We Could All Use a Second Look

25 08 2009
From: CTV, 2009

From: CTV, 2009

“I stand upon my desk to remind myself that we must constantly look at things in a different way. “

– From the film Dead Poets Society




Rainforest Depletion vs. Economic Growth

24 08 2009
From: Flickr, 2009

From: Flickr, 2009

After reading an article in the L.A. Times this morning about the loss of Rainforest in Brazil to agriculture, I am once again reminded of the struggle between two opposing forces that often find themselves at odds in developing countries. Do we protect the environment or allow the people to succeed economically?

According to Mongabay, Brazil has lost an average of 34 660 square kilometers of rainforest per year between the years 2000 and 2005. While this is a very small percentage of the total rainforest cover, it is certainly a lot of land, and it has only increased since then. Many of us know that deforestation in general is not helping with air pollution or climate change. We need trees to produce oxygen and sustain life. Deforestation of the Amazon Rainforest is not only reducing the global tree population, but is directly depleting one of the most biodiverse ecosystems on earth.

On the flip side, Brazilians and other South Americans have the opportunity to finally make some money by clearing their land of trees and selling grains and cows to North America, Europe, and other parts of the world. In fact, this has been strongly encouraged in Brazil with benefits being provided to those who clear at least 80% of their land.

So we are presented with quite a difficult situation. How can we support the economic gain of such South American countries without compromising the beloved rainforest? It is obvious that we cannot continue on the current path forever until the forests are entirely lost. So do we search for a solution now, or just play it off – business as usual – until we have little to no rainforest left, and we see the extinction of millions of species? My vote lies with finding a solution now. Yet the solutions that are being presented don’t sit right with me. Things like North American countries paying paying South American countries to keep their land forested. This is the equivalent of social welfare to me, except the people receiving money are fully capable of work . To pay a farmer to not do something seems terribly backwards. Maybe some solutions lie in new industries, or shade-grown crops? There must be a way that South America can rise in the world market without destroying its vast and beautiful ecosystems.

L.A. Times Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/22/science/earth/22degrees.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss





Better Place: The Electric Car Revolution

19 08 2009
From: Renault, 2009

From: Renault, 2009

As companies like General Motors, Toyota, and Honda plug away at developing new hybrid vehicles in their attempts to ‘go green’ (and I applaud them for doing so!), a group called Better Place has teamed up with Renault to offer fully electric vehicles as well as the infrastructure to go with them to cities across the world. Better Place’s initiative includes:

  • working with battery manufacturers to produce advanced lithium-ion battery technologies with improved performance, range, charge time and battery life, not to mention recyclable and environmentally friendly too.
  • creating networks of electric vehicle charging possibilities including charge stations and battery switching stations
  • assisting in the development of global standards which will hopefully accelerate the adoption of electric vehicles all over the world (http://www.betterplace.com/)

Now what part does Renault play in all this? Well, Renault has committed to providing the vehicles to go along with the infrastructure. They plan to produce tens of thousands of electric vehicles per year starting in 2011. There will be 3 models available: a saloon, a compact city car and a van. Better Places Denmark is developing the lithium batteries for these vehicles. The plan is to have each buyer sign up for a monthly subscription to have access to the batteries. The partnership will initially market the program and its cars in Israel and Denmark where a recent study initiated by Better Place indicated that these 2 locations had the highest percentage of buyers interested in purchasing an electric vehicle for their next car (57% and 40% respectively). Charging of these vehicles will be available through three methods. First, Denmark plans to construct an initial 60 charging stations in parking lots and on streets where you will be able to ‘top up’ your battery charge. You can also plug the vehicles in at home when they are not being used. The third method overcomes the obstacle of the time it takes to charge a battery. 100 swap stations will be available across Denmark for driver to quickly switch their used battery for a fresh one in only 5 minutes. Less time than it takes to fill up the gas tank in some cases. (http://www.betterplace.com/company/press-release-detail/strong-consumer-interest-in-electric-vehicles-bodes-well-for-new-era-of-sus/, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/aug/18/renault-electric-car)

Better Places is also now working with the province of Ontario in Canada. Despite the deep rooted dependence on cars in Ontario established by Henry Ford in 1903, the Ontario Government has acknowledged the need for change. They have partnered with Better Place to move from the current gas powered Car 1.0 model to the electric powered Car 2.0 model which relies on renewable energy. The partnership plans to create an Ontario wide electric vehicle network powered by Bullfrog Power, a renewable energy company in Ontario. This network includes everything from public awareness and education to government incentive/rebate programs to reviving the local auto industry with the production of electric vehicles to a system of province wide charging stations. Finally, a real solution to recover Ontario’s dying auto industry (http://www.betterplace.com/company/press-release-detail/better-place-partners-with-ontario-to-bring-car-20-electric-car-infrastruct/, http://www.betterplace.com/global-progress/canada/).  

Thanks to Sarah English for contributing.





Quotes from GM’s Bob Lutz

13 08 2009
From: Maxgladwell.com, 2009

From: Maxgladwell.com, 2009

This is directly taken from Wired Magazine:

“Maximum” Bob Lutz is a man who always speaks his mind, no matter how outlandish, which is why it should be no surprise the General Motors honcho says global warming “is a total crock of sh*t.”

Lutz made that crack during a private lunch with reporters in Virginia, according to D Magazine, and followed it up by saying, “I’m a skeptic, not a denier. Having said that, my opinion doesn’t matter.”

No, it doesn’t, but it’s always entertaining to hear it. Lutz said he’s pushing the Chevrolet Volt extended-range electric vehicle because “I’m motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2 (argument).”

Ultimately, it doesn’t matter why Lutz is pushing the Volt, just so long as he’s pushing it. But we have to wonder what the hell Lutz was thinking when he said hybrids like the Toyota Prius “make no economic sense” because of their high cost when GM has promised to roll out one new hybrid every three months for the next four years.

Goodness Bob!

http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/02/bob-lutz-global/





Senator Inhofe: Oil and Gas Don’t Pollute

29 07 2009

Wow…I don’t even know what to say about this. Senator Inhofe, of Oklahoma, actually says not only that oil and gas don’t contribute to climate change, but that they don’t pollute at all. That is one of the most absurd things I’ve ever heard.

Well senator, I guess that gives major oil companys the go ahead to dump their waste water in your backyard? Have you possibly tried to leave your car running in the garage with the door closed? Can you tell me that would have no ill effect on your livelihood? Maybe I can stop by and dump my oil motor oil in your garden? I certainly hope you just fumbled the words and didn’t actually mean what you said.





Sarah Palin Doesn’t Understand Cap-and-Trade

27 07 2009
Sarah Palin wrote an Op-Ed piece for the Washington Post on July 14th this year. It is full of BS and truth stretching, as well as a good old fashioned lack of concrete information. Allow me to retort:

There is no shortage of threats to our economy. America’s unemployment rate recently hit its highest mark in more than 25 years and is expected to continue climbing. Worries are widespread that even when the economy finally rebounds, the recovery won’t bring jobs. Our nation’s debt is unsustainable, and the federal government’s reach into the private sector is unprecedented.

Unfortunately, many in the national media would rather focus on the personality-driven political gossip of the day than on the gravity of these challenges. So, at risk of disappointing the chattering class, let me make clear what is foremost on my mind and where my focus will be:

I am deeply concerned about President Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan, and I believe it is an enormous threat to our economy. It would undermine our recovery over the short term and would inflict permanent damage.

Ok Sarah, you say this plan will undermine the economic recovery in the short term. Here’s some news for you, the plan is not to take affect until 2012, if the United States is still in recession over two years from now, I think we have some bigger issues to worry about.

American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy.

Yes, this is true, but is it all encompasing and defining? To put the matter close to home, Alaska’s average retail price for electricity in April 2009 was 14.76 cents/kWh. That one of the highest prices in the United States. The cost of electricity is generally between 10 and 15 pence/kWh in England. That translates to between 16.48 and 24.73 cents/kWh in American dollars. Would you say that England is not prosperous?

Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president’s cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.

Every aspect? Thats pretty broad. I bet it would lead to less pollution? Is that an adverse affect Sarah?

There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn’t lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America’s economy.

All energy on earth comes from the sun in some way or another. The scarcity lies in fossil fuels, which takes millions of years to develop. Sun and wind happen naturally every day of the year. Until the sun implodes, I don’t think you can call that a scarce resource.

Job losses are so certain under this new cap-and-tax plan that it includes a provision accommodating newly unemployed workers from the resulting dried-up energy sector, to the tune of $4.2 billion over eight years. So much for creating jobs.

Take a trip down to Neon, Kentucky and look at how people are living after the coal industry left the area. The lifetime of fossil fuel industries is finite and will eventually leave people without jobs. The lifetime of a renewable energy sector is infinite, therefore, in the long run, there are far more permanent jobs. Oh ya, its cap-and-trade Sarah, not cap-and-tax, you made  a typo there.

In addition to immediately increasing unemployment in the energy sector, even more American jobs will be threatened by the rising cost of doing business under the cap-and-tax plan. For example, the cost of farming will certainly increase, driving down farm incomes while driving up grocery prices. The costs of manufacturing, warehousing and transportation will also increase.

For the second time, 2012 is not immediate. And for the second time, its cap-and-trade. Poor farming practices are already subsidized by the government because we demand cheap terrible food. If subsidies were granted to the poor rather than the farmers, higher food costs would be so big an issue. Buying vegetables from your local stand sure is cheaper than buying them from the grocery store.

The ironic beauty in this plan? Soon, even the most ardent liberal will understand supply-side economics.

The Americans hit hardest will be those already struggling to make ends meet. As the president eloquently puts it, their electricity bills will “necessarily skyrocket.” So much for not raising taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year.

Even Warren Buffett, an ardent Obama supporter, admitted that under the cap-and-tax scheme, “poor people are going to pay a lot more for electricity.”

This might be a valid point. Though it has been disputed and stated that the poorest families will actually benefit from cap-and-trade. Additionally, rising costs will force an increase in conservation efforts. And if energy costs too much to purchase, part of the cap-costs that corporations pay could go to financing solar panels for the rooves of those who can’t afford to pay for energy. I don’t think this is in the plan though, so Sarah, maybe you could use your influence for something productive like this?

We must move in a new direction. We are ripe for economic growth and energy independence if we responsibly tap the resources that God created right underfoot on American soil. Just as important, we have more desire and ability to protect the environment than any foreign nation from which we purchase energy today.

Umm…the plan IS to move in a new direction….not the same old direction that you’re proposing.

In Alaska, we are progressing on the largest private-sector energy project in history. Our 3,000-mile natural gas pipeline will transport hundreds of trillions of cubic feet of our clean natural gas to hungry markets across America. We can safely drill for U.S. oil offshore and in a tiny, 2,000-acre corner of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge if ever given the go-ahead by Washington bureaucrats.

Oh those darned Washingotn bureaucrats, trying to protect what little natural environment is left in the world! How dare they take away our black gold! Sarah, there is a reason that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is protected! Once you start drilling in one protected environment, you’ve set the precedent that allows drilling to occur in every wildlife refuge in the country. And who’s to stop you from ploughing through the whole thing? Not to mention the environmental impacts that an oil drilling operation would have on the wider surrounding environment. Take a look at what Texaco did to the Amazon in Ecuador.

Of course, Alaska is not the sole source of American energy. Many states have abundant coal, whose technology is continuously making it into a cleaner energy source. Westerners literally sit on mountains of oil and gas, and every state can consider the possibility of nuclear energy.

Please see my post on the issues surrounding the myth of ‘clean coal’

We have an important choice to make. Do we want to control our energy supply and its environmental impact? Or, do we want to outsource it to China, Russia and Saudi Arabia? Make no mistake: President Obama’s plan will result in the latter.

This is my only gripe with Obama’s plan and I think Sarah Palin might be semi-correct on this one point. However, pretty much everything we consume comes from outside of the continent already anyways. There are bigger problems that pertain to our North American lifestyle than those relating to where our electricity comes from. We continuously greed for the fastest and cheapest of everything, no matter what the external costs to society and the environment. While I could see this cap-and-trade system resulting in the export of even more jobs to foreign countries, I don’t think it is the fault of the plan so much as it is the fault of the North American people as a whole. Make a choice with your wallet and buy what little goods are still made within the continent and we will see those jobs comes back. Only consumers can change the market. Sarah can agree with that.

For so many reasons, we can’t afford to kill responsible domestic energy production or clobber every American consumer with higher prices.

The renewable energy sector is domestic energy production. Buying oil from the middle east is not.

Can America produce more of its own energy through strategic investments that protect the environment, revive our economy and secure our nation?

Please, oh please explain to me how mining for more coal and drilling for more oil is protecting the environment?

Yes, we can. Just not with Barack Obama’s energy cap-and-tax plan.

Wow. That was difficult. To be clear though, I’m not even much of a supporter of the plan proposed by Obama. So many concessions have already been made, so many loopholes, and so many freebies given to big polluters, that the bill has already failed to do what it was meant to do before even beeing enacted. For the most part, the bill is a greenwash effort so that the United States can say they are doing something about climate change. Sarah Palin though, does not have the answers. She’s not remotely close.

 





Algae to Energy: Update

14 07 2009
From: Huffington Post, 2009

From: Huffington Post, 2009

This is in addition to my post from June 30, 2009: Reuters News service as well as the New York Times, both stated today that Exxon, the largest western oil company, the same Exxon that has touted renewable energy as not economically feasible, the same Exxon that has supported evidence that denies human induced climate change, The same Exxon that called biofuels ‘moonshine’, may be coming over to the renewable side. We could see Exxon invest over $600 million in the production of fuels from algae. This investment would partner Exxon Mobil with biotech company, Synthetic Genomics. We shant get too hasty though, Emil Jacobs, Exxon’s vice president for Research and Development says we won’t see mass production of this fuel for another five or ten years. One question we may be prone to overlook, is why only $600 million? I know this sounds like a big number, but Exxon’s profits for 2008 were in the area of $45.22 billion. You’ve got to imagine that a larger investment might be able to push this techonolgy to mass markets in a shorter time frame. Yet, we still have to give some praise. If anyone should be investing in renewables, it’s the oil giants. They’ve got the money and power to do the research. Also, it follows that the oil giants will wean themselves off of oil ever-so-slowly once they start investing heavily in renewables.

More about this technology though. The Obama administration is looking for biofuels to make up 36 billion gallons of fuels per year by 2022. Corn-based biofuel only gets 250 gallons per acre each year and has been heavily criticized for doing more harm than good. Algae-based biofuel is able to produce 2000 gallons per acre each year. Still, this sure is a lot of land. A litte bit of math puts it at 18 million acres of land. There are options though. Algae can be farmed in areas unsuitable for crops. Also, it very well may be possible to farm it in sea water, though I can only imagine the possible negative effects of this.

So, with that all said, I don’t know if the winds are finally changing or Exxon just wants to control the future market, but this is news indeed for the renewable energy world. Lets just hope they don’t find a way to destroy the entire algae population or any coral reefs while they do it.

Reuters article: http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE56D0O120090714?feedType=RSS&feedName=environmentNews

New York Times article: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/business/energy-environment/14fuel.html?pagewanted=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

My original post: https://iaminformed.wordpress.com/2009/06/30/algae-to-energy/