Here's an excellent article on working WITH Nature to turn around global warming, and undoing some unintended consequences of our past actions!
Sea otters worth $700 million in carbon credits - environment - 07 July 2010 - New Scientist
Monday, July 12, 2010
Monday, July 5, 2010
US not a leader of the green world
Valerie Jaffee of NRDC has filed a post that laments the distance between our United States and the rest of the industrial world in promoting green energy. Everyone and their sister understands that this is the growth industry of the present (NOT the future) - and that even if we didn't believe in global warming, hey! we DO believe in capitalism. So why aren't we leading the charge?
A great (and non-political) read - catch it here!
A great (and non-political) read - catch it here!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Another tipping point, and food vs. fuel
Sometimes I think it's the "either-or" thinking that's going to do us in.
New Scientist magazine cites research by Schlenker and Roberts of North Carolina State University that suggests that yields of three crucial crops (maize, cotton, and soybeans) in the United States would fall catastrophically by the end of the century if we don't cut greenhouse emissions.
Maize yeilds, for example, would plummet 82% if nothing changes, and would still drop by 30-45% even if we cut our emissions by half.
In the same article, David Pimentel of Cornell is quoted as saying that curbing biofuel production would solve hunger and high food prices faster than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. SO: accept lower yields and make it up in volume??
Of course, the answer is both: we need to make biofuels that don't use food crops or food-crop-suitable land AND reduce our greenhouse emissions. That way everybody wins.
New Scientist magazine cites research by Schlenker and Roberts of North Carolina State University that suggests that yields of three crucial crops (maize, cotton, and soybeans) in the United States would fall catastrophically by the end of the century if we don't cut greenhouse emissions.
Maize yeilds, for example, would plummet 82% if nothing changes, and would still drop by 30-45% even if we cut our emissions by half.
In the same article, David Pimentel of Cornell is quoted as saying that curbing biofuel production would solve hunger and high food prices faster than reducing greenhouse gas emissions. SO: accept lower yields and make it up in volume??
Of course, the answer is both: we need to make biofuels that don't use food crops or food-crop-suitable land AND reduce our greenhouse emissions. That way everybody wins.
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Feeling lonely yet, George?
Australian prime minister Howard was a stalwart supporter of the Bush policies on Iraq and non-policies on global warming. In recent national elections, the opposition party, led by Kevin Rudd, ran on a platform of combatting global warming and bringing the Aussie troops home - and won overwhelmingly. The US is now the only major industrial nation to support the war and hide its head on global warming. It’s lonely at the top. Or is it the bottom?
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve been getting Google Alerts on “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”, and the country with by far the highest level of media coverage on this issue has been Australia (and it all started with a visit by Al Gore a year ago September). The coverage has been uniformly against the government’s policy, and was notable for its apparent lack of need to appear balanced by printing the nonsensical perorations of the nay-sayers...kudos to them, I say.
The U.S. continues to become more and more isolated (despite the new French president’s somewhat wierd friendliness) under the Bush regime. And, closer to home, Bush’s inner circle has all but completely left the house. Meaning that Bush, who relies almost exclusively on trusted confidants for what little input he will suffer, is becoming more and more isolated domestically as well.
Scary thought.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’ve been getting Google Alerts on “Global Warming” and “Climate Change”, and the country with by far the highest level of media coverage on this issue has been Australia (and it all started with a visit by Al Gore a year ago September). The coverage has been uniformly against the government’s policy, and was notable for its apparent lack of need to appear balanced by printing the nonsensical perorations of the nay-sayers...kudos to them, I say.
The U.S. continues to become more and more isolated (despite the new French president’s somewhat wierd friendliness) under the Bush regime. And, closer to home, Bush’s inner circle has all but completely left the house. Meaning that Bush, who relies almost exclusively on trusted confidants for what little input he will suffer, is becoming more and more isolated domestically as well.
Scary thought.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Good CARMA!
The Carbon Monitoring for Action (CARMA) website was launched yesterday, and provides best-available information on carbon emissions from your local power plant all the way up to a planetary overview. The site is easy to navigate, results are graphically presented and tied to Google Maps, and the whole thing works pretty well (I did find a few minor glitches, but it was just launched yesterday....).
Power plants are rated both by total carbon emissions and by “Intensity” - a measure of carbon produced for a given level of energy production (lower intensity is better). In addition to plant-related statistics, you can investigate carbon emission production by company and by geography.
Not sure where you get your energy from? No problem - just type your zip code into the “Start Here!” search box, and the web site will tell you who your provider is, with a hot link to more detailed information.
For example, my energy provider is Northern States Power Company (MN), and I discovered that it has 16 power plants, 10 of which operate “in the red” (meaning, in this case, high intensity ratings), and 3 of which are coded “green” (I’m betting, based on their location, that they’re hydroelectric plants - the site currently doesn’t tell you how the plant you’re looking at generates its power). As an added perk, it will tell you which Senators and House member represent the district that power plant is in, should, for example, you want to call their attention to that plant’s performance.
I’m a big believer that if good information gets in the hands of the people, good things will start to happen. In the end, we’re pretty bright, and always way ahead of the curve compared to our fearful leaders.
Power plants are rated both by total carbon emissions and by “Intensity” - a measure of carbon produced for a given level of energy production (lower intensity is better). In addition to plant-related statistics, you can investigate carbon emission production by company and by geography.
Not sure where you get your energy from? No problem - just type your zip code into the “Start Here!” search box, and the web site will tell you who your provider is, with a hot link to more detailed information.
For example, my energy provider is Northern States Power Company (MN), and I discovered that it has 16 power plants, 10 of which operate “in the red” (meaning, in this case, high intensity ratings), and 3 of which are coded “green” (I’m betting, based on their location, that they’re hydroelectric plants - the site currently doesn’t tell you how the plant you’re looking at generates its power). As an added perk, it will tell you which Senators and House member represent the district that power plant is in, should, for example, you want to call their attention to that plant’s performance.
I’m a big believer that if good information gets in the hands of the people, good things will start to happen. In the end, we’re pretty bright, and always way ahead of the curve compared to our fearful leaders.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)