environmentally sustainable energy future" is definitely appreciated. Yet, especially if one is thinking some techno-fix will do the hard part, it is easy for many to not want to think of weaning from fossil fuels. Besides the climate issues associated with fossil fuel usage though, there are simple supply issues that preclude indefinite dependence on fossil carbon for energy.
I am going to continue to rip on fossil fuels, but I do understand that like Cazalot says we cannot just wake up one morning and be transitioned away from them. Coal power plants and oil-fueled internal combustion engine transportation will not simple be gone one day. I understand and accept that. However, that is precisely a key reason why we need to be pushing the envelope on the transition to clean energy. That cancer treatment would take a while is not a reason to delay it. That should compel to take action aggressively as soon as possible since the problem is only going to grow the longer the wait.
Our decades of established infrastructure tell us coal, oil, and gas are here for now. Fossil fuels do not need cheerleaders. We need cheerleading, meaning energy policy and actions, geared toward the shift to clean energy.
Both Cazalot and Majumdar said about the best you could reasonably expect considering the venue and the mindless state energy mantra of "all of the above". Both hit on how we need to shift away from fossil fuels, find ways to use energy more efficiently and less of it, and cut greenhouse gas emissions. Of course we got reminded also how addicted we are to fossil fuels (not surprising coming from the head of a by-definition dirty fossil fuel company, though in that category Marathon is about as good as it gets) and how we need technological breakthroughs in energy (not surprising coming from someone who is basically tasked with shepherding them).
Granted I cannot say exactly what else there is at the Expo, but that at least shows it is not all "drill, baby, drill", coal-hugging, salivating over oil sands, and ignorance to denial of climate science. There is something to cheer in what Cazalot and Majumdar said, but that is not enough to shield it (or at least between the lines) from any criticism.
My concern over what Majumdar says is that it could re-enforce a vague mindset of some techno-magic that will save us if we throw a little bit of money into research. We certainly need to innovate and invent, but that does not replace mitigation efforts, which we should be undertaking now. We are not in some movie where just when we see and widely understand how bad things have gotten some scientist will walk out of the lab with a new solution that immediately reverses all the damage and returns things to "normal". The longer we basically do nothing the more very long-term damage we are doing and the more we redefine "normal" away from what we have known.
Again, obviously Cazalot is going to sing some praises of oil and gas, but saying we need a "environmentally sustainable energy future" is definitely appreciated. Yet, especially if one is thinking some techno-fix will do the hard part, it is easy for many to not want to think of weaning from fossil fuels. Besides the climate issues associated with fossil fuel usage though, there are simple supply issues that preclude indefinite dependence on fossil carbon for energy.
I am going to continue to rip on fossil fuels, but I do understand that like Cazalot says we cannot just wake up one morning and be transitioned away from them. Coal power plants and oil-fueled internal combustion engine transportation will not simple be gone one day. I understand and accept that. However, that is precisely a key reason why we need to be pushing the envelope on the transition to clean energy. That cancer treatment would take a while is not a reason to delay it. That should compel to take action aggressively as soon as possible since the problem is only going to grow the longer the wait.
Our decades of established infrastructure tell us coal, oil, and gas are here for now. Fossil fuels do not need cheerleaders. We need cheerleading, meaning energy policy and actions, geared toward the shift to clean energy.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Thinksee Nosebetter - confusion over small numbers and CO2
Today I introduce someone. This is someone in general, not in particular. This is someone you can find a lot, especially on the internet. He (yes, it can be she, but I simplify with just "he") believes his knowledge and understanding surpasses that of the trained experts in a field. He thinks he knows better. Thinksee Nosebetter.
The one thing you can generally say about Thinksee Nosebetter when he shows up in discussions about climate is that he is at least trying to use logic. The logic is flawed, warped, incorrect, irrelevant... but the attempt gives one hope he can be taught reality and have that replace his misconceptions. He is actually exceedingly unlikely to accept being corrected, but it at least gives one hope.
Typically a Thinksee Nosebetter tosses out very simple things that on the surface may sound reasonable but that supposedly unravel an entire well-established field of science. He knows just enough to be dangerous and wrong. The phenomenon of people lacking skills or knowledge but believing they a much higher level of that skill or knowledge has been labelled the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it is quite common in the climate "debate".
The Thinksee Nosebetter appearance I want to highlight and correct involves what I saw in the comments of a Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune article discussing how public planners are looking at ideas for adaptation to a warming world. That is worthy of discussion, but here I focus just on the Thinksee Nosebetter who thought he was overturning climate science and proving it all a hoax at least partially by talking about how relatively little carbon dioxide (CO2) there is in the atmosphere.
Indeed, while the atmosphere is about 99% nitrogen and oxygen, current CO2 concentration is around 390 parts per million (ppm). In other words on average only about one molecule out of every 2500 in the atmosphere is CO2. Human activities have so far increased CO2 concentration by about 40%. So previously CO2 was about 1 in every 3500 molecules.
Granted, that may sound at first like a trivial change. But it is very wrong to assert that since the change looks like a very small amount that it cannot have a significant impact on climate as that Thinksee Nosebetter did. The first flaw is in assuming that small numbers necessarily mean insignificance, but there is also misunderstanding about how small the relevant numbers really are.
It is quite simple to point out the fallacy in dismissing small numbers. Arsenic is toxic at a level of only about 1 part per million by mass. For some reason I doubt that the Thinksee Nosebetter who dismisses a one part per 2500 concentration of CO2 would willingly ingest a comparable amount of arsenic (about an ounce). Likewise, I suppose he would not want 1 out of every 2500 cells in his body to be replaced by cancer cells. Small numbers do not necessarily mean small impact.
But the numbers when it comes to CO2 are not really that small. I mentioned that about 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. About 90% of the remainder is inert argon. What this overwhelming majority of the atmosphere have in common is that unlike CO2, the molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon have no role in the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is not hard to find an explanation of the greenhouse effect online at the level you would like. Basically, only certain molecules including CO2 and methane can absorb the energy that warms the planet above what it would be without them - these are the greenhouse gases.
All of the non-greenhouse gases are irrelevant in this context. Suppose there are thousands of choices at the bottle shop (to those not from around here, that is a local term), but only a few that you actually purchase. If all the others stayed the same price, but the price on just that handful you purchase went up, then your bill will be higher. It would be wrong to say that almost all prices stayed the same so your cost must not change much. All those others are irrelevant to you, and so it is with the non-greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect.
The one thing you can generally say about Thinksee Nosebetter when he shows up in discussions about climate is that he is at least trying to use logic. The logic is flawed, warped, incorrect, irrelevant... but the attempt gives one hope he can be taught reality and have that replace his misconceptions. He is actually exceedingly unlikely to accept being corrected, but it at least gives one hope.
Typically a Thinksee Nosebetter tosses out very simple things that on the surface may sound reasonable but that supposedly unravel an entire well-established field of science. He knows just enough to be dangerous and wrong. The phenomenon of people lacking skills or knowledge but believing they a much higher level of that skill or knowledge has been labelled the Dunning-Kruger effect, and it is quite common in the climate "debate".
The Thinksee Nosebetter appearance I want to highlight and correct involves what I saw in the comments of a Minneapolis-St. Paul Star-Tribune article discussing how public planners are looking at ideas for adaptation to a warming world. That is worthy of discussion, but here I focus just on the Thinksee Nosebetter who thought he was overturning climate science and proving it all a hoax at least partially by talking about how relatively little carbon dioxide (CO2) there is in the atmosphere.
Indeed, while the atmosphere is about 99% nitrogen and oxygen, current CO2 concentration is around 390 parts per million (ppm). In other words on average only about one molecule out of every 2500 in the atmosphere is CO2. Human activities have so far increased CO2 concentration by about 40%. So previously CO2 was about 1 in every 3500 molecules.
Granted, that may sound at first like a trivial change. But it is very wrong to assert that since the change looks like a very small amount that it cannot have a significant impact on climate as that Thinksee Nosebetter did. The first flaw is in assuming that small numbers necessarily mean insignificance, but there is also misunderstanding about how small the relevant numbers really are.
It is quite simple to point out the fallacy in dismissing small numbers. Arsenic is toxic at a level of only about 1 part per million by mass. For some reason I doubt that the Thinksee Nosebetter who dismisses a one part per 2500 concentration of CO2 would willingly ingest a comparable amount of arsenic (about an ounce). Likewise, I suppose he would not want 1 out of every 2500 cells in his body to be replaced by cancer cells. Small numbers do not necessarily mean small impact.
But the numbers when it comes to CO2 are not really that small. I mentioned that about 99% of the atmosphere is nitrogen and oxygen. About 90% of the remainder is inert argon. What this overwhelming majority of the atmosphere have in common is that unlike CO2, the molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon have no role in the atmospheric greenhouse effect. It is not hard to find an explanation of the greenhouse effect online at the level you would like. Basically, only certain molecules including CO2 and methane can absorb the energy that warms the planet above what it would be without them - these are the greenhouse gases.
All of the non-greenhouse gases are irrelevant in this context. Suppose there are thousands of choices at the bottle shop (to those not from around here, that is a local term), but only a few that you actually purchase. If all the others stayed the same price, but the price on just that handful you purchase went up, then your bill will be higher. It would be wrong to say that almost all prices stayed the same so your cost must not change much. All those others are irrelevant to you, and so it is with the non-greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect.
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Dorgan maybe not done trashing climate before handing off to Hoeven
Previously we looked at Rick Berg. He is obviously in favor of climate-devastating pollution, but we cannot tell if we would merely be about as bad Pomeroy or whether he is out on the lunatic fringe either dismissing or calling a hoax the wide and virtually unanimous scientific agreement the climate change is a real threat that we should address.
Governor and Senate candidate John Hoeven paints a somewhat similar picture to Berg. Hoeven though at least acknowledges warming is occurring. But then he takes the cowardly out of saying, "There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it." Of course those opinions that human activities lead by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are not the dominant driving force behind the current long-term warming trend are predominantly from people merely using some combination of political wishful thinking and scientific illiteracy. Again though it is unclear whether Hoeven actually is aware of this and that those other opinions should carry no weight and is simply playing politics with the climate or whether Hoeven is simply ignorant about the issue. Philosophical question - does it matter which it is?
Anyway, let us not forget however about Byron Dorgan who has not yet been replaced by Hoeven in the Senate. So Dorgan still has time to inflict more ecological debt and environmental damage. Dorgan made news (not that you would hear most anywhere, but still...) this week declaring again his potential willingness to continue to make excuses and postpone attempts to maintain the climate that civilization has known and loved.
Talking about the potential of amendments to appropriations bills that would block implementation of climate-protecting rules from the EPA, Dorgan said, "I'd like to see what amendments are offered, and I'll make a judgment about that. I do think that it makes sense to have some time here to have Congress make the ultimate decision rather than EPA."
Wait, 'have some time here to have Congress make the ultimate decision rather than EPA'? Where has Dorgan been the last 30 years? Oh yeah - in Congress doing approximately squat to seriously address climate change.
Another philosophical question like the one posed above - does it matter whether my Congressmen acknowledge climate change and that humans are driving it (and could avert some of the worst consequences) or whether they ignore or deny the issue if either way they do nothing?
Governor and Senate candidate John Hoeven paints a somewhat similar picture to Berg. Hoeven though at least acknowledges warming is occurring. But then he takes the cowardly out of saying, "There’s different opinions of exactly what’s causing it." Of course those opinions that human activities lead by greenhouse gas emissions from burning fossil fuels are not the dominant driving force behind the current long-term warming trend are predominantly from people merely using some combination of political wishful thinking and scientific illiteracy. Again though it is unclear whether Hoeven actually is aware of this and that those other opinions should carry no weight and is simply playing politics with the climate or whether Hoeven is simply ignorant about the issue. Philosophical question - does it matter which it is?
Anyway, let us not forget however about Byron Dorgan who has not yet been replaced by Hoeven in the Senate. So Dorgan still has time to inflict more ecological debt and environmental damage. Dorgan made news (not that you would hear most anywhere, but still...) this week declaring again his potential willingness to continue to make excuses and postpone attempts to maintain the climate that civilization has known and loved.
Talking about the potential of amendments to appropriations bills that would block implementation of climate-protecting rules from the EPA, Dorgan said, "I'd like to see what amendments are offered, and I'll make a judgment about that. I do think that it makes sense to have some time here to have Congress make the ultimate decision rather than EPA."
Wait, 'have some time here to have Congress make the ultimate decision rather than EPA'? Where has Dorgan been the last 30 years? Oh yeah - in Congress doing approximately squat to seriously address climate change.
Another philosophical question like the one posed above - does it matter whether my Congressmen acknowledge climate change and that humans are driving it (and could avert some of the worst consequences) or whether they ignore or deny the issue if either way they do nothing?
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Rick Berg and climate
North Dakota GOP House of Representatives nominee Rick Berg has not (yet at least) been among the many Republicans across the country jumping off into the murky deep end of unmitigated climate change denial, ignorance, and anti-science rhetoric. See these examples from Wisconsin, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Alaska just from the latter half of August. Of course when the Democrats are countering with Earl Pomeroy, then opposing action to fight climate change would not really distinguish the Republican. By Pomeroy's logic on climate he would also oppose curing cancer because of the subsequent medical and research job losses. But where does Berg stand?
Today's Herald gives some clue. We find out that Berg supports propping up Social Security using funds from oil extraction from federal lands like Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Berg cannot get enough of energy production, but there is no indication he has a clue about climate and the danger of continued fossil fuel use. Try an internet search including 'Rick Berg' and 'climate'. You might get the impression that Berg does not even know there is any climate besides 'business climate'.
We do find that recently Berg signed a pledge (PDF) to "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." The pledge is being circulated by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, which would be better labelled Americans For The Prosperity Of Koch Industries or Americans for Climate Devastation.
He gives no sign of considering, much less considering addressing, the issue, but is unclear if Berg is in the kook pool when it comes to climate change. His pledge signing at least makes it clear that he does not believe there should be any cost to polluting and that the atmosphere is a dumping ground for carbon emissions from fossil fuel use regardless of how that damages the environment and thus costs us.
Today's Herald gives some clue. We find out that Berg supports propping up Social Security using funds from oil extraction from federal lands like Theodore Roosevelt National Park. Berg cannot get enough of energy production, but there is no indication he has a clue about climate and the danger of continued fossil fuel use. Try an internet search including 'Rick Berg' and 'climate'. You might get the impression that Berg does not even know there is any climate besides 'business climate'.
We do find that recently Berg signed a pledge (PDF) to "oppose any legislation relating to climate change that includes a net increase in government revenue." The pledge is being circulated by the Koch-backed Americans for Prosperity, which would be better labelled Americans For The Prosperity Of Koch Industries or Americans for Climate Devastation.
He gives no sign of considering, much less considering addressing, the issue, but is unclear if Berg is in the kook pool when it comes to climate change. His pledge signing at least makes it clear that he does not believe there should be any cost to polluting and that the atmosphere is a dumping ground for carbon emissions from fossil fuel use regardless of how that damages the environment and thus costs us.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Mindset of decline
Today in the Herald there was a somewhat random op-ed from Aaron David Miller. For one bigger paper, the column appeared also in the LA Times. The thesis is that Obama "misread his moment" and though at the right time did the wrong things to be able to achieve greatness.
You could criticize the thesis, but I want to go in a direction more applicable for this blog. Miller is basically describing a declining, self-absorbed America that will not address serious long-term issues including climate change. Miller concludes with
Give us bread ('cut my taxes!') and circuses ('what reality show is on?'), and keep us from being too scared... then nothing else matters much?
Miller pegs America as visionless and unconcerned about anything beyond point A and right now. I wish I could say he has it wrong, but with how frequently we see the same refrains for the status quo on energy and climate, maybe he has it right. All the cries of how we have to keep using fossil fuels the same as (seemingly) we have forever, we cannot put a price on carbon pollution, etc. because it would cripple us lend support to Miller's picture of America as wallet-obsessed, even so narrowly to the point of failing to recognize how such a shake-up on energy would actually still be beneficial on that front.
Are Americans collectively as short-sighted as Miller thinks? Is there only concern for the immediate perceived needs, without even realizing that foresight and investing in the future may satisfy those concerns at least as well as the same old, same old scorched earth policy? The voices of Miller and the energy delayers and climate change deniers say we can only coast along and not face and solve big problems. I still believe America can have more gas in the tank than that. And that gas is sustainable and does not produce fossil carbon pollution - maybe it is not even gas but battery power!
You could criticize the thesis, but I want to go in a direction more applicable for this blog. Miller is basically describing a declining, self-absorbed America that will not address serious long-term issues including climate change. Miller concludes with
Americans aren't so much looking for great presidents, big ideas or historic transformations. They want satisfaction on mundane matters such as prosperity, keeping Americans safe from terrorist attacks and an end to the roller-coaster ride of partisanship, name-calling and celebrity politics that is Washington today.
Give us bread ('cut my taxes!') and circuses ('what reality show is on?'), and keep us from being too scared... then nothing else matters much?
Miller pegs America as visionless and unconcerned about anything beyond point A and right now. I wish I could say he has it wrong, but with how frequently we see the same refrains for the status quo on energy and climate, maybe he has it right. All the cries of how we have to keep using fossil fuels the same as (seemingly) we have forever, we cannot put a price on carbon pollution, etc. because it would cripple us lend support to Miller's picture of America as wallet-obsessed, even so narrowly to the point of failing to recognize how such a shake-up on energy would actually still be beneficial on that front.
Are Americans collectively as short-sighted as Miller thinks? Is there only concern for the immediate perceived needs, without even realizing that foresight and investing in the future may satisfy those concerns at least as well as the same old, same old scorched earth policy? The voices of Miller and the energy delayers and climate change deniers say we can only coast along and not face and solve big problems. I still believe America can have more gas in the tank than that. And that gas is sustainable and does not produce fossil carbon pollution - maybe it is not even gas but battery power!
Monday, August 16, 2010
Saint North Dakota of the Immaculate Energy Production
We are now a couple days into the much-hyped "Running with Oil" series resulting from collaboration among various North Dakota media outlets. So far it is looking like about what I was figuring - perfectly fine reporting (though I would not call it "investigative") on a variety of facets of the whole of oil production. There seems to be a mix between ordinary "news information" stories like you could find any given day in the newspaper and more "human interest" stories that, though still seen in your newspaper, are more what may be expected from a magazine.
What has concerned me and that I expect to hold true is that there will be an enormous error of omission - no mention of the climate-altering effects of the carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of the oil. There will apparently be considerable focus on at least the threat of more direct pollution and environmental problems like from spills and massive water usage. If there is nothing though about dealing with CO2, then it would be like a massive series on the weather of North Dakota but ignoring the topic of flooding.
We did have in the Herald this morning an op-ed from a couple UND professors that again spells out some of the scientific and economic reasons to cut carbon pollution and shift toward clean energy. I assume the op-ed page (and maybe just that single submission) will be the only counter to the glowing descriptions of the North Dakota oil boom. I noted that there will apparently be mention of "threats", but I doubt that will be given the weight to make readers think the overall best action might be anything but excavating and burning as much oil as we possibly can. Oil revenue may lower our taxes in ND, so who cares how many future generations will have to suffer as a result of carbon emissions, right?
I would love to be proven wrong, but presumably this "Running with Oil" series will be simply more fodder for the right-now, burn-baby-burn mindset as exemplified by letters in the Herald> Saturday from Wade Pearson and Sunday from Jeff Miller. Unfortunately those letters I think exemplify the ignorance and short-sightedness already so prevalent and that will only worsen around these parts if people grow to more crave a few dollars more today from burning finite and polluting resources. Pearson simply pretends there is no issue of climate change and assumes that if coal plants meet current regulations on the likes of sulfur and mercury then everything must be perfectly fine forever. Miller mentions climate change but blithely dismisses it with no reason to focus on cries of being persecuted and political attacks.
We have to start seeing beyond the end of our wallet. We can afford to pay a little more to shift cleaner, sustainable energy a whole lot more than we can afford to wreck the biosphere. Pinching pennies by remaining handcuffed to dirty energy will not make up for not being able to supply food and water to billions of people, to mention just one major threat from climate change.
What has concerned me and that I expect to hold true is that there will be an enormous error of omission - no mention of the climate-altering effects of the carbon dioxide resulting from the burning of the oil. There will apparently be considerable focus on at least the threat of more direct pollution and environmental problems like from spills and massive water usage. If there is nothing though about dealing with CO2, then it would be like a massive series on the weather of North Dakota but ignoring the topic of flooding.
We did have in the Herald this morning an op-ed from a couple UND professors that again spells out some of the scientific and economic reasons to cut carbon pollution and shift toward clean energy. I assume the op-ed page (and maybe just that single submission) will be the only counter to the glowing descriptions of the North Dakota oil boom. I noted that there will apparently be mention of "threats", but I doubt that will be given the weight to make readers think the overall best action might be anything but excavating and burning as much oil as we possibly can. Oil revenue may lower our taxes in ND, so who cares how many future generations will have to suffer as a result of carbon emissions, right?
I would love to be proven wrong, but presumably this "Running with Oil" series will be simply more fodder for the right-now, burn-baby-burn mindset as exemplified by letters in the Herald> Saturday from Wade Pearson and Sunday from Jeff Miller. Unfortunately those letters I think exemplify the ignorance and short-sightedness already so prevalent and that will only worsen around these parts if people grow to more crave a few dollars more today from burning finite and polluting resources. Pearson simply pretends there is no issue of climate change and assumes that if coal plants meet current regulations on the likes of sulfur and mercury then everything must be perfectly fine forever. Miller mentions climate change but blithely dismisses it with no reason to focus on cries of being persecuted and political attacks.
We have to start seeing beyond the end of our wallet. We can afford to pay a little more to shift cleaner, sustainable energy a whole lot more than we can afford to wreck the biosphere. Pinching pennies by remaining handcuffed to dirty energy will not make up for not being able to supply food and water to billions of people, to mention just one major threat from climate change.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Alarmist and Ignorist
Sunday the Herald republished an editorial from the past Thursday's Bismarck Tribune. The thesis of the editorial was that it was good efforts at cap-and-trade have failed but that there are still efforts to maintain the environment that need to be fought. There is a throwaway line at the end acknowledging unspecified "serious and significant environmental issues that need to be considered."
A letter in the Tribune a few days later from Wayde Schafer effectively calls out the short-sightedness, so I quote it at length:
To combat usage of the term "denialist", that side with those who earned the name commonly uses the term "alarmist" to paint as Chicken Littles the people who describe the threats of climate change. The irony is that the more extreme overblowing of consequences is typically from those who say things like what that Tribune editorial did - that effective actions to control greenhouse gas emissions would mean "destroying the recovering economy."
It is disappointing seeing the media around here parroting such political statements. As Schafer's letter noted, if one is worried about economic impacts, how can he or she simply ignore environmental destruction and degradation on a massive scale?
But it all fits into the larger picture as illustrated by today's editorial in the Herald entitled "A brighter future beckons as the oil boom strengthens". Fossil fuels are the sacred cash cow for North Dakota. But even if (for example) the Herald will not even think about the idea of using less of those finite and polluting resourcing, there could at least be consideration of using some of the windfall to deal with the approaching problems.
Of course acknowledging that costs will have to be paid by someone sometime for all the greenhouse gases poured into the atmosphere would mean accepting that it would be worthwhile to make an effort sooner to make smaller the bill later. That would be contrary to the two-sided strategy, "part alarmist" and part "ignorist" we see shown by these recent editorials - scream bloody murder about a price on pollution and strictly celebrating fossil fuels for the money they put in our pockets while ignoring the broader cost their use puts on us.
A letter in the Tribune a few days later from Wayde Schafer effectively calls out the short-sightedness, so I quote it at length:
The Tribune's stated concern is avoiding "economic havoc" for coal-fired power plants, the largest contributor of global warming pollutants.
Disappointingly, the Tribune's editorial failed to consider the "economic havoc" that will befall North Dakota and the rest of the world if we do nothing to curb the man-made pollution that is causing the Earth to heat up.
Climate change is real, and we have a very small window of opportunity to reduce CO2 emissions so that the impacts are relatively small and manageable.
Time is not on our side, and the more of it we waste trying to avoid making the tough choices between yesterday's fossil fuels and the 21st century's clean energy, the less we're going to like the consequences, economic or otherwise.
To combat usage of the term "denialist", that side with those who earned the name commonly uses the term "alarmist" to paint as Chicken Littles the people who describe the threats of climate change. The irony is that the more extreme overblowing of consequences is typically from those who say things like what that Tribune editorial did - that effective actions to control greenhouse gas emissions would mean "destroying the recovering economy."
It is disappointing seeing the media around here parroting such political statements. As Schafer's letter noted, if one is worried about economic impacts, how can he or she simply ignore environmental destruction and degradation on a massive scale?
But it all fits into the larger picture as illustrated by today's editorial in the Herald entitled "A brighter future beckons as the oil boom strengthens". Fossil fuels are the sacred cash cow for North Dakota. But even if (for example) the Herald will not even think about the idea of using less of those finite and polluting resourcing, there could at least be consideration of using some of the windfall to deal with the approaching problems.
Of course acknowledging that costs will have to be paid by someone sometime for all the greenhouse gases poured into the atmosphere would mean accepting that it would be worthwhile to make an effort sooner to make smaller the bill later. That would be contrary to the two-sided strategy, "part alarmist" and part "ignorist" we see shown by these recent editorials - scream bloody murder about a price on pollution and strictly celebrating fossil fuels for the money they put in our pockets while ignoring the broader cost their use puts on us.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Why do today what you prefer not to do?
Today in the Herald we had a delayer party. My feeling from the attention I have paid is that "delayer" pretty well represents the mindset leading the Herald. They will not go denier and try to refute that there is global warming or that it poses a threat, but they will quickly accept most excuses to not do anything about it.
In the news section there was an article from AgWeek entitled "Study: Beets hit hard in carbon tax scenario". The study was noted as done "at the request of the region’s sugar industry", though the industry had the expected result already. I wish I could say that the NDSU Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies (CAPTS) that performed the study was an advocate for action on climate change. However they seem to comfortably dispense with the likes of, "well, it would not be free, so..."
That is what the cited article is all about. It laments how the "very efficient" sugar beet industry would be supposedly devastated by pricing carbon. Like I said before, if your business model requires being able to dump massive amounts of climate altering greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at zero cost, then that is a serious flaw in your business model. Though the article at the end gets into a little 'if there is effort to reduce', everything else points to delay, delay, delay - the production will just move outside the US without really reducing net global GHG emissions, China has to act too, consumers will foot the bill, etc. The mouth is mumbling something like "yes", but the eyes, body language and everything else says "no". Excuses, excuses, excuses.
I think it is worth mentioning that the CAPTS Global Sugar Policy Simulation Model assumes "average weather conditions". I wonder how much they consider how the changing climate would factor into sugar and wheat production.
In the op-ed section though we true textbook delayer pablum from Ross Douthat. The thesis is summed up at the end as, "wait, get richer, and then try to muddle through."
Douthat accepts climate change is occurring but does not seem to understand that is a problem. He says that overpopulation worries from a few decades back were proven unwarranted, so that gives a pass to skepticism about dealing with climate change. Of course saying since 'not X' that means 'not Y' too is a logical flaw, but that X is not even settled as not true. Global population is still growing toward probably 9 billion around 2050, and our ability to continually increase food production is not a certainty, especially as climate change becomes more impactful. He resorts to weak appeals to supposed authorities on do-nothing, Bjorn Lomborg, Freeman Dyson, and Jim Manzi.
There is also the problem with the assumption that we will be richer going forward not doing something about climate because doing something about climate would not be really easy. You can daily find news about how climate change is already costing us collectively, and that will continue. The negative effects cannot all be assumed off in some distant future nor that it is a sure path of greater wealth to that future.
So we can wait, but we may not even be richer, and also we may very well not be able to muddle through. Ezra Klein pokes another big hole in the delayer no-plan. Basically things may get so broken we cannot fix it. The damage may be way beyond what "rich" can remedy. Even if we were richer in the future, the cost of doing something later (to adapt, maybe not even try to undo) may well exceed that greater wealth, assuming we even decide to start acting at some point.
If one is so fond of the delay strategy, why not use the 'wait until later' strategy for everything? Why not put off fighting terror until the economy improves? We will be richer and more able to afford the costs then by this logic, so why not wait? But we only try to put off things that way and not worry about them when they seem far away and readily controllable, like supposedly deepwater oil drilling had. It would be worth realizing that climate change is not as far away as many think and may not be something we can just handle when we feel like it.
In the news section there was an article from AgWeek entitled "Study: Beets hit hard in carbon tax scenario". The study was noted as done "at the request of the region’s sugar industry", though the industry had the expected result already. I wish I could say that the NDSU Center for Agricultural Policy and Trade Studies (CAPTS) that performed the study was an advocate for action on climate change. However they seem to comfortably dispense with the likes of, "well, it would not be free, so..."
That is what the cited article is all about. It laments how the "very efficient" sugar beet industry would be supposedly devastated by pricing carbon. Like I said before, if your business model requires being able to dump massive amounts of climate altering greenhouse gases into the atmosphere at zero cost, then that is a serious flaw in your business model. Though the article at the end gets into a little 'if there is effort to reduce', everything else points to delay, delay, delay - the production will just move outside the US without really reducing net global GHG emissions, China has to act too, consumers will foot the bill, etc. The mouth is mumbling something like "yes", but the eyes, body language and everything else says "no". Excuses, excuses, excuses.
I think it is worth mentioning that the CAPTS Global Sugar Policy Simulation Model assumes "average weather conditions". I wonder how much they consider how the changing climate would factor into sugar and wheat production.
In the op-ed section though we true textbook delayer pablum from Ross Douthat. The thesis is summed up at the end as, "wait, get richer, and then try to muddle through."
Douthat accepts climate change is occurring but does not seem to understand that is a problem. He says that overpopulation worries from a few decades back were proven unwarranted, so that gives a pass to skepticism about dealing with climate change. Of course saying since 'not X' that means 'not Y' too is a logical flaw, but that X is not even settled as not true. Global population is still growing toward probably 9 billion around 2050, and our ability to continually increase food production is not a certainty, especially as climate change becomes more impactful. He resorts to weak appeals to supposed authorities on do-nothing, Bjorn Lomborg, Freeman Dyson, and Jim Manzi.
There is also the problem with the assumption that we will be richer going forward not doing something about climate because doing something about climate would not be really easy. You can daily find news about how climate change is already costing us collectively, and that will continue. The negative effects cannot all be assumed off in some distant future nor that it is a sure path of greater wealth to that future.
So we can wait, but we may not even be richer, and also we may very well not be able to muddle through. Ezra Klein pokes another big hole in the delayer no-plan. Basically things may get so broken we cannot fix it. The damage may be way beyond what "rich" can remedy. Even if we were richer in the future, the cost of doing something later (to adapt, maybe not even try to undo) may well exceed that greater wealth, assuming we even decide to start acting at some point.
If one is so fond of the delay strategy, why not use the 'wait until later' strategy for everything? Why not put off fighting terror until the economy improves? We will be richer and more able to afford the costs then by this logic, so why not wait? But we only try to put off things that way and not worry about them when they seem far away and readily controllable, like supposedly deepwater oil drilling had. It would be worth realizing that climate change is not as far away as many think and may not be something we can just handle when we feel like it.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Dorgan knows the issue is there even if he will not face it
Last time ended with a note on a powwow Senator Byron Dorgan had with high level individuals in the coal industry. Couched in a common metaphor, Dorgan told them that because they are reflexively fighting addressing carbon emissions and refusing to sit down at the table, they are going to end up on the menu.
By demonizing as "cap-and-tax" a flexible market approach to addressing carbon emissions by setting a necessary limit and letting the market figure out the cheapest and most efficient way to achieve the ends, the fossil fuel industry is facing a future of less accommodating regulations. The EPA have recognized the problem with unfettered greenhouse gas emissions and are finally declaring enough is enough.
The effort led by Lisa Murkowski to tell the EPA that in spite of being the "Environmental Protection Agency" that they are not allowed to protect the environment failed last month, but more such efforts are certain, though there is reason to believe they will not reach fruition. Even if the Jay Rockefellers of the Congress could somehow get some sort of a delay in carbon regulation, it would be a short-lived victory for them.
Senator Rockefeller's recently passed delegation partner Robert Byrd recently came to realize that. Imagine that - a Senator near the end of his tenure from a state highly dependent on coal changing his tune, at least a little. Looks like Dorgan may be doing the same. Like Byrd, Dorgan is not pushing for any movement away from coal use but rather simply saying that the ignored costs of environmental damage will finally soon have to be paid. Dorgan is still pro-coal to a fault but is saying the industry should accept reality.
It is reassuring that Dorgan recognizes coal is going to have to face the music in spite of how the Senate figures to change this year. Byrd's presumable replacement and Dorgan's sure replacement John Hoeven show no signs of Byrd's and Dorgan's recognition, instead holding a coal-can-do-no-wrong attitude. Dorgan apparently sees though that the sand these people are burying their heads in is slowly blowing away. He still mostly has his back turned to the issue of cutting emissions (carbon sequestration is very unlikely to be any sort of panacea for fossil fuels), but Dorgan has his head out of that sand. Hopefully with time more of those out of the sand, whether to begin or forced by recognition of the situation, will have the courage to do something positive. Byrd accepted that would happen, and Dorgan seems to see that too. I just hope it happens before we dig ourselves too much deeper.
By demonizing as "cap-and-tax" a flexible market approach to addressing carbon emissions by setting a necessary limit and letting the market figure out the cheapest and most efficient way to achieve the ends, the fossil fuel industry is facing a future of less accommodating regulations. The EPA have recognized the problem with unfettered greenhouse gas emissions and are finally declaring enough is enough.
The effort led by Lisa Murkowski to tell the EPA that in spite of being the "Environmental Protection Agency" that they are not allowed to protect the environment failed last month, but more such efforts are certain, though there is reason to believe they will not reach fruition. Even if the Jay Rockefellers of the Congress could somehow get some sort of a delay in carbon regulation, it would be a short-lived victory for them.
Senator Rockefeller's recently passed delegation partner Robert Byrd recently came to realize that. Imagine that - a Senator near the end of his tenure from a state highly dependent on coal changing his tune, at least a little. Looks like Dorgan may be doing the same. Like Byrd, Dorgan is not pushing for any movement away from coal use but rather simply saying that the ignored costs of environmental damage will finally soon have to be paid. Dorgan is still pro-coal to a fault but is saying the industry should accept reality.
It is reassuring that Dorgan recognizes coal is going to have to face the music in spite of how the Senate figures to change this year. Byrd's presumable replacement and Dorgan's sure replacement John Hoeven show no signs of Byrd's and Dorgan's recognition, instead holding a coal-can-do-no-wrong attitude. Dorgan apparently sees though that the sand these people are burying their heads in is slowly blowing away. He still mostly has his back turned to the issue of cutting emissions (carbon sequestration is very unlikely to be any sort of panacea for fossil fuels), but Dorgan has his head out of that sand. Hopefully with time more of those out of the sand, whether to begin or forced by recognition of the situation, will have the courage to do something positive. Byrd accepted that would happen, and Dorgan seems to see that too. I just hope it happens before we dig ourselves too much deeper.
Sunday, July 25, 2010
Some days, the bear gets you
I suppose congratulations are in order to the deniers, delayers, and other head-in-sand-ers after the Senate capitulated to the forces of the status quo intent on having America hang on to the 1940s forever. We are for now not going to be moving forward even slightly with a comprehensive national legislative strategy to shift meaningfully toward clean energy and away from climate altering massive carbon emissions. So by postponing action we are taking a pass on the economic benefit of investing sooner in the clean energy future, and we are making the future worse climatically. It is like a tax increase for the future.
Make no mistake, we will have to confront and address the issue at some point. The choice is whether to do it earlier and avoid more of the dire consequences of our actions or to wait longer so that the situation grows catastrophic and we can only make it less awful. We are choosing for fingers-in-the-ear ignoring of the issue, which will be realized at some point as stupid.
Though not surprising, obviously this is a very disappointing situation. I think Dave Roberts at Grist pretty well captured many of my feelings. He points out that overall there is still momentum on taking action to rein in emissions, that the Senate contains many cowards, and summarizes,
Roberts notes a very interesting conversation soon-to-retire Senator Byron Dorgan had with coal bigwigs as the current Senate process was falling apart. I want to expand on this in its own post, but Dorgan basically said that just because the Senate dropped the ball, there is still action coming down the line.
Make no mistake, we will have to confront and address the issue at some point. The choice is whether to do it earlier and avoid more of the dire consequences of our actions or to wait longer so that the situation grows catastrophic and we can only make it less awful. We are choosing for fingers-in-the-ear ignoring of the issue, which will be realized at some point as stupid.
Though not surprising, obviously this is a very disappointing situation. I think Dave Roberts at Grist pretty well captured many of my feelings. He points out that overall there is still momentum on taking action to rein in emissions, that the Senate contains many cowards, and summarizes,
It's a sad, corrupt state of affairs this country finds itself in. I wish I had some hopeful words to offer. But at this point, American government appears to be broken. And our children and grandchildren will suffer for it.
Roberts notes a very interesting conversation soon-to-retire Senator Byron Dorgan had with coal bigwigs as the current Senate process was falling apart. I want to expand on this in its own post, but Dorgan basically said that just because the Senate dropped the ball, there is still action coming down the line.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Some days, you get the bear
This past Saturday was a nice day when reading through the Herald. There were two news stories pertaining to weather, particularly specific instances of warmth, and both matter-of-factly mentioned their relationship with climate change. It was so nice to see just the facts and neither any sort of contrived controversy nor hat tips to fringe elements who do not want to believe the facts.
The first article started below the fold on page 1. It was a small, actually rather non-"newsy" piece from AP science writer Randolph Schmid. Mostly it just noted some of the observed weather extremes across the US in June. But early in the article it said,
Exactly! Emissions are driving warming and a hotter than average month is obviously completely consistent with this. No need to add in qualifiers or hedges as so often seen, such as 'emissions that some scientists say may contribute to possible warming', just like there is no need to mention gravity with qualifiers like 'a force that some scientists suggest may play a role in keeping people from floating off the surface of the earth'.
The other article was more in-depth. It was another AP piece, this time on the unusual warmth of Lake Superior this summer. It basically reported on researchers efforts in monitoring the Lake's temperatures. That there is global warming occurring is simply taken as a given by the researchers, which is quite sensible since all the evidence points that way.
It is noted how the researchers have found Lake Superior water temperatures have gone up at twice the rate of air temperatures over recent decades. The researchers said that it had been thought that there was no sort of "memory" in those water temperatures from the previous year, but the evidence said otherwise. The article describes the positive feedback mechanism,
Nice! It is a very small scale study, yet still people could accidentally learn some science if they were not careful reading that article.
Overall the media do a poor job conveying accurate information about climate change, and the Herald is quite typical in this regard. Even if there is not anything unseemingly driving purposeful poor or misleading coverage, start with perhaps poor communication from scientists and add journalists who are not knowledgeable on the subject and thus try to achieve some sort of balance that does not exist, and the result is writing that often fails to accurately portray the science.
But days like one noted give me hope the trend in the media (including in the Herald) is in the right direction. Just like the temperature trend, though continuing upward in the long-term, will have short-term slips and downswings, I know the coverage and op-ed pages (including in the Herald) will have their mealy-mouthed confusion and gibberish. Maybe though such instances will become rarer and the quality of climate information will gradually improve so that people will become better-informed, whether they like the facts or not.
The first article started below the fold on page 1. It was a small, actually rather non-"newsy" piece from AP science writer Randolph Schmid. Mostly it just noted some of the observed weather extremes across the US in June. But early in the article it said,
Nationally averaged, June was warmer than normal, a pattern that has been continuing in recent years as greenhouse warming caused by industrial and other emissions increases.
Exactly! Emissions are driving warming and a hotter than average month is obviously completely consistent with this. No need to add in qualifiers or hedges as so often seen, such as 'emissions that some scientists say may contribute to possible warming', just like there is no need to mention gravity with qualifiers like 'a force that some scientists suggest may play a role in keeping people from floating off the surface of the earth'.
The other article was more in-depth. It was another AP piece, this time on the unusual warmth of Lake Superior this summer. It basically reported on researchers efforts in monitoring the Lake's temperatures. That there is global warming occurring is simply taken as a given by the researchers, which is quite sensible since all the evidence points that way.
It is noted how the researchers have found Lake Superior water temperatures have gone up at twice the rate of air temperatures over recent decades. The researchers said that it had been thought that there was no sort of "memory" in those water temperatures from the previous year, but the evidence said otherwise. The article describes the positive feedback mechanism,
They say there's a self-perpetuating correlation: The warmer the air and water, the less ice forms. The less ice, the warmer the water gets. Then less ice forms next winter.
Nice! It is a very small scale study, yet still people could accidentally learn some science if they were not careful reading that article.
Overall the media do a poor job conveying accurate information about climate change, and the Herald is quite typical in this regard. Even if there is not anything unseemingly driving purposeful poor or misleading coverage, start with perhaps poor communication from scientists and add journalists who are not knowledgeable on the subject and thus try to achieve some sort of balance that does not exist, and the result is writing that often fails to accurately portray the science.
But days like one noted give me hope the trend in the media (including in the Herald) is in the right direction. Just like the temperature trend, though continuing upward in the long-term, will have short-term slips and downswings, I know the coverage and op-ed pages (including in the Herald) will have their mealy-mouthed confusion and gibberish. Maybe though such instances will become rarer and the quality of climate information will gradually improve so that people will become better-informed, whether they like the facts or not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)