AP - No Need....to Save Planet, Says Blair
Regardless of the headlines on Tommy Lee this week giving up meat for the planet, Former Prime Minister Tony Blair says no to giving up meat.
Blair, said deforestation (not his meat) was responsible for producing four times as many as emissions as the airline industry (My guess is billionaire Branson of Virgin Airlines had no comment.)
Blair is right about one thing "the dangers of deforestation" but wrong about food balance as Branson was on ethanol and jet biofuels just a year ago...
"The destruction of tropical rainforests for conversion to farmland -- for meat and crops -- must be halted, and reversed," Blair stated.
"This is why I have called for G8 leaders to support efforts to reduce forest destruction and degradation," he said.
"Minimising emissions from agricultural sources will be an important part of efforts to limit climate change.
He was asked by one reader: "will you (therefore) go vegetarian and lead by example?" Blair replied: "This does not mean...give up meat."
Blair's views are like most millionaire leaders... it is not their responsibility to change, but to force it.
HD TV GAS 17,000 TIMES WORSE FOR PLANET THAN CO2
LCD TVs, praised as being greener than old-style tellies because they consume much less power, may actually be speeding climate change, a chemical expert has warned. ...a study claims that atmospheric quantities of the gas Nitrogen Trifluoride (NF3) are booming. NF3 is 17,200 times better at trapping heat in the atmosphere over a hundred-year period than is carbon dioxide, the best known greenhouse gas. NF3 has a characteristic moldy smell and is thought to be highly harmful to the liver and kidneys.
The chemical is used in the production of flat-panel displays which, in turn, are used to make today's TV screens. Prather believes that exploding demand for HD TVs around the world has created a huge need for NF3, and that's sending emission levels sky high.
The problem is, NF3 emission levels aren't being measured on the list of gases that should be tracked because at that time the compound's manufacture was miniscule.
What is happening with the future of oil prices ?
The hard facts on Oil Prices
- The world price of oil in US dollars has doubled in the last year (June 2007 to June 2008) from US$67/barrel to over US$135/barrel
- The world price has gone up by 6 times in 6 years, from US$20/barrel in 2002 to over US$135/barrel by mid 2008
- With hindsight we can see that the great cheap oil era lasted 16 years from 1986 to 2002 when the price was mostly in the range $15 – 25/barrel, coming off a $39 peak during the "oil shock" of 1980 (equivalent to about US$95/barrel in 2008 money). The short sharp spike seen at the end of 1990 was due to the first Gulf War.
Due to the growth in oil supply not keeping up with steadily growing demand around the world.
Oil is getting more expensive because surplus production capacity has diminished and continues to diminish, as shown in the chart on the next page. Oil industry volumes are of enormous scale (86 million barrels per day – a barrel is 159 litres), and the costs of supply infrastructure are in the billions and trillions of dollars.
Lead times for new industry infrastructure are typically 3 to 10 years. All new mega-projects on the production side are well known out as far as 2012, and few seem likely to boost global supply by enough to overcome declines in old oil fields. See the comprehensive listing of oil megaprojects at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_Megaprojects/2008.
The balance between growing capacity from new infrastructure investments and declining output from old infrastructure has seen global production capacity climb at a slower rate than consumption for the past 25 years, as shown in the following chart.
The analysis by Goldman Sachs in the next chart below suggests that price rises to date have already destroyed demand amounting to about 5 million barrels/day or 6% of current world consumption. Any further price rises may be expected to cause further demand destruction and consequent hardship for those being priced out of the fuel market.
Why shouldn't we get back to the $20/barrel we enjoyed in the 1990's?
It's simple – the world has used up practically all the easy "light sweet" crude oil that used to pour out of desert sands for $3 – 4/barrel and be easily refined into saleable products. Discovery of oil peaked more than 40 years ago – see the chart below.
Not only is it costing much, much more to find and extract each new barrel of oil (typically $60/barrel for new deep offshore wells) but most of the oil we can now get is shifting towards "heavy" and/or "sour" grades that require billions of dollars of new investment in refineries to process them.
"The oil is getting harder to extract. Most oil comes from ageing, waning giant fields discovered long ago. There are no more giant fields to find, only lots of small ones, difficult ones or fields deep under the ocean. The remaining crude oil is heavier, thicker, dirtier, quite simply cruder! It's difficult to get out, expensive to get out, slower to get out. So, the rate of oil extraction will decrease." Michael Lardelli on Perspective, ABC Radio National, 26 June 2008
There is no going back to $20/barrel short of a world recession that shuts down demand for oil, and for everything else.
This year many refineries have been finding it harder to buy oil of a grade they can economically refine, especially the 50% of US refineries located in the Gulf of Mexico who are suffering steep declines in overseas supply from their
The table below shows, for oil exporting nations, net export declines accelerating from 2006 to 2007. Monthly data for 2008 shows that the overall downward trend is continuing. It is the declining volume of tradeable oil on global markets that is causing steep price rises this year when we are seeing only moderate abatement of growth in global demand.
If declines in the supply of tradeable oil were not enough to create a tight market, buyers are reacting nervously to talk of attacks on Iran by Israel or the USA, and it only takes a rumour to send oil prices on another upward jump.
Critically, Saudi Arabia appears now unable to perform the role of market stabiliser that it played from the 1980's until the 2000's on the basis of its known ability to pump up to 20% extra volume at short notice. Depletion of Saudi Arabia's giant oil fields appears to have taken away its ability to help the world in this way, though the Saudis will not directly admit they no longer have this power.
It seems likely that since 2007 OPEC has lost effective cartel power because few of its members have the ability to pump more oil. This means the cartel as a whole can do practically nothing to bring down prices even though key members like Saudi Arabia have much of their wealth tied up in Western economies and are clearly concerned about damage to their own interests if oil prices go any higher – thus the Saudi conference held on the 22nd of June 2008.
So what happens next?
Price rises did indeed pause in mid-June after an astonishing $11 run-up on Friday 6th June. Traders may have been waiting for an outcome from the Saudi conference on 22nd June, which was soon seen to have provided little new knowledge or cause for optimism.
Game on. Futures topped $140 for the first time on 26th June.
So what will next week, next month and next year bring?
"Predictions are always difficult, especially about the future." Niels Bohr
There are essentially two patterns of oil price prediction being made by informed pundits:
- Ongoing steady price rises driven by the continuing supply-demand squeeze
- A big discontinuity caused by demand destruction of a major sort, followed by a short period of lower prices then a resumption of ongoing steady price rises driven by the continuing supply-demand squeeze.
"We are compelled to once again raise our target prices for oil. We are lifting our target for West Texas Intermediate by $20 per barrel to an average price of $150 next year and by $50 per barrel to an average price of $200 per barrel by 2010."
Pattern B – Price moves down then up on a rising trend
The other school of oil price projections makes the common-sense point that serious demand reduction and perhaps economic recession in some countries will be triggered when oil prices reach a critical level – when "demand destruction" becomes really destructive. Proponents suggest that such a free-fall in demand from one or more larger consuming countries such as the USA will be dramatic enough to drop price back to, say, US$100/barrel for a period of time.
Some writers guess that the critical price point to cause such sudden and significant demand destruction may be US$200 - 300/barrel, based on percentages of world GDP, but the accompanying analysis is weak and the arguments published to date do not convincingly pinpoint a critical price for oil above which it cannot go.
Conclusion: Stay awake, expect oil prices to be in dynamic movement.
Conservatively, plan for US$200/barrel by 2010, but don't be surprised if a recession somewhere drops price back to US$100, for a short while, or sudden war in the Middle East sends prices skyrocketing.
Expect the fundamentals of fading supply growth and growing demand to push prices ever higher in the 5 year horizon, perhaps well beyond US$300/barrel.
Finally, let's look on the bright side.
There is plenty to like about moderately higher oil prices, if communities, businesses and economies take heed and get time and help to adjust.
Less traffic, less congestion and less pollution would be a big plus for most of us.
New business opportunities should spring up in areas such as energy conservation, Natural Gas conversions, cleantech industries, electric vehicles and freight optimisation.
Having the world place a higher value on energy from oil will change a lot of business decisions, improving our resource efficiency and enhancing sustainability.
Read full guest post from anawhata at The oil drum
Parents Beware of The Drug Pushers...
Yes, Big Pharma wants to get your kids hooked on drugs as early as possible.
The Washington Post reported:
"In a further concession to the impact of the childhood obesity epidemic in the United States, a leading group of pediatricians is recommending that kids as young as 8 years old be given cholesterol-lowering drugs in hopes of preventing heart problems later in life. The academy is also recommending that children whose family history of cholesterol is not known, or who have risk factors for heart disease - have their cholesterol tested. The recommendations were published in the July issue of the journalPediatrics.
According to the recommendation, the best method for checking cholesterol is a fasting blood test. Children whose cholesterol is normal should have the test repeated every three to five years.
For those children older than 8 who have high levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol, doctors should consider giving them statins.
Shelov admitted that very little is known about the risks and benefits of using cholesterol-lowering drugs like statins in a large pediatric population.
Potentially, millions of children could be placed on cholesterol-lowering drugs, he said. 'At the same time, there needs to be a systematic look at the effects of these medications on children, because they do have side effects,' he added.
'If we are going to go ahead and do this, we're going to need guidelines on exactly who would warrant the therapy and careful measurement of any side effects,' Shelov said.
'It's possible that many children who start taking statins would not be on them for life.
But there is nothing to rule out the possibility that your children will be taking statin drugs for the rest of their lives. And if you watch the TV ads for statin drugs they caution that "these drugs are not recommended for women who are pregnant, nursing or who may become pregnant". So can you imagine the long term impact of these drugs will be on the reproductive system of little girls?
Parents consider the fact that there are no long term studies on the impact of placing a pre-pubescent child on statin drugs.
Consider the fact that many people on statin drugs experience side effects and need to take other drugs to treat the resulting ailments.
Consider the fact that the studies that propose that there is a direct correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease have come into question.
And finally, parents please consider the fact that if your child receives a healthy diet full of fresh fruits of vegetables, without fast foods and processed foods full of salt and sugar, and with lots of fun exercise, obesity probably won't be an issue.
The CBS evening news discussed the fact that there is no concrete evidence that statin drugs will prevent heart disease...
FrankenFruit - scientists engineer meal to make your day
SCIENTISTS say they have genetically engineered fruit and vegetables capable of providing most of a day's nutrients in a single meal.
Heading towards the market are potatoes with 33 per cent more protein content, modified tomatoes that could be capable of protecting against cancer and peanuts without the chemicals that cause deadly nut allergies.
Such foods, the first genetic modifications offering nutritional benefits to consumers, would be in marked contrast to the GM crops marketed to date. These were designed to boost the profits made by farmers and seed firms by raising yields or cutting costs.
Their attempted introduction to Europe in the late 1990s provoked a backlash from consumers suspicious at being asked to consume plants whose DNA had been "contaminated" but which offered them no benefit.
Plant scientists hope the new plants will reverse such fears.
"It's time to reopen the debate over GM crops," said Chris Leaver, professor of plant science at Oxford University and a long-term supporter of GM. "Earth's population will reach nine billion by 2040. We need crops that offer better nutritional quality, can withstand drought, use fertiliser more efficiently and resist diseases and pests. GM can contribute to achieving that."
Such claims will infuriate the green lobby, which sees the promotion of the new "nutritionally enhanced" crops as a cynical marketing exercise. Some scientists, however, have growing impatience with such views. They point out that the BioCassava Plus project is funded with a $12.4million donation from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation rather than a profit-hungry corporation, and say it could help ease food shortages in Africa.
"Who wants to eat a giant bowl of cassava or golden rice each day? These ideas are just a new way of marketing GM."
Charging a Electric car from household outlet could take 30 hours!
...an interesting note in the article from Greenwich Time is the length of time required to charge up the Roadster's battery. They note that charging the battery from a normal household outlet could take up to 30 hours. The Roadster's battery has a capacity of 53kWh. Tesla quotes a charge time of 3-3.5, but that is based on charging from a 220V 80A circuit. If, on the other hand, you plug the car into a typical outlet in your living room, you would only have 15A flowing at 110V. That's 53,000W / (110V * 15) = 32.12 hours. So if you plan to get yourself a plug-in electric car with any kind of serious range, be prepared to have an electrician install a high current outlet to charge it. At the very least you'll want a 220V/40A circuit for overnight charging in 6-7 hours. Source:
Greenwich Time
70mpg was possible in 1995
High fuel efficiency is a hot topic today, but people have been tinkering with miserly vehicles for a long time. Take GreenPeace, which started working on the "SmILE-Project" in the mid '90s. GreenPeace thought that if it was going to have to be cars that we use for transportation, they may as well be "Small, Intelligent, Light und Efficient" (hence, SmILE). Unveiled in 1996, the tweaked first generation Renault Twingo got dramatically better fuel economy and, had Renault followed up and put these into production, would undoubtedly be a huge seller today.
The vehicle itself is labeled with the words "First Aid for the environment - same performance, half the fuel usage." That's not an exaggeration. Before the work, the Twingo used 6.7 liters per 100 km (35mpg U.S.) and afterwards just 3.3 (71mpg U.S.). Thanks to Slim for the tip!
Yep-GM Read my blog and may bring small cars to U.S. market
Greenwire, 3 July 2008 - General Motors Corp., struggling to adapt to a fuel-scarce economy, may begin selling a tiny car normally reserved for Asian and Latin American markets in the United States.
The 138-inch-long Chevrolet Beat, which gets as much as 40 miles per gallon, would be the second-smallest car in the United States after Daimler AG's 106-inch Smart car.
"This is a very big change for GM," said John Wolkonowicz, an analyst at Global Insight. "They have no choice. There has never been as rapid a shift in consumer demand in the history of the auto industry."
GM reported its biggest annual loss in 2007 and has not turned a profit since 2004. The company's stock fell 15 percent yesterday -- bringing its current market value down to a tenth of what it was eight years ago -- and a Merrill Lynch analyst says that bankruptcy is "not impossible if the market continues to deteriorate."
Bush Vows To Remove Toxic Petroleum From National Parks
WASHINGTON, DCVowing to "restore the pristine splendor of America's natural treasures," President Bush Monday unveiled "Project: National Parks Clean-Up," an ambitious program to remove all toxic petrochemical deposits from national parks by 2004.
"Places like Yellowstone and Yosemite were once pure, unspoiled wilderness," Bush said at a White House press conference. "But over the course of the past 10 million years, we have allowed them to become polluted with toxic fossil-fuel deposits, turning a blind eye to the steady build-up of vast quantities of dangerous pollutants. It's time to end this terrible neglect."
To underscore the severity of the crisis, Bush produced a chart illustrating survey results for Yellowstone National Park, where a "staggeringly huge" toxic-petroleum deposit was discovered.
"This amount represents the equivalent of 40,000 supertankers worth of oil," said Bush, gesturing toward a line on the chart. "To put the dangers into perspective, consider this: If these 'petro-poisons' should ever spill out into the park itself, the resulting environmental disaster would be 40,000 times worse than the damage caused by the wreck of the Exxon Valdez."
"We cannot allow such a thing to happen," Bush said. "We must remove this oil now, before it's too late."
Under the Bush plan, 7.2 billion tons of toxic petroleum would be removed by the target date of January 2004. Unlike other federal environmental clean-up initiatives, administration officials say the plan would pay for itself, offsetting costs through the sale of petroleum byproducts produced as a result of the clean-up process.
The clean-up, EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman said, may even prove profitable, a prospect that has attracted the participation of private industry. Already, many U.S. companies have expressed interest in lending assistance, and it is hoped that these companies will carry out much, or perhaps all, of the clean-up effort.
"Nothing is more important than the legacy we leave future generations," Bush said. "The costs of this project pale in comparison to the importance of safeguarding our planet's ecosystem. Our primary mission must be to protect and foster our nation's most precious natural resource: oil. I mean, the environment."
Biofuels behind food price hikes: leaked World Bank report
Biofuels have caused world food prices to increase by 75 percent, according to the findings of an unpublished World Bank report published in The Guardian newspaper on Friday.
The daily said the report was finished in April but was not published to avoid embarrassing the US government, which has claimed plant-derived fuels have pushed up prices by only three percent.
Biofuels, which supporters claim are a "greener" alternative to using fossil fuel and cut greenhouse gas emissions, and rising food prices will be on the agenda when G8 leaders meet in Japan next week for their annual summit.
The report's author, a senior World Bank economist, assessed that contrary to claims by US President George W. Bush, increased demand from India and China has not been the cause of rising food prices.
"Rapid income growth in developing countries has not led to large increases in global grain consumption and was not a major factor responsible for the large price increases," the report said.
Droughts in Australia have also not had a significant impact, it added. Instead, European and US drives for greater use of biofuels has had the biggest effect.
The European Union has mooted using biofuels for up to 10 percent of all transport fuels by 2020 as part of an increase in use of renewable energy.
All petrol and diesel in Britain has had to include a biofuels component of at least 2.5 percent since April this year.
"Without the increase in biofuels, global wheat and maize stocks would not have declined appreciably and price increases due to other factors would have been moderate," the report said.
It added that the drive for biofuels has distorted food markets by diverting grain away from food for fuel, encouraging farmers to set aside land for its production, and sparked financial speculation on grains.
But Brazil's transformation of sugar cane into fuel has not had such a dramatic impact, the report said.
"The basket of food prices examined in the study rose by 140 percent between 2002 and this February," The Guardian said.
"The report estimates that higher energy and fertilizer prices accounted for an increase of only 15 percent, while biofuels have been responsible for a 75 percent jump over that period."
...neither candidate mentions science.
SCIENCE BUDGET: ROUND-OFF MONEY AVERTS LAYOFF.
As WN pointed out last week, $400 million in the $186 billion supplemental war spending bill, or about 0.2 percent, is for science. It's divided among four agencies. Still, it allowed Fermilab, the nation's top accelerator laboratory, to resume its research program and avoid the lay off of 80 employees. Fermilab has been paying employees from an anonymous $5 million gift since May. For the top high-energy physics research facility in the world's most powerful nation to be reduced to operating on private charity is a national embarrassment. We desperately need change in our science policy. Somebody's campaign slogan is "change," but neither candidate ever mentions science.
CHANGE: IT SOUNDS GOOD, BUT WHICH WAY IS IT GOING?
It is standard political lore that anyone seeking nomination must fish in friendly water. Once nominated, they should begin casting their lines in the direction of their opponent. So it is that having secured the nomination Obama is now trying to hook a few evangelicals, even calling for expansion of Bush's controversial faith-based initiative. His fund raising now targets the big fish rather than the ten-dollar mom-and-pop donations he boasted of during the nomination. Yesterday, according to the NY Times, Obama gave a talk in Fargo, ND in which he made his usual point that the United States cannot sustain a long-term military presence in Iraq, but then added that he might "refine" his policies on Iraq after he meets with American commanders in Iraq next month. This, I'm assured, is smart politics, but I liked him better when he wasn't that smart.
GETTING ALL OUR LEMMINGS IN A ROW
The G8 nations -- the world's eight richest countries -- will meet in Hokkaido, Japan next week to put the finishing touches on their plan to pass their carbon dioxide (CO2) problem along to all the world's children.
The G8 plan -- now fully spelled out in official documents -- is to bury carbon dioxide in the ground, hoping it will stay there forever, but in any case making it our children's problem, not ours.
The G8 is an exclusive club that includes Canada, England, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the U.S. Since 2005, the G8 has been systematically putting together the pieces of its CO2-burial plan, which will be endorsed again at next week's meeting in Japan.
Burying carbon dioxide in the ground is called "carbon capture and storage", or CCS for short. CCS is being promoted as a "silver bullet" to the global warming problem, as a kind of speculative bubble of expectations has developed around it. CCS has been used for 35 years on a very small scale in oil fields, to loosen up sticky oil and help force it to the surface (the CO2 comes back out with the oil). But on a large scale CCS is untested and untried. Despite this fact, CCS is the basis for claiming that "clean coal" is a viable energy option for the world's future.
The U.S. had been building a coal-fired power plant to demonstrate large-scale CCS (and thus "clean coal") at Mattoon, Illinois -- a project called Futuregen -- but runaway costs forced the federal government to abandon the project in January.
"We strongly support the recommendation that 20 large-scale CCS demonstration projects need to be launched globally by 2010..., 80 chief executive officers (CEOs) of transnational corporations issued their own endorsement of CCS as the "solution" to global warming. Their report, "CEO Climate Policy Recommendations to G8 Leaders, July, 2008" acknowledged that CCS is essential, but also that free markets would not provide CCS, so taxpayers would have to do it:
"For non-mature technologies, however, markets will not be sufficient and enhanced RDD&D [research development, demonstration and deployment] policies will have to be encouraged. Photovoltaics, fourth generation nuclear and the area of carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies for coal are good examples. Acceleration of the demonstration and deployment of a range of CCS technologies is particularly important because if all new coal fired electricity generation plants are not operating with CCS by 2015 to 2020 onward, it will be difficult to realize the target of 50% reduction in global emissions by 2050." (pg. 16, emphasis added)
Still, no one has ever addressed the most fundamental question about CCS: what would constitute a demonstration of "success?"
The plain fact is, if the goal is to bury CO2 forever, success will be impossible to demonstrate. On whatever day such a demonstration is declared a "success," leakage could begin the following day. So any such demonstrations will be meaningless. Everyone involved knows this is true.
To make a dent in the global warming problem would require burying trillions of tons of CO2 a mile our more below ground thus creating a reservoir of hazardous gas that could leak back into the atmosphere at any time and begin to cook the planet and acidify the oceans. Even if only 0.01% of it leaked out each year -- a suggested industry standard -- two-thirds would escape in 10,000 years. Even CCS advocates acknowledge that this would be a catastrophe. How could a leak of only 0.01% per year be measured? How could humans remain alert to this enormous underground threat for centuries to come? Even if 0.01% leakage were detected, could anything be done about it? Who would be responsible for taking action? Who would pay?
This raises the possibility that the G8's goal isn't actual scientific verification of the technology -- but 20 "demonstrations" intended merely to lull the public into thinking that it's OK to build more coal plants because somehow someday CO2 will be safely captured and stored forever. By the time this bit of fakery is widely understood, the present generation of CEOs and politicians will be long dead and all the world's children will be left holding the bag.
By definition, the G8's CCS plan is intended to force future generations to deal with the consequences of our present-day cupidity
-- a position that is morally indefensible.
Will U.S. Carbon tax $0.09 or $0.40 a gallon?
New Math: 2.3¢ carbon tax now means 10 ¢ a litre at Gas Stations.
Following British Columbians accepting that $100.00 carbon tax cheque from our Provincial government, today we will have cheque cashers remorse now that BC's New Math equates to not a 2.3 cent a litre Carbon Tax, but it seems area gas stations whose new math are now charging us 10 cents a litre more for gas which was supposed to only be a 2.3 cent increase. That is a full 40 cents a gallon more for gas. So the cheapest grade of gas is now a little over $6.00 a gallon, with premium approaching $7.00 a gallon. Aren't you glad your new Eco Friendly fuel efficient vehicle states use Premium Gas Only?
BC’s carbon tax is meant to encourage people to switch to a more energy-efficient and environmentally sensitive way of life; it is set to increase to 7.24 cents per litre [US$0.27/gallon US] by 2012.
Read more from by Barry Artiste at nowpublic
Could George Bush be right on Climate Approach?
Keith Johnson WSJ- So far, the U.S. has been vilified for dragging its feet and insisting that the world's biggest emitters of greenhouse gases, like China, take part in any scheme. The pressure is on for the G-8 to commit to big (and expensive) cuts in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050, even as political leaders everywhere are battling high energy prices that are already choking economic growth.
The counsel is to be thoughtful and patient when dealing with a problem that will last for centuries. Which is the same point Yale's William Nordhaus makes in his latest take on the economics of fighting climate change. He says that people like Al Gore and Britain's Lord Nicholas Stern who want drastic cuts right away would be throwing money away and doing no extra good for the environment.
Slow and steady with an eye to eventual technology breakthroughs, he says, cuts emissions all the same and saves money:
For example, the Gore and Stern proposals have net costs of $17 trillion to $22 trillion relative to no controls; they are more costly than doing nothing today. This conclusion does not mean that doing nothing forever is preferable to these proposals. Rather, it implies that it is not economically advantageous to undertake sharp emissions reductions (such as reducing emissions 80 or 90 percent) within the next two or three decades.
President Bush's latest climate-change plan is to throttle back growth in U.S. emissions by 2025, and then roll up the economy's sleeves when it will be presumably be easier and cheaper to make the transition to cleaner energy.
So here's the question: Is the U.S. stance on climate change simple foot-dragging, or smart economics?
Lubar & Co. Investing in a "Green" Wisconsin?
However, no follow up email, call or correspondence? Strange.
I wish Lubar & Co. all the success in the world in the finding the best energy and environmental investments. Concise and conservative investments in our environment and resources can be the salvation of current energy, economic and environmental problems.
And if they have any problems figuring it out, apparently they know who to call ;-)
Wisconsin Turtle Troubles...
Turtle regulations aim to minimize the decline of turtle populations
MADISON – Wisconsin implemented updated turtle regulations in 1998 in response to declining turtle populations, and a decade later, state biologists says these laws are even more important for the state’s turtle populations today.
Wisconsin has 11 different species of turtles, two of which – the wood turtle and Blanding’s turtles -- are threatened species and one – the ornate box turtle -- that is endangered.
Turtle harvest regulations can be found in the current Wisconsin Spearing and Netting Regulations. A write-up on all amphibian and reptile regulations including turtles (pdf) is available on the DNR Web site.
The turtle harvest season opens July 15 in Wisconsin, and state officials are emphasizing that populations of turtles in Wisconsin are continuing to decline, so people need to follow harvest rules strictly. The regulations are designed to allow for limited harvest during the open season.
“Turtle populations recover very slowly when adult mortality rates exceed 1 to 2 percent,” says Bob Hay, a herpetologist, or cold-blooded species specialist, with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. “Turtles are long-lived creatures under good conditions, but in today’s world, individuals turtles do not have the same opportunities to reach maturity and live a long life. The turtle regulations are designed to help minimize the loss of breeding adults and to provide the opportunity for more of the younger turtles to reach breeding age.”
The regulations were put in effect because of concerns with overharvest, but Hay notes there are other factors influencing turtle populations that are collectively causing significant concern for turtles.
“It takes 17 to 20 years or more for Blanding’s turtles to reach maturity, so a lot can change to render their upland habitat unsuitable or there can be more obstacles constructed that make getting safely to their nesting sites more difficult,” he says.
5 Passenger 62mpg Ford Fiesta - Not yours!
Ford Fiesta Econetic, 62mpg....
Ford is expected to debut an Fiesta ECOnetic, 1.6L TDCi turbodiesel cranking out 89hp. Helping the Fiesta minimize its fuel consumption will be a modified low-drag nose, side skirts, rear spoiler and wheels. Most of the grille will be closed off to push air around the car rather than through the engine compartment. The final drive ratio has been changed to lower the engine revs when cruising as well. The 2009 Fiestas, like their Mazda2 siblings, are lighter than the models that they replace. All of this adds up to 62.5mpg. That CO2 number is low enough to exempt the Fiesta ECOnetic from British road taxes and London Congestion Charges.
HAASE Comment - Is congress "really" working on reducing U.S. oil consumption... then send them a link to the "dozens of U.S. made five passenger cars that get over 45 mpg" that are NOT hybrids and cost much less than average.
Link:
HybridHype
Just to be clear: The U.S. makes these cars right now... and can save our economy and U.S. automakers and their supply chains 10,000's of American jobs by simply allowing these cars for sale.
I believe the only "conspiracy theory" is ignorance of the obvious that may not be as glamorous or profitable...
Labels: HybridHype
EPA informal e-mail not considered legal submission???? Dahh.
In a the news we see that the "White House officials refused to open e-mail from the Environmental Protection Agency, congressional staff said Monday."
What we do not hear is that they want "control without giving public notice and seeking public comment".
And that the EPA e-mail was not open because that is NOT the procedure for submitting regulations.
The e-mailed documents were sent to the White House Office of Management and Budget in December, staff on the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming said.
This was part of the environment agency's response to a landmark 2007 Supreme Court ruling that for the first time found that greenhouse gases can be regulated as a pollutant under the US Clean Air Act.
An administration official said EPA cannot conclude that greenhouse gases are pollutants that must be controlled without giving public notice and seeking public comment. Beyond that, the official said, EPA's "informal e-mail" did not follow long-standing procedures for submitting regulations.
Three months after the EPA's e-mailed documents were rebuffed by the White House, the agency's chief, Stephen Johnson, offered an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the subject of greenhouse pollution. This is an early and tentative step in the policy process that will likely push any action into the next US presidential administration.
Hard math on milk growth hormones
Growth hormones boost milk production and significantly reduce impact on the environment, US researchers said on Monday.
They said supplementing 1 million cows with the growth hormone recombinant bovine somatotropin or rbST would have the same effect as removing about 400,000 cars from the road or planting 300 million trees.
"That's a pretty substantial impact," said Dale Bauman of Cornell University, whose research appears in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Michael Hansen, a senior scientist with Consumers Union, said the study is based on a "false notion" that you can produce the same quantity of milk with less feed.
While it has been approved for sale by the US Food and Drug Administration since 1993, the hormone has been banned in Japan, Australia, Canada and parts of Europe. Opponents say it can have harmful effects on both the cows and humans who drink their milk.
Many US grocery chains in the United States have switched to milk suppliers that do not use the synthetic hormone, and Wal-Mart Stores Inc said in March its private label brand of milk would be sourced from suppliers that do not use growth hormones.
Cornell University paid for the study, done with the help of Roger Cady of Monsanto Co, maker of the bovine growth hormone Posilac.
The study focused on environmental, not safety, issues.
Haase Comment: Knowing this, I would require the dairy industry to "offset environmental impact" of the industry by planting the 300 million tree and still be hormone free. These paid studies are all a "numbers" game skewed for the benefit of the hormone investors... if the results were "negative", we would not see the report.
Research on NON FLATULENT producing animal feed would reduce "emissions" from 30-60%, or a "ten fold" benefit over this study... maybe they should invest in that.
Fewer Willing To Pay Premium For Green
According to a green survey from Rackspace Hosting (PDF), 44 percent of respondents are willing to pay more for green products and services this year; down significantly from the 59 percent of respondents that were willing to pay more last year.Also this year, only 28 percent are willing to trade server performance for lower carbon emissions. One significant increase in responses this year showed that 69 percent of respondents are still concerned and either looking for ways to reduce the impact their company has on the environment or actively addressing the issue; this up seven percent from last year.
“It’s interesting to see that customers still think green is very important, but today they may be less willing to pay more or trade performance for lower carbon emissions. Rackspace understands these concerns, and the economic pressure points, and is working diligently to leverage the available technology in ways that don’t impose additional costs on the customer,” said John Engates, CTO, Rackspace Hosting. “Since launching Greenspace last year, we have rolled out a number of energy efficient and environmentally sound products and initiatives and continue to look for new ways to be environmentally conscious.”
Read full from Environmental Leader
More greenwashers needed to stop "Green Noise"???
Amazing - GreenWashing market faulting that the "green noise" they have created... is the cause of consumers to be confused and need "green influencers to drive their marketing message"
New Study Finds Consumers Overwhelmed by Green Marketing, GreenWashing,
OAKLAND, Calif. -- Marketers aiming to shift their audiences toward making greener purchasing decisions are coming up short for the vast majority of the population... a nationwide study found that "nearly half of all respondents were essentially unable to name one feature of a green home, and small portions of the remaining sample cited examples like solar power, CFL light bulbs, home recycling or Energy Star products."
"Consumers seem to think green homes are an all-or-nothing proposition -- and because of the real and perceived costs, many are throwing their hands up and saying 'I just can’t do all of this'," said Shelton Group CEO Suzanne Shelton.
One example Shelton offered was that 71 percent of responses to that aided question said solar power -- "one of the most expensive home upgrades for energy efficiency that can be made," Shelton said -- was a requirement of green living. ... most individuals are unclear as to how they can go green in realistic and achievable ways, "Newly eco-conscious consumers face a daunting and confusing set of choices, as well as complex issues that must be factored into any assessment of a product's sustainability," said David Zucker, the director of CauseWorks, Porter Novelli's sustainability division. "If marketers do not reach Greenfluencers , Greenwashers who have the interest and ability to influence the rest of us, their marketing messages may be lost in a sea of green noise."
110 mpg safe family car in 1984
The Citroën ECO 2000 was much more than just an exercise in styling. Developed during the period 1981 to 1984, it was used to research economical, low weight, low drag cars intended for the next millenium. 
Many of the lessons learned were applied to the forthcoming AX ECO 2000 was part of a 50% French State funded programme to build a car capable of achieving 2 litres per 100 km fuel consumption. 
SL 10 weighed 450kg and was powered by a three cylinder 750 cc engine developed from Fiat's Fire 1000 developing 35 bhp at 4 750 rpm. The first prototype (SA 103) empoyed a rear mounted twin cylinder engine but subsequent versions had the engine mounted at the front and front wheel drive. Read full here
Labels: HybridHype
Low Tech Magazine Nails problems with CO2 trading and storage...
All high-tech carbon storage strategies described in this article are no solutions, they are just attempts to limit the problem. Let’s hope that the next appeal of the International Energy Association and of the Science Academies of the world (an awful lot of brains there) will contain a trace of innovative thinking. (Article Link)
Short answer to: Why introduce yet another expensive, energy-intensive and risky technology if there are so many other and better ways to solve the energy crisis? If we chose to build a completely new infrastructure of pipelines comparable to that of the existing oil and gas industry, why not build something like an extensive underground tubular freight network instead? This would be a real solution, which would considerably lower transport energy use and CO2-emissions.
Why not channel the huge amount of money needed for the development of CCS to countries with tropical rainforests, so that they have a very good reason to protect them fiercely? Stopping deforestation, especially in tropical forests, would contribute more to the fight against global warming than carbon capture technology could ever do. Tropical forests store enormous amounts of carbon and they are not prone to natural forest fires.
"Halting deforestation in tropical forests would contribute more to the fight against global warming than capture technology could ever do."
Long answer to the problem the Carbon Capture and Trading Scams below:
Capturing CO2 from the smokestacks of power stations with the intention of storing it in underground reservoirs, oceans, rocks, consumer products, chemicals or fuels has gained a lot of credibility recently. Yet capturing, transporting and storing carbon dioxide raises energy consumption considerably and brings with it serious health and environmental problems. The benefits, on the other hand, are shadowed in doubt.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A 50 percent increase in energy consumption is the last thing that the world needs."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attractive idea
The idea of carbon capture and storage (CCS) – first introduced in the 1970s - is attractive at first sight. Capturing CO2 from smokestacks has been a common practice for many years, for the purification of natural gas or at ammonia production facilities for instance. Injection and storage of carbon dioxide is happening already in the North Sea, in Algeria and in Texas. In these cases, CO2 is injected into oil and gas reservoirs in order to extract more fossil fuels than would otherwise be possible, a process called Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR). For some of these applications, carbon dioxide is transported by pipeline or by ship.
A complete CCS infrastructure has not been demonstrated yet (all CO2 used for enhanced oil recovery is commercially produced or originates from other sources than power plants, and present capture techniques do not capture CO2 for storage but emit the gas in the atmosphere). Yet, since all the individual parts exist, this does not seem to be an obstacle either.
Energy penalty
The problem at hand is that the process of capturing, transporting and storing carbon dioxide requires a vast amount of energy. If this energy were to be derived directly from fossil fuels the benefits of the CO2-savings by capture and storage will be offset by the very same energy intensive process. If the energy were to come from renewable sources the technology is rendered unnecessary as it would be much more efficient to generate electricity directly from the renewable source.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If fuel use of electricity generation rises by 50 percent, the same goes for air pollution from coal plants and for the ecological consequences of coal mining. Storing the CO2 does not solve that."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capturing CO2 from smokestacks is the most energy-intensive part of the process. According to the International Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which devoted a comprehensive study on the technology 3 years ago, capturing technology (including compression for further transport and storage) raises the energy consumption of a coal plant by an average of 32 percent.
A coal plant equipped with CO2-capture technology would thus need 32 percent more coal and other resources like water, chemicals and reagents to produce the same amount of electricity than the same power plant without this technology. Carbon capture technology forms a symbiosis with coal as a fuel (“clean coal”), since burning coal emits twice as much greenhouse gasses than burning gas. Capturing CO2 from a gas power plant requires less energy but is of not much use.
Pipeline infrastructure
This 32 percent does not include the energy needed to mine, process and transport the many thousands of tonnes of extra coal, and it does not include the energy needed for the construction of the capture, transportation, storing and monitoring infrastructure either.
It is insufficient to simply place the smokestacks of a coal plant upside down as suitable underground reservoirs do not necessarily lie beneath the world's power stations. A carbon capture and storage infrastructure requires a transport infrastructure consisting of pipelines (and tankers) that rivals the existing oil and gas network.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing and installing these thousands of kilometres of stainless steel pipes will require a substantial amount of energy. Also, the transport by ship or pipeline itself requires energy, and so does the injection of the CO2 in underground reservoirs and the monitoring of the whole transport network (today’s pipelines are patrolled by plane every two weeks).
Everything taken together, CCS will probably raise energy consumption by as much as 50 percent.
There are losses during transport, too. According to the IPCC these are 1 to 2 percent per 1,000 kilometres of pipeline transport and 3 to 4 percent per 1,000 kilometres of ship transport (the ship's fuel use included). Carbon dioxide is also not the only harmful effect of power generation. Burning coal brings serious air pollution and produces waste, both of which will also rise by at least 30 percent. The same goes for the ecological damage of coal mining, which is devastating. Storing the CO2 can never prevent this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Turning CO2 in plastics
However, even though the amount of chemicals and plastics we produce is enormous, as a carbon sink they are all but meaningless.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Myth - "If all polycarbonates and polyurethane would be produced by means of CO2 this would only store the emissions of 3 coal power plants."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the IPCC, producing all polycarbonates and polyurethane by means of carbon dioxide would store 3.3 million tons of CO2 – comparable to the annual emissions of just 3 coal power plants. China is building one coal plant per week (in large part to produce cheap goods for us to buy) and there are more than 100 coal plants on the drawing board in the US.
What makes this approach even more useless is that these consumer products and chemicals have a relatively short lifespan, from a few months for fertilizers to some decennia for plastic products. When the fertilizers are used, or when the DVD’s end up in the incinerator, the CO2 goes back into the atmosphere.
Burning algae
Using CO2 as a feedstock for algae and then turning it into biofuel - another idea that is hyped these days - faces the same problem. It only delays CO2-emissions for a very short time. The carbon dioxide is converted into fuel which is further burnt in a car engine.
It is impossible to capture CO2 from car engines since the gas is too heavy (your car would gain serious weight while driving, and it would have to pull a trailer to store the large volume of carbon dioxide).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Turning CO2 into algae could be an interesting strategy if we bury the algae instead of burning them in our car engines. However, that’s not on anyone’s mind."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One could argue that at least the CO2 is recycled and that we are using the by-product of electricity generation to make fuel – which means that we don’t have to dig up more fossil fuels to make gasoline. However, this argument does not take into account the fact that much energy (and water) is lost in the conversion process.
Firstly, there is again the energy penalty of CO2 capture from the smokestacks, on average 30 percent. Next, you have to build a huge infrastructure to produce algae (since their energy efficiency is 100 times smaller than that of solar panels) and furthermore there is the energy that gets lost during the process of turning algae to fuel. If there is net energy gain in the end, it will be small.
Turning CO2 into algae could be an interesting strategy to reduce CO2-emissions if we store the algae underground instead of burning them in our car engines (thus avoiding the energy-intensive process of converting them into fuel). However, that’s not on anyone’s mind.
Atomic waste, meet your rival
Carbon capture technology is expected to become more energy-efficient in the future. But that would make the whole scheme hardly more attractive. Storing carbon dioxide in underground reservoirs (the only realistic option) is risky, not unlike the storing of atomic waste.
CO2 can escape. High concentrations of the gas are lethal to plants, animals and humans. Eventually the gas thins in the atmosphere but during escape concentrations can build up fast, especially since CO2 is denser than air. At concentrations above 2 percent in ambient air, carbon dioxide has a strong effect on respiration (the normal concentration in fresh air is 0.033 percent). At concentrations from 7 to 10 percent, it kills.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"If CO2 escapes from storage reservoirs, the whole energy-intensive operation of capturing, transporting and storing it was all for nothing."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small impurities in the gas make it lethal at even lower concentrations. Similar amounts in the soil kill vegetation and make groundwater unsuitable for drinking or irrigation. And of course, if CO2 escapes from storage reservoirs, the whole operation of capturing, transporting and storing it was all for nothing. The result is a considerable rise in emissions, because of the energy penalty involved (the energy use of the whole process can go down, but it will never come close to zero).
Real solutions, please
Why not put into force a regulation that prohibits the construction of any more power plants that burn non-renewable energy sources? There is already an enormous energy capacity in the world, why don’t we chose to do it with the energy plants that we have? This would at last make energy efficiency useful (because progress in energy efficiency is now always again nullified by new and more energy hungry products and services). Still want more energy? Build a solar plant or plant a windmill.
These are just 3 ideas that would be effective without the need to adapt our lifestyle (which is, of course, also the attraction of "clean coal"). They would not solve everything, but at least they would be very welcome steps into the right direction, the direction of a solution.
Read full here by Kris De Decker
Hybrid Not Providing Expected ROI
ABI Research asserts that operators need to carefully evaluate the costs and benefits of hybrids...
With daily media coverage and marketing messages from vehicle manufacturers, it is easy to assume hybrids are the solution.
The facts, however, suggest something else: that the return on investment can vary dramatically depending on factors such as the type of hybrid, cost of fuel, and the typical usage cycle.
"...operators should beware of the hype to ensure that fuel economy improvements occur for their typical drive cycles," continues Alexander. "Drivers with the most to gain will be operating on a frequent stop-start cycle, and, depending on the existing powertrain, may benefit from a mild hybrid retrofit.
"The main fuel economy benefit from hybrid technology comes from the capture and reuse of kinetic energy," says David Alexander, ABI Research principal analyst. "Two central forms of storage under development and available at present are hydraulic and electrical. Both require significant investment in additional systems, so realistic evaluations and estimations must be made as regards fuel savings in order to calculate the benefits." read more here Labels: HybridHype
