Category Archives: pollution

A Green Boat – They know how to design things in California – replacement post for 12/1/08

Posted on by
Reply

Just think how much less the Great Lakes would suffer if all the Ships plying those waters were made like this?

http://www.baycrossings.com/dispnews.asp?id=2101

Gemini, WETA’s First New Ferry, Reports for Duty

The San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transportation Authority (WETA) recently announced the arrival of its first new vessel.

Crediting the Bay Area’s innovative mindset, Mary Frances Culnane, WETA’s Marine Engineering Manager, commented, “Local support for ferries allowed WETA to push the technology envelope. The result is a vessel that is the most environmentally responsible ferry boat ever built, surpassing WETA’s emission mandate of 85 percent better than EPA emission standards for Tier II (2007) marine engines.” Other innovative measures to protect the bay and marine life include low-wake, low-wash hulls, solar panels, operating on a blend of biodiesel and Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel fuel, and forward searching sonar for avoiding whale strikes. Gemini also includes space for 34 bicycles.

Gemini and her sister ship, Pisces, which will follow in March 2009, are being built at a cost of $16 million under one contract with the Nichols Brothers/Kvichak Boat Building Team. The total cost of the first two vessels is being paid with local toll-bridge funds. Kvichak is also building two additional 199-passenger vessels for WETA that will be delivered in late 2009. In total, these four vessels will eventually be put into service on either the new South San Francisco Ferry Route or the proposed Berkeley/Albany ferry route, and will greatly improve the ability of waterborne transit to move people in the aftermath of a disaster.

For further information go to www.watertransit.org. or contact Shirley Douglas at Douglas@watertransit.org.

P.O. Box 747, Alameda, CA 94501 P 415-362-0717 F 925-215-2520

:}

:}

Where’s My Confouded Article? This post was originally about 7 ways to give THANKS – repost for 11/28/08

Posted on by
1

Unfortunately when I went back to the Monterey County Weekly where I swear I stole (borrowed) the article and IT WASN’T There. The 5th way was environmental cleanup. It even had a picture of a little girl picking up trash from a scenic California beach. So these articles will have to due do.

;]

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Nov-26/carmel-cops-to-council-hybrids-are-for-wimps/1/@@index

Boys in Blue Won’t Go Green

Carmel cops to council: Hybrids are for wimps.

By Kera Abraham

The Carmel-by-the-Sea City Council is interested in replacing old police cars with hybrids, but city cops prefer to stick with the tried-and-true.

The advantages of hybrid police cars are obvious, Sgt. Paul Tomasi told the City Council on Nov. 4. They emit fewer greenhouse gases, save up to $800 per year on fuel, are quieter and earn bonus points with the public.

But the drawbacks, he said, are prohibitive. Hybrids are lighter and more likely to tip over. They’re expensive to buy and equip. The California Highway Patrol doesn’t think the tech is up to patrol standards yet, and even the agencies that have hybrids won’t use them for emergency purposes.

http://www.montereycountyweekly.com/archives/2008/2008-Nov-26/local-ecolaw-crusader-reported-to-be-in-stable-condition/1/@@index

Zan Henson Survives Plan Crash

Local eco-law crusader reported to be in stable condition.

By Kera Abraham

Carmel Valley attorney Alexander “Zan” Henson crashed a single-engine plane into the Monterey Pines Golf Course northwest of the Monterey Peninsula Airport around 6pm on Tuesday night, Nov. 25.

Henson was taken to the Community Hospital of Monterey Peninsula. His passenger, Santa Cruz attorney Jim Rummins, was airlifted to a hospital in San Jose. The two men, both in their 60s, reportedly sustained injuries that are not life threatening.

Henson’s wife, Holly Henson, told The Monterey County Herald she expected her husband to be released from the hospital Nov. 26. Rummins reportedly was still being treated for back, head and lung injuries.

For years, the Weekly has reported on Henson’s battles for “slow-growth” development, a voter-owned desalination plant and other environmental causes. He directed the Monterey Peninsula Water Management District board from 1981-1982 and 1999-2003 and was founding director of the Monterey chapter of Surfrider Foundation.

;]

Don’t Pass Gas – Lets plug up all those belching pipes – Lost Post 11/25/08

Posted on by
Reply

;]

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/19/MNBE146VPK.DTL&hw=obama+green+economy&sn=010&sc=170

Obama seeks

immediate action

to curb emissions

David R. Baker, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

 

(11-18) 17:46 PST LOS ANGELES — In his first speech on global warming since winning the election, President-elect Barack Obama promised Tuesday to set stringent limits on greenhouse gases, saying the need is too urgent for delay.usiness

Many observers had expected Obama to avoid tackling such a complex, contentious issue early in his administration. But in videotaped comments to the Governors’ Global Climate Summit in Beverly Hills on Tuesday, he called for immediate action.

“Now is the time to confront this challenge once and for all,” Obama said. “Delay is no longer an option. Denial is no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious.”

He repeated his campaign promise to create a system that limits carbon dioxide emissions and forces companies to pay for the right to emit the gas. Using the money collected from that system, Obama plans to invest $15 billion each year in alternative energy. That investment – in solar, wind and nuclear power, as well as advanced coal technology – will create jobs at a time of economic turmoil, he said.

;]

He is going to hit the ground running or at least sauntering. For more details PLEASE see the article in its entirety (I have always not wanted to say that).

;]

 

Novel Uses Of Energy – People are always thinking

Posted on by
1

To finish up the week of silly (stop this skit) uses of energy, we bring you the life sucking essence, the Data Center. Or really big computers using really really big amounts of power.

http://www.cio.com/article/415119/Data_Centers_Explore_Novel_Ways_to_Cut_Energy_Use

Data Centers Explore Novel Ways to Cut Energy Use

By James Niccolai

June 27, 2008 — IDG News Service

Putting data centers on decommissioned ships and reusing hot water from cooling systems to fill the town swimming pool were among the wackier ideas floated at the Data Center Energy Summit on Thursday.

Data center operators came together to compare notes about the best ways to tackle rising energy consumption at their facilities. Ideas ranged from the exotic to the more down to earth, like improving air-flow management and using outside air in colder climates to cool equipment.

After a brief lull a few years ago, a new wave of data center construction and expansion is under way, stretching the power and cooling capacities of existing facilities and putting pressure on utilities’ electrical grids, speakers here in Santa Clara, California, said.

:}

Instead of making them more efficient, they just treat the problem as extenalities.

That’s forcing some data centers to consider unusual solutions. One large health-care center is looking at reusing hot water expelled by its cooling systems to do its laundry, Bapat said. A hosting company in the Northeast is freezing water overnight, when the cost of electricity is cheaper, and then blowing air over the ice during the day to provide cold air for cooling systems.

Another company hopes to put portable data centers on ships docked at port, giving it “the biggest heat sync in the world [the ocean] to get rid of waste heat,” Bapat said.

:}

Have a really good weekend.

:}

Newt Gingrich Plans To Save The Earth – Maybe the silliest use of energy yet

Posted on by
1

So silly in fact that the price of the book has fallen from $20 to $2.39.

http://www.amazon.com/Contract-Earth-Newt-Gingrich/dp/0801887801 

This from a man who does not believe in global warming. This from a man who helped start the “Drill Here, Drill Now” movement. This from a man who adamitly opposes Cap and Trade even though it’s an industry ameliorative. Oh and a forward by the man who once hypothesized that people with black skin have lower I.Q.s then people with white skin color. But don’t listen to me:

http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0801887801

7 of 8 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars If we pass the test, we get to keep the planet (Everglades), December 6, 2007

Local Book Review by John Arthur Marshall, (JAMinfo@AOL.com); President
Arthur R. Marshall Foundation and Florida Environmental Institute, Inc. www.ArtMarshall.org

A Contract with the Earth: Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple; John Hopkins; 2007

Contract with the Earth is an overdue call for local, national and international action in a time of serious need for we planetary occupants to pay much more attention to what we are doing to the planet (destroying our life support system at a seemingly indiscernible rate, with enormous consequences given ubiquitous inaction). This is the major problem that Contract addresses.

Contract might be summarized as a re-call of Teddy Roosevelt conservationism with emphasis on the authors’ new advocacy of entrepreneurial environmentalism. All this verges on a matter of insistence, which is good, even great, if twice as many folks that are engaged in the present environmental movement read and heed… Then engage at least one neo-conservationist politician on the need to take on stewardship of the environment as a major issue in the current election debates. We can do it!

As the authors astutely note: Everyone ought to participate in discussions of environmental policies and to that end should have a rudimentary understanding of the processes that make a habitable planet.

Of particular importance in the current elections scenario, the authors identify the need to get the environment elevated as arguably the most important issue confronting society today. How can presidential candidates not pay attention to long-term effects of climate change, and the need for conservation and preservation of what remains of our life support system? A bonus is a call for strategic planning, and adherence to planetary needs.

The authors acknowledge that insufficient attention is being paid by politicians, and with the rest of us, lament that the current administration has been a failure here, even with the late attempt at for lasting legacy to cover inaction regarding potential disastrous consequences in the future.

The author’s define the distinction between conservation and preservation in a manner that deserves further consideration. That is left for future readers to discover, in a book that is worth reading, and begging for action by the non-reactive information-overloaded majority.

As President of a tree-planting organization, my most favorite spot in this book is Chapter 8: Renewing the Natural World. This chapter emphasizes the need to preserve rainforests and restore forests and wetlands. Here in Florida we call them forested wetlands, or swamps (lots of cypress and custard apple trees and related species normally in standing water). In the sequence of quotable quotes at the beginning of each chapter, Chapter 8 also holds my favorite quote:

Few are altogether deaf to the preaching of pine trees. Their sermons on the mountains go to our hearts; and if people in general could be got into the woods, even for once to hear the trees speak for themselves, all difficulties in the way of forest perseveration would vanish. John Muir [Founder Sierra Club]; there were also lots of pine trees in Florida. The past-tense is not good.

This quote is an appropriate sequel to another salient section in Chapter 10, with the mention of Richard Louv, author of Last Child in the Woods. Louv amplifies the need for the younger generation to be more exposed to nature, as previous generations were. Something is missing. Louv points out that staying indoors in front of a computer, rather than more exposure to nature, may lead to nature deficit disorder, which he relates to potential attention deficit disorder and maladjustments in life.

As a sixth generation Floridian, following progress of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) I very much appreciate Newt’s observation on page 226:

“Florida has the opportunity to become a laboratory that the entire world studies… There are very few places where you have a complex fragile ecosystem this close to this many people”. Newt, Associated Press, 1997. Recent AP headlines – Everglades Restoration bogged down – is inappropriate.

The authors also recognize that the proximity of massive land-fills (Mt. Trashmore’s we call them) to the Everglades are inappropriate to conservation and preservation of important ecosystems. Currently, local government is considering locating a Mt. Trashmore right next to the Arthur R. Marshall National Wildlife Refuge, a primary subject of CERP implementation. Not only will the landfill be a dominant terrain feature, the creatures this will attract will pose a serious threat to native wildlife, especially wading birds. This could also pose a serious threat to federal funding.

The authors also implore us (again!) to think globally and act locally. OK Palm Beachers, CERP implementation is also about sustaining a viable water supply. This is need to know stuff.

Unfortunately the behavior of government toward CERP, especially in the current federal administration, is much like the authors describe:

The American government, however continues to posture and vent, unable or unwilling to commit or act decisively…. Except possibly to give development overwhelming priority.

If there is one thing that might call for a little reconsideration, it is the authors’ inclination to view technological solutions as sometimes preferable to natural one’s, without mentioning the precautionary principle, an approach advocated by scientists when there is a dearth of knowledge. Scientists caution on reliance of engineered solutions, as there are always unforeseen, usually adverse consequences here. Humankind’s intrusions require natural solutions. Natural solutions are most often perpetual, and the most cost-effective. OK, green energy may be an exception.

At the onset, Contract challenges the readers to take a Test to determine whether (or not) you (the reader) is a mainstream environmentalist. In the end the authors challenge the readers to support the broad principles of the contract, by contributing time and ideas to create together a new kind of environmental movement.

From the Everglades Restoration endeavor, a more widely applicable quote is attributed to the Mother of the Everglades, Marjory Stoneman Douglas, author of Everglades, River of Grass:

If we pass the Test we get to keep the planet!

DISCLAIMER: The Author of this review, an Everglades restoration advocate, is not a professional book reviewer.

John Arthur Marshall
2806 South Dixie Highway, WPB 33405; 561-801-2165
 

:}

On the other hand:

Same old, same old, April 18, 2008

By  Arthur E. Lamontagne –
(REAL NAME)   

A lot of rehash of old ideas and trite science. I was disappointed, especially since I have been a big fan of Newt’s philosophies and politics.
:}

If you want to hear what the great man himself thinks try, are you ready for it?, newt.org:

 http://newt.org/AContractwiththeEarth/tabid/220/Default.aspx

:}

Scientist Fred Bortz sees it a little different:

http://www.fredbortz.com/review/ContractWithEarth.htm

I am a scientist, and I vote. To put this review in context, I place myself in the moderate to progressive segment of American politics. But I never let my political views get in the way of interpreting what observation, experiment, and scientific analysis tell me about the world.

For instance, when I reviewed Chris Mooney’s provocative The Republican War on Science (RWOS), my first reaction was skepticism. “Show me the evidence,” I demanded of that book. In the end, Mooney’s thorough research persuaded me that his thesis deserved serious consideration.

RWOS covered a broad range of topics, but the one of greatest concern to me was the political foot-dragging and outright denial of human-induced global warming, especially in the Republican controlled congress and the George W. Bush White House.

I often wrote in my blog that I would listen to any proposed political solution to the problem–liberal, conservative, or otherwise–as long as the discussion began with the best understanding of the science and considered a range of plausible scenarios. Thus I was heartened to learn of this new book by one of the United States leading conservative thinkers, Newt Gingrich, in collaboration with conservationist Terry Maple.

I assumed that I would disagree with Gingrich’s proposed political approaches. But I also assumed that the book will make an important contribution to the debate on global warming. I was correct on both counts. A Contract With the Earth has the potential to move the debate away from whether global warming is occurring and whether human activities are causing it, and move toward issues where conservatives and liberals argue about how best to deal with the problem.

However, I am disappointed that it pussyfoots around the Right’s nonsense about calling global warming a hoax and a liberal conspiracy. Gingrich frequently points fingers at the Left for their “doomsday scenarios.” I disagree with that characterization, though I understand that a warning can be delivered too stridently, thereby turning off the people you hope to reach.

But if turning people away from the solution is a problem, then Gingrich needs to be equally critical of outright denialism on the Right. To deny and obfuscate is far more than simply to “disdain” environmental action, which is about as far as he goes in criticizing his own party. He may not have agreed with leading denier Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma, but by remaining quiet he facilitated Inhofe’s misuse of his Chairmanship of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works to block action on global warming. In this book, Gingrich is continuing to give Inhofe and his cronies a pass.

In other words, I don’t doubt his sincerity about the need to act, and I don’t question the value of conservative approaches to the solution. But Gingrich is clearly worried about his right flank in this book. Mainstream Republicans have known for some time that global warming is a problem and would welcome some courageous leadership from Gingrich. Instead, many of them will see this as opportunism by someone who wants to be president and thus can’t afford to alienate the Right.

Physicist Fred Bortz is the author of numerous science books for young readers.

:}

Leave it to the Washington Post to get it right:

http://www.powells.com/review/2008_01_04.html

Green Republicans

A review by Juliet Eilperin

Yet they gloss over some of the toughest questions facing international policymakers today, and they compare the environmental records of Bush and former President Bill Clinton in a way that strains credulity.  

On the central question of global warming, Gingrich and Maple are closer to Bush than to most of the world’s business and political leaders. They argue that climate change poses a serious threat and that the United States should reengage in international negotiations. But they question the wisdom of imposing a mandatory, nationwide cap on carbon emissions on the grounds that Europe’s carbon dioxide emissions rose faster than America’s between 2000 and 2004. (It’s worth noting that since 2000, U.S. emissions have risen at 1.5 times the rate they did in the 1990s, not exactly a stunning model of restraint.) Like Bush, Gingrich and Maple rest their hopes on technological innovation: “The world can be changed faster by the spread of brilliant ideas than by any plodding bureaucracy, and we gladly put our faith in such intellectual and social processes.”

In that sense this book is classic Newt, brimming with military metaphors and grand visions of America leading the rest of globe to a brighter future. In environmentalism, as in war, “we must demand a complete and decisive victory,” the authors say. “Renewing the earth is surely one of the greatest challenges this generation has confronted, and we understand how important it is to succeed.”

To show the value of what they call “business partnerships on behalf of the environment,” the authors describe how the Nature Conservancy, Conservation International and the Wildlife Conservation Society have made common cause with such corporate entities as Wal-Mart and McDonald’s. As a result, much of the book reads like the kind of corporate advertisement that appears on newspaper op-ed pages. Gingrich and Maple contend that the private sector, not government, holds the answers to the globe’s biggest problems. The question is whether people in places such as Bangladesh can afford to wait and see if they’re right.

Juliet Eilperin is the Post‘s national environmental reporter.

:}

:}

The Hummer Cheaper To Operate Than The Prius – 2008 seems to be an entirely different than 2007

Posted on by
Reply

Again the theme this week is Silly Energy Uses:

:}

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/8/27/124134/961

pima_728×90_expo.jpg

grist.gif

Dust to dumb

Prius easily beats Hummer in lifecycle energy use; ‘Dust to Dust’ report has no basis in fact

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 12:42 PM on 27 Aug 2007

Read more about: cars | Prius | energy | ecological footprint | insanity | electric vehicles

Tools: print | email | + digg | + del.icio.us | + reddit | + stumbleupon

hummer-prius.jpg

A study came out recently claiming to prove a Hummer has lower lifecycle energy use than a Prius. Because the result was so obviously bogus — and in sharp contradiction with every other major lifecycle analysis ever done — I didn’t spend time debunking it.

But it made it into the comments of my blog and continues to echo around the internet, and the authors keep updating and defending it. A couple of good debunking studies — by the Pacific Institute (PDF) and by Rocky Mountain Institute (PDF) — haven’t gotten much attention, according to Technorati, so let me throw in my two cents.

The study’s title is revealing: Dust to Dust: The Energy Cost of New Vehicles From Concept to Disposal, The non-technical report, from CNW Marketing Research, Inc. Yes, although lifecycle energy use is probably the most complicated kind of energy analysis you can do, this 458-page report is “non-technical” and by a market research company to boot.

Their website says the report “does not include issues of gigajuelles [sic!], kW hours or other unfriendly (to consumers) terms. Perhaps, in time, we will release our data in such technical terms. First, however, we will only look at the energy consumption cost.”

Wouldn’t want to confuse consumers with unfriendly technical stuff like kilowatt-hours, like those annoying electric utilities do every month. No, let’s put everything in dollar terms so no one can reproduce our results. When you misspell gigajoules on your website — and have for a long time (try googling “gigajuelles”) … you aren’t the most technical bunch.

I am mocking this report because it is the most contrived and mistake-filled study I have ever seen — by far (and that’s saying a lot, since I worked for the federal government for five years). I am not certain there is an accurate calculation in the entire report. I say this without fear of contradiction, because this is also the most opaque study I have ever seen — by far. I defy anyone to figure out their methodology.

(:=})

So what is a sillier use of energy, saying that a Hummer is cheaper overall than a Prius or debunking it? Wouldn’t it be simplier to just point out that they are industry FLACKs that have been sucking up to the auto industry since 1984?
View the index page


Phone Numbers

For e-mail addresses of CNW contacts, click here.Bandon Office: 541-347-4718Vista del Lago Conference Center: (To come)

Fax: 541-347-1174

Cell Numbers: (Being changed. Will post shortly.)

Important Policy Note

While CNW is always available to answer general questions from anyone interested in the auto industry, our clients and 10,000-plus subscribers come first. To assure an accurate answer to your automotive question, please e-mail your question to Mailroom@CNWMR.com or click through to The Brain Trust in the left bar. Due to the volume of requests, we cannot answer questions by phone.

Company Background

Founded in 1984, CNW Marketing/Research began as Coastal NW Publishing Company. Through the years, clients and subscribers have spread from the Great Northwest to include every state of the union (except Alabama), Australia, Europe, Asia and Canada. Clients include major automobile manufacturers, banks and lending institutions, Wall Street brokerage firms and consultants. Besides publishing LTR/8+ (America’s most quoted source of leasing information), CNW publishes new and used vehicle industry reference guides and study summaries, a monthly Retail Automotive Summary of sales and trends, as well as our online research distribution center, CNW by WEB.  CNW holds an annual conference in Los Angeles in connection with Time Inc. Mr. Spinella is available for Executive Sessions for a limited number of clients.

The Topic Of The Week Is Silly Energy Uses – As typed in at Google

Posted on by
Reply

I was shocked when I type in Silly Energy Uses into Google and got back 8 out of 10 references to Sarah Palin. But then I thought about it and realised that the Drill Here, Drill Now crowd does look silly, with oil prices in the 50$$ per barrel range and maybe going to 40$$ a barrel. The Saudis, the Ruskies and the Venezualans (should we call them Vennies?) have got to be looking to kill a bunch of Hedge Fund Operators and other bizzilionaires. Though the Brazilians (Brazzies?)got pletty of crap all over their faces too. What in the world are they going to do with all those oil rigs?

I have not had so much laughter and fun since the gas lines in the 70’s and the recession that led up to globalization in the 80s.

http://www.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/

 htww.png

Wednesday, Oct. 29, 2008 09:39 PDT

Sarah Palin’s silly energy speech

When the announcement that John McCain had chosen Sarah Palin to be his running mate broke across the political landscape like an Alaskan mountain avalanche, many analysts, including yours truly, jumped to the conclusion that her background in energy issues made her a savvy choice in an era of record-breaking oil prices. McCain’s “drill here, drill now” mantra was taking a bite out of Obama’s poll numbers, and the immediate expectation was that Palin would be a potent vehicle for delivering energy-related soundbites.

But it didn’t turn out that way. On Wednesday morning, oil traded at $65 dollars a barrel, more than 50 percent off its July peak of $147. The financial crisis proved more riveting than gas prices, and Sarah Palin’s rocky performance as a debutante on the national political stage swiftly obliterated the conventional wisdom that she could be an asset to the McCain campaign.

 :}

But Palin’s speech is still worth some attention, because it clearly makes the case for why the McCain-Palin agenda is fundamentally wrong for the United States.

Palin started off by acknowledging that “the price of oil is declining largely because of the market’s expectation of a broad recession that would lower demand.” She was absolutely correct to note that “this is hardly a good sign of things to come,” and that “when our economy recovers, and growth once again creates new demand, we could run into the same brick wall of rising oil and gasoline prices.”

(:=} even the Saudis got to get into the act)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122523334615277739.html

By GUY CHAZAN

 LONDON — The slump in oil prices has spread relief among consumers and fuel-reliant industries, but also is squeezing the companies who could invest in new sources of oil — spurring concerns that prices will prompt them to shelve investments.

Industry executives warn that could mean the world will face a dramatic ramping up of prices as soon as the global economy, and demand, begins to rebound.

“Low oil prices are very dangerous for the world economy,” said Mohamed Bin Dhaen Al Hamli, the United Arab Emirates’ energy minister, speaking Tuesday at an oil-industry conference in London. 

(:=}

The piece drew many comments but the first is the most rational. Then they decay into the IT CAN’T BE DONE comments from the ignorant right. As usual.

 http://letters.salon.com/tech/htww/2008/10/29/sarah_palin_on_energy/view/index3.html?show=all

What we need is a commitment to relatively low-tech alternative energy

Solar satellites and fusion energy are pie-in-the-sky ideas that have been around forever and have yielded little practical promise. Existing earth-based solar collector and wind farm technology could provide a substantial percentage of our energy needs right now. Dedicating a few hundred square miles of CA/NV desert land to a massive solar collector that could provide 100% of U.S. electrical needs would be a worthy investment.

 http://www.gossiprocks.com/forum/u-s-politics-issues/86951-sarah-palins-silly-energy-speech.html

Both the McCain/Palin campaign and the Obama/Biden campaign are making unrealistic promises about the prospect of reaching energy independence. As Obama himself notes, when you consume 25 percent of the world’s oil but own only 3 percent of the world’s oil reserves, energy independence isn’t ever going to come from expanding domestic production.The difference between the two campaigns is that McCain/Palin is more unrealistic. Obama has made it clear that his energy independence plan will requires massive expansion of alternative and renewable energy resources and huge investments in conservation and energy efficiency, even as he acknowledges that more investment in offshore drilling, nuclear power, and clean coal will also most likely be necessary. (McCain and Palin routinely misrepresent Obama’s position on nuclear power and clean coal, and the vice presidential candidate did so again today.)Palin devoted one paragraph of her energy security policy speech to alternative energy solutions.

In our administration, that will mean harnessing alternative sources of energy, like wind and solar. We will end subsidies and tariffs that drive prices up, and provide tax credits indexed to low automobile carbon emissions. We will encourage Americans to be part of the solution by taking steps in their everyday lives that conserve more and use less. And we will control greenhouse gas emissions by giving American businesses new incentives and new rewards to seek, instead of just giving them new taxes to pay and new orders to follow.

That’s not enough. True leadership on energy requires devoting more than one paragraph to vague handwaving about wind and solar and greenhouse gas emissions. Economic turmoil and low oil prices may have shunted renewables and conservation off the main track for now, but to quote Palin, “this is hardly a sign of good things to come.”

 :}

But then the real waste of Energy was people trying to “figure out the real” John McCain. He was the guy who wanted to build 100 NUKES and was too old and out of touch to be President.

http://sillyhumans.blogspot.com/

 By TIM DICKINSON Posted Oct 16, 2008 7:00 PM

—
This is the story of the real John McCain, the one who has been hiding in plain sight. It is the story of a man who has consistently put his own advancement above all else, a man willing to say and do anything to achieve his ultimate ambition: to become commander in chief, ascending to the one position that would finally enable him to outrank his four-star father and grandfather.

In its broad strokes, McCain’s life story is oddly similar to that of the current occupant of the White House. John Sidney McCain III and George Walker Bush both represent the third generation of American dynasties. Both were born into positions of privilege against which they rebelled into mediocrity. Both developed an uncanny social intelligence that allowed them to skate by with a minimum of mental exertion. Both struggled with booze and loutish behavior. At each step, with the aid of their fathers’ powerful friends, both failed upward. And both shed their skins as Episcopalian members of the Washington elite to build political careers as self-styled, ranch-inhabiting Westerners who pray to Jesus in their wives’ evangelical churches.

 http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain

On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.

“I’m going to the Middle East,” Dramesi says. “Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran.”

“Why are you going to the Middle East?” McCain asks, dismissively.

“It’s a place we’re probably going to have some problems,” Dramesi says.

“Why? Where are you going to, John?”

“Oh, I’m going to Rio.”

“What the hell are you going to Rio for?”

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

“I got a better chance of getting laid.”
 :}

:}

If It’s Good Enough For The Queen Why Not Us – America is always behind

Posted on by
Reply

Maybe that will change with a Democrat in the White House:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/22/technology/queen_turbine.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2008092212

Her majesty’s big,

honkin’ windmill

The Queen of England is buying

 the world’s largest wind turbine,

which towers over Big Ben and

will light up thousands of British

homes.

By Todd Woody, senior editor

Last Updated: September 22, 2008: 12:15 PM EDT

(Fortune Magazine) — It’s been a century or so since Britain ruled the waves, but Queen Elizabeth II will soon reign over the wind. Earlier this year the Crown Estate, which manages royal property worth $14 billion and controls the seas up to 14 miles off the British coast, agreed to purchase – for an undisclosed sum – the world’s largest wind turbine.

It’s a 7.5-megawatt monster to be built by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, Calif. Now the Royal Turbine is getting even bigger: Clipper has revealed to Fortune that Her Majesty’s windmill has been supersized to ten megawatts, producing five times the power generated by typical big turbines currently in commercial operation. The giant’s wingspan stretches the length of two soccer fields. At 574 feet, the turbine soars over Big Ben and roughly equals 111 Queen Elizabeths (the actual queen) plus one corgi stacked on top of one another.

The Queen’s turbine will displace two million barrels of oil as well as 724,000 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. This prototype will be the flagship for Clipper’s Britannia Project, an effort to create a new generation of massive-megawatt turbines to be placed on deep-sea floating platforms. When the windmill goes online in 2012 somewhere off the British coast, it could power 3,700 average homes.

 http://gizmodo.com/5053873/queen-of-england-buying-the-worlds-largest-wind-turbine

 We don’t know how much it cost her, but word is that the Queen of England has put down some mega-bucks to buy the world’s largest wind turbine. The 10-megawatt monster machine built by Clipper Windpower of Carpinteria, California will have a wingspan larger than two soccer fields and will stand 574 feet tall when completed. The windmill is expected to displace two million barrels of oil as well as 724,000 tons of CO2 over its lifetime. It will also serve as the flagship for Clipper’s Britannia Project, an effort to produce massive new turbines on deep-sea floating platforms. If all goes as planned, the Queen’s windmill will light up thousands of British homes starting in 2012.

:}

California Was A Disappointment In This Election – First the religious bigots again outlaw marriage for those that are gay

Posted on by
Reply

But then they knock down a couple of very important environmental initiatives. I so tired of Christian flakes and kooks I could tear my hair and scream.

 http://redgreenandblue.org/2008/11/05/mixed-bag-for-state-environmental-ballot-initiatives/

ballot-boxes.jpg

Mixed Bag for State Environmental Ballot Initiatives

Written by Timothy B. Hurst

Published on November 5th, 2008

[Update: I seemed to have overlooked an important constitutional amendment passed in Minnesota that established a funding mechanism for conservation programs. My apologies to our friends in the North Star State. See comments for more.]For many Americans, participatory democracy means choosing between the people who will choose for you. But for voters in 36 states, electoral democracy exists beyond the parameters of representative government. In the states where the tools of direct democracy like referendums and ballot initiatives are employed, preferences of voters are gauged directly on amendments to state constitutions, specific policy questions, budgeting issues and more. Of the 153 measures at stake across the country in yesterday’s election, about a dozen dealt with energy and the environment. Below are the results and analysis of eight of the more notable measures (in no particular order):

 Missouri Proposition C: Yes

Colorado Referendum 58: No

Colorado Referendum 52: No

Florida Amendment 4: Yes

Washington Proposition 1: Still undecided

Ohio Issue 2: Yes

California Proposition 1A: Yes

California Proposition 2: Yes

California Proposition 7: No

California Proposition 10: No

:}

:}

The Report Says We Can Be Done With Fossil Fuels In 80 Years – My question is do we have that much time?

Posted on by
Reply

The answer is definitely NOT:

 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn15043-2090-is-the-deadline-for-the-end-of-fossil-fuel-use.html?feedId=online-news_rss20

World can halt fossil fuel use by 2090

  • 12:13 27 October 2008
  • NewScientist.com news service
  • New Scientist staff and Reuters

The world could eliminate fossil fuel use by 2090, saving $18 trillion in future fuel costs and creating a $360 billion industry that provides half of the world’s electricity, the European Renewable Energy Council (EREC) and environmental group Greenpeace said on Monday.

The 210-page study [pdf] is one of few reports – even by lobby groups – to look in detail at how energy use would have to be overhauled to meet the toughest scenarios for curbing greenhouse gases outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Renewable energy could provide all global energy needs by 2090,” according to the study, entitled “Energy (R)evolution.” EREC represents renewable energy industries and trade and research associations in Europe.

A more radical scenario could eliminate coal use by 2050 if new power generation plants shifted quickly to renewables.

Solar power, biomass such as biofuels or wood, geothermal energy and wind could be the leading energies by 2090 in a shift from fossil fuels blamed by the IPCC for stoking global warming.

The total energy investments until 2030, the main period studied, would come to $14.7 trillion, according to the study. By contrast, the International Energy Agency (IEA), which advises rich nations, foresees energy investments of just $11.3 trillion to 2030, with a bigger stress on fossil fuels and nuclear power.

Rajendra Pachauri, head of the IPCC, which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with ex-US Vice President Al Gore, called Monday’s study “comprehensive and rigorous.”

Dangerous change

“Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” Pachauri wrote in a foreword to the report.

EREC and Greenpeace said a big energy shift was needed to avoid “dangerous” climate change, defined by the European Union and many environmental groups as a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius since before the Industrial Revolution.

The report urged measures such as a phase-out of subsidies for fossil fuels and nuclear energy, “cap and trade” systems for greenhouse gas emissions, legally binging targets for renewable energies and tough efficiency standards for buildings and vehicles.

The report said renewable energy markets were booming with turnover almost doubling in 2007 from 2006 to more than $70 billion. It said renewables could more than double their share of world energy supplies to 30% by 2030 and reach 50% by 2050.

:}

But it will only cost 17 trillion dollars:

http://www.itwire.com/content/view/21375/1066/

 Sven Teske, with Greenpeace and co-author of the report, stated, “Unlike other energy scenarios that promote energy futures at the cost of the climate, our energy revolution scenario shows how to save money and maintain global economic development without fuelling catastrophic climate change.”Teske added, “All we need to kick start this plan is bold energy policy from world leaders.” [EREC]Teske concluded, “Strict efficiency standards make sound economic sense and dramatically slow down rising global energy demand. The energy saved in industrialised countries will make space for increased energy use in developing economies. With renewable energy growing four-fold not only in the electricity sector, but also in the heating and transport sectors, we can still cut the average carbon emissions per person from today?s four tonnes to around one tonne by 2050.” [EREC]

In the foreword to the report, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri wrote, “Even those who may not agree with the analysis presented would, perhaps, benefit from a deep study of the underlying assumptions,” [EREC]

Dr. Pachauri, who is the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former-U.S. Vice President Al Gore,

 :}

For more links:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE49Q2I820081027