My bad...

I'd officially like to withdraw my endorsement of Obama's oil windfall tax. After further consideration (and a look at history), I've decided a windfall tax would not be effective.

Oil Windfall Tax: A Good Idea

Reuters: Obama backs oil profits tax

Background
After gas prices skyrocketed pass $4 last week, and as they continue to head up this week, some may have been hoping for a quick fix in the style of the (completely useless) economic stimulus some weeks ago. In response to those concerns today, Obama pledged to raise taxes on windfall oil profits if elected. This position would be politically unsustainable for the simple reason that nobody wants new taxes in a time of an economic downturn, so Obama appended to his position that he would "use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."

Several weeks ago, a bill was blocked by Republican opposition that would have repealed tax cuts for oil companies and instead used the 10-billion-something-dollars to pay for tax rebates for renewable energy.

A good idea
If the plan Obama has proposed was enacted in coordination with the repeal of tax cuts, it would be a good move for the economy of the U.S., our long term safety, and our long term economic outlook. The windfall tax profit would have help boost the economy through its profits, but, as well, would raise gas prices, as would the repeal of tax cuts. Though that may damage the economy in the short run, in the long run, it would save much time in effort. First, if gas prices were higher, hybrids, all electric cars, and renewable energy would look much more attractive to the average consumer. Second, if some of the pain of fighting global warming is felt now, it won’t be felt later, when it could come in a large burst after the approval of a cap and trade program.

Bush Climate Plan Too Little Too Late, No Specifics

Background
President Bush, several months after the Bali climate conference, has announced the United States of America’s new climate policy: he wants our emissions to stop growing by the year 2025. That’s right, he wants them to stop growing. Not to go down, but to stop growing. Make sure you understand that part.

Also note, the president announced little (if any) plans that would actually stop emissions from growing.

Analysis
Now, there are principally three reasons for this:
1. To pressure China, India and other developing countries to start thinking about climate change
2. To speed up talks on a new international emissions treaty

Also, the initiative builds on the Administration’s new willingness to take a chance with an international treaty.

More needs to be done
This proposal obviously lacks any substance. First of all, only stopping emissions from growing by 2025 is too little, too late. The other problem, of course, is that Bush didn’t actually give any ideas on how to actually reduce emissions.

How Do We Convince the Public Global Warming is an Immediate Threat?

(Special Report) – Here in the U.S., we often take it for granted how cheap our gas is. Sure, the average price is around $3.04, which is much higher than what most folks are used to. But we really don’t realize how lucky we are; Europe and Asia have it off much worse.

For example:
• Turkey: $10.03 per gallon
• Norway: $9.6 per gallon
• United Kingdom: $7.72 per gallon
• Germany: $7.63 per gallon
• Italy: $7.30 per gallon
• Switzerland: $6.24 per gallon
(source)

The list goes on. The U.S. meanwhile, as mentioned, gets gas for around $3.04 a gallon. In China it’s twice as cheap: $1.51 (source).

There’s a pattern of sorts here: where the gas prices are higher, more is being done to combat global warming; where the gas prices are lower, little is being done to fight global warming.

And it makes sense too; it’s basic economics.

I even have a fancy name for this affect: the ‘Simmons effect’. As gas prices go up, environmentalism goes up. As gas prices goes down, environmental activism goes down.

What does this mean? Well, high gas prices are good for environmentalists. But more importantly, we as environmentalists need to recognize that until the public sees global warming and the energy crisis as an immediate problem, they will never put pressure on their governments to solve these problems.

So, the real question becomes this: how do we convince the public global warming and the energy crisis is an immediate threat?

Education, my friends. Education.

Note to Readers////FutureGen Clean Coal Plant

Hey - to anybody that subscribed to this RSS for political and geopolitical opinion and analysis: I've got a bunch of good posts about the 08 horse race coming up, along with a little bit of Putin and Turkey (tasty). In other words: don't unsubscribe yet!

--------------------------------
Chicago (TGW) – The FutureGen Alliance has selected a site in Illinois to be the location of its $1.5 billion clean coal power plant.

The plant will use advanced technology to capture and sequestrate carbon dioxide from the coal underground.

FutureGen includes companies from around the world and is funded by the Department of Energy to design and test technology that can turn coal into a gas that can be stripped of harmful emissions, then burned to produce electricity and hydrogen.

Uncertainty about CO2 emissions “"underscores the need for a public-private venture such as FutureGen to advance cutting-edge technology," said Michael Mudd, chief executive of the alliance.

Via :: Reuters

Energy Bill Phases Out Incandescent Lightbulbs, Increases CAFE Standards, and Expands Renewable Energy Mandate

The House has passed the energy bill passed in the Senate, which had been modified to take out $20 billion in tax breaks for clean energy.

But what are other key provisions of this bill?

CAFE increase
• Increases the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) to 35 miles per gallon by 2020
• Automakers can trade credits to achieve this standard
• According to government estimates, it could lower U.S. crude oil usage by 2 million barrels a day - 8% - by 2030 and save American families an average of $700 to $1000

Renewable Energy Mandate
• Expands biofuel mandate to 36 billion gallons by 2022, versus 6.5 billion gallons today
• Caps ethanol from corn at 15 billion gallons – the rest must come from cellulosic sources

Efficiency and Research
• Increases the efficiency of buildings, homes, appliances, and lighting, carbon dioxide emissions 75 percent, which will save homeowners an estimated $400 billion by 2030
• Incandescent lightbulbs phased out by 2020, cutting energy use from lightbulbs by 60%
• Requires dishwashers and cut water usage 28% and clothes washers by 40%
• Funds carbon sequestration research and renewable energy research

Bali: What was achieved?

On Wednesday we published an article, “What to Expect at Bali: Nothing, or Worse”. The good news is we weren’t wholly wrong in our predictions (you can still trust us). The better news is we were wrong in some of our predictions.

What wasn’t achieved
As we predicted, nothing on the scale of the Kyoto Protocol was produced. The European Union wanted a mandated 25%-40% carbon cut in developed nations, but the United States blocked any chance of that.

One ‘achievement’ that we predicted did not come into realization: a weak carbon mandate. We had predicted the possibility that the U.S could force the world into a weak, non-binding climate treaty, setting back the possibility of a real treaty probably more than a decade. Luckily, this type of treaty did not come into fruition. The U.S. had not even one country standing beside it by the end of the talks.

What was achieved
There still is a possibility for carbon caps. The deal sets a framework to create a subsidiary committee at the U.N. Views of the committee will be sought by April next year, and the deal commands a full carbon cap deal on the scale of the Kyoto Protocol be completed by the end of the 2009 U.N. Copenhagen summit.

This is the story the media is reporting, but they are missing the most important news to come out of this conference: the deforestation pact.

20% of anthropogenic emissions are from deforestation – it’s arguable the worst humanity has done for the planet. So when deforestation was barely mentioned in the Kyoto Protocol, many were surprised.

Delegates corrected that mistake this time around. A $300 million grant program was assigned to be created at the World Bank, to assist developing countries with planting new trees. The real achievement was REDD: reducing emissions from deforestation in developing countries, a pay-and-preserve program.

"It is one of the substantial achievements of this conference,” said EU Environmental Commissioner Stavros Dimas.

It’s not one of the substantial achievements; it is the most substantial achievement of the conference.

You can probably see why it is a good thing: we were wrong in saying nothing would be accomplished.

To infinity, and beyond?
The reason I’m quoting Buzz Lightyear (If you don’t understand the above quote, go out to Blockbuster right now and get Toy Story. Or order it on Netflix. I don’t care. Just do it. Now) is to ask, “Where do we go from here?”

Buzz Lightyear knows exactly where he is going, but do we?

The framework set out at Bali mandates a deal be completed by early 2009. For most of the short timeframe the Bali roadmap provides for a deal to be agreed upon, George W. Bush will be president of the U.S. He was willing to make concessions at this summit because essentially no countries stood at the United States sides. It showed that the U.S. is in fact vulnerable to international pressure

That means the real question is: will the pressure be maintained?

[POLL] What did you Think of the Bali Climate Conference

What did you think of the Bali climate conference?
	Disappointed
	In the middle
	Happy
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

What to Expect at Bali: Nothing, Or Worse

Written in coalition with Thoughts on Global Warming, Environmental Graffiti, Thoughts on the World, and The International Relations Blog.

The Bali climate conference taking place right now is one of the most important climate conferences, if not the most important, since the conference at which the Kyoto Treaty was designed. This conference has a potential to achieve something, relative to other recent conventions.

Throughout late 2006 and early 2007, global warming was high on the public’s mind, especially in the U.S. Global warming was an easy target; it could be blamed for just about any weather related disaster. And after the hurricanes of 2005 and skyrocketing oil and gas prices, the public needed something to blame. Not only that, but Inconvenient Truth was bring the real science of global warming into the eyes of the public. Al Gore was riding high. Many Floridians, who hurricanes had hit the hardest, were probably regretting a vote or two from a couple of years back.

This climaxed in early 2007, when negotiators from developing and developed countries announced the current climate convention in Bali, Indonesia.

So what can we expect at this year’s climate conference: nothing, or worse. That is my prediction – and give me a chance to back it up.

What?!?!?!
After May of this year, things started to cool down a little bit. Although oil prices skyrocketed in September and haven't come down, and sea ice hit a record low in August, there have been some disappointments. Number one: hurricanes.

Just as a disclaimer, I don’t live in Florida or down south (though I have at one point). Hurricanes are just such a huge natural disaster it can’t help but be noticed when an abnormally large amount of super storms hit. And people noticed in 2005 and 2006. But then this year, an uncharacteristically high number of intense storms were predicted, but they never showed. That’s only case number one. I’m sure I could find other examples, like ski resorts doing very good business this year, but I think I get my message across.

Let me say something else: though this has weakened public resolve to fight global warming, that doesn’t mean every environmentalist caught the plague. Public support for a climate solution is still stronger than it was 10 or even 5 years ago. But relative to a year and a half ago, global warming has fallen to the edge of the radar. It’s still there, but not as obvious.

This leads me to another point: the economy. The economy in the U.S., and therefore China, the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, is slowing down. Emissions cuts APPEAR to be hard enough to achieve in good times, but in bad economic times, there is less public (let alone political) support for emissions cuts. This is a much bigger issue than my first point, even if it is a shorter read – in other words, this is more important and don’t forget it!

This is evidence for my assertion that ‘nothing’ will be achieved at the climate conference, but you probably wonder what I mean when I say ‘or worse.’

Well, given the fact that the U.S. and China would like to get out of binding carbon caps for as long as they can, the governments could collaborate to produce a very weak climate framework. This framework would theoretically set unenforceable benchmarks for emissions. Once this framework would be in place, it would be unlikely to be replaced for several years. And during these several years, President Bush will be replaced, meaning that there is a possibility that the U.S. could soon have a totally different environmental policy during the lifespan of the framework. Not to attack the president over the top, but it would give him a legacy many would remember happily – until they see the effects of global warming really get going.

Top 5 Reasons Geothermal Energy Works

Part of a series


5. You can have one in your backyard.
The cost of having a geothermal system in, literally, your backyard, for a 4,000 square foot house is estimated to be $15,000 to $20,000. The payback would only take 5 to 10 years, as well. [reference]

4. Maintenance costs are low
Geothermal pumps have very few parts and require very little maintenance. Once up and running, the system can be mostly left alone to produce energy without the need to repair parts of the system.

3. The amount of land needed is low
Unlike nuclear power plants, wind farms or solar farms, a geothermal pump does not require much land. Like mentioned in #5, if you live in a suburb, you could install one in your backyard tomorrow. Larger pumps for commercial electricity generation have also been built, and those too require very little land.

2. Energy output is unaffected by changing weather conditions
Unlike wind power or solar power, there will always hot magma under the surface of the Earth. It’s predictable when one source is cooling down. You can’t predict when the wind is going to stop blowing.

1. It’s renewable
This is pretty self explanatory. Geothermal power produces no greenhouse gases, except in production of the machinery and in any possible maintenance.


The are only benefits. We haven’t talked about disadvantages. Why? Because there are very few. The three most common are:
1. They produce greenhouse gases during production and maintenance (though very few).
2. They could affect their surrounding environment (but they take up very little land).
3. If a system is too large for its site, the energy could dry up (so don’t make them too large…).


More Alternative Energy Series:


Why Corn Ethanol is Bad
The Temporary Solution: Coal
Nuclear Power: Energy of the Future or As Bad As Fossil Fuels
5 Reasons Solar Power Works
The Wind Power and Solar Power Combination
Another Look at Nuclear Power - Nuclear Waste
What's So Special About Hydropower and Hydroelectricity?
Top 5 Reasons Geothermal Energy Works

Fart Offsets

Written in correlation with Thoughts on Global Warming, Thoughts on the World, and The Statistics Monster.


Humanity is facing quite a serious epidemic: farts. Humanity’s gaseous eating habits are causing methane and CO2 to be released into the atmosphere. Your buttocks are like factories wearing pants.

The average human farts 12-18 times a day. That means, every day, the average human produces 45 milliliters of CO2 and 35 milliliters of methane. Methane, by the way, is 25 times as potent of a greenhouse gas as CO2.

That is a lot of gas. Therefore, my friends, I have come up with a solution to our flatulence-epidemic.

Every time one farts, one must turn off one lightbulb for thirty seconds to offset the greenhouse gases produced by one’s anus.

Simple as that. We don’t even need oversight or regulation. Just keep track for yourself, like the guy in the picture.

[POLL] Should Australia Sign the Kyoto Protocol?

Should Australia Sign the Kyoto Protocol?
	Yes
	No
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

Australia: The First Election Decided Because of Global Warming

300th post

Today, Australians went to the polls and voted for a new direction. They voted out the incumbent, John Howard, and voted in Kevin Rudd.

The opinion is held wisely that Howard was voted out because of his failing economic policies – wait, excuse me, I’m being handed a note by my producer. It appears that – no! Howard’s economic policies were hugely successful! High economic growth, low unemployment, relatively low interest rates, tax reform, a more flexible workplace, zero Government debt, excellent international credit rating, strong investment in defense force funding, the list continues. This is strange…

Why was Howard voted out? Because of global warming. Australia is the only major industrialized country other than the U.S. not to sign the Kyoto Protocol. Howard was the staunchest backer of the Bush administration’s environmental policy. Australians seem to be very displeased not with the economic direction of their country, but the environmental direction.

Why? One report suggests that Australia, because of its geographic position and natural climate, will be hit hard by global warming.

Okay. Maybe there were one or two other policies the Aussies didn’t like. Like his support of the Iraq war, and his decision to send troops there.

But it is pretty safe to say that one of the major issues this election was global warming. Hopefully, the environment will be just as important in other elections.

And the Candidate Least Like Me Is...

...Ron Paul. Surprise surprise Stat :D.

In the USATODAY quiz I took, none of my answers matched Paul's.

Chris Dodd was most like me, mainly because he agrees with me that the best way to solve global warming is through a carbon tax.

In Case of Global Warming

The outrageousness of climate 'skeptics':

Australia to Become Even Drier Thanks to Global Warming

Australia (TGW) - Global warming is going to take a heavy toll on Australia, already one of the driest parts of the world, according to a new report released by scientists at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO).

Australia is likely to be hit harder because it is already dry there.

The key findings of the report include that by 2030, temperatures will rise by about 1 degree Celsius over Australia – a little less in coastal areas, and a little more inland - later in the century. If emissions are low, warming of between 1 ºC and 2.5 ºC is likely by around 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 ºC. Under a high emission scenario, the best estimate warming is 3.4 ºC, with a range of 2.2 ºC to 5 ºC.

The report also indicates there will be changes in temperature extremes, with fewer frosts and substantially more days over 35 ºC.

Temperatures have already increased .9 degrees Celsius since 1950.

At low emissions of greenhouse gases, warming of between 1 degree Celsius and 2.5 degrees was expected by 2070, with a best estimate of 1.8 degrees, Whetton said.

At high emissions, the best estimate was warming of 3.4 degrees, in a range of 2.2 degrees to 5 degrees.

Other findings include increased droughts, increased evaporation rates, increased high-fire danger, stronger cyclones, and continued sea level rise.

Via :: Reuters :: CSIRO Press Release

Blog Action Day Linkathon!

Blog Action Day is today! Well, this blog already writes about the environment a lot (every post, actually), so today I thought I'd just link to many of the great other environmental posts.


DeSmogBlog: Questionable funding uncovered in the Al Gore UK High Court Case

The Daily Green: Grease 2010: Green Cars are Tomorrow’s Hot Rods

Celsias: Toyota in the Hot Seat

BIOstock Blog:Ending Obstructive Environmental Lawsuits

Environmental Graffiti: SimCity Adds A Global Warming Threat

Treehugger:Key Green Algal Genome Provides Insights into Carbon Capture, Better Biofuels Production

The Environmental Blog: Environmental Impact of Disposable Diapers

Alternative Energy Investing: Investing In Renewable Energy 101

About My Planet: Borrowing into Tomorrow

Green Business: Airline Goes Carbon Neutral

Fuel Ghoul: A Whale of a Cover Up: Pacific Oil Spills

BioFuels Digest: Mozambique green lights 30 Mgy sugar ethanol project, but is it wise?

Local Warming: SEC: consider investment risk from AEP settlement

The Ecoist Abode: Europe addressing climate change city by city

Polar Warming: Trouble at the dinner table?

Hydrogen POWER: Riding On Hydrogen In New Zealand

Hydrogen Cars and Vehicles Blog: Hydrogen Fueling Station for Show Me State

[POLL] Should Al Gore Run for President?

Should Al Gore run for president?
	Yes
	No
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

Chris C says: He isn't going to run because then we would have to disclose his finances. People would be very pissed off if they saw all the money he was raking in from global warming.

[POLL] Do You Support President Bush's Environmental Policy?

Do you support President Bush's environmental policy?
	Yes
	Heck no!
	Other
pollcode.com free polls

Bush Advisor: Global Warming Could Make Planet 'Unlivable'

Washington (TGW) - John Marburger, one of U.S. President George Bush's scientific advisers, said climate change is real and is likely caused by humanity.

He said he is 90% certain that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming.

"I think there is widespread agreement on certain basics, and one of the most important is that we are producing far more CO2 from fossil fuels than we ought to be. And it's going to lead to trouble unless we can begin to reduce the amount of fossil fuels we are burning and using in our economies,” he told the BBC in an interview.

"The CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere and there's no end point, it just gets hotter and hotter, and so at some point it becomes unlivable," he said.

"You only have two choices; you either have advanced technologies and get them into the marketplace, or you shut down your economies and put people out of work," he said.

The Bush administration has been resistant to joining the fight against climate change.

Via :: BBC (click here for the whole interview)