The solar panel/tortoise conundrum

Nothing is ever easy. Convincing the public that global warming is a reality and alternative, renewable sources of energy are paramount is difficult. Preserving endangered species of flora and fauna without bringing progress to a grinding halt is another hard-to-sell idea.

What happens when the two are combined?

For the answer to that, we turn to the Mojave Desert, where Oakland, Calif.-based BrightSource Energy is pushing to erect 400,000 mirrors to gather the sun's energy in an effort to meet the state's goal of using sustainable energy for a third of it's overall energy needs.

So far, so great, right?

Well, there's a hurdle in the form of a turtle. Or, to be more scientifically accurate and precise, the desert tortoise, an endangered species whose main habitat is smack in the middle of where BrightSource wish to build its solar farm. This would result in the tortoises' living space being permanently eradicated.

A baby desert tortoise

The Sierra Club wants the company to relocate the project, which would also effect the Western burrowing owl and bighorn sheep.

"It's actually a good project," said Ileene Anderson of the Center for Biological Diversity, based in Tucson. "It's just located in the wrong place."

Unfortunately this will not be the first time such a dilemma is encountered and so it seems some sort of precedent should established and precedent be reached.

The site is optimal for BrightSource; it has virtually unbroken sunshine year round.

What is likely to happen is that BrightSource will have to spend $25 million moving the shelled critters and 12,000 acres elsewhere. This may seem a hefty price to impose on a company doing such forward-thinking work, but endangering the tortoises any further beyond moving them is not an option.

The disagreement comes down to what BrightSource would pay for long-term maintenance of the new tortoise land purchased.

It will probably be months before state and federal regulators determine the final fate of the desert tortoise.

Drawn from an AP article by Michael R. Blood.

Denialists "smear campaign" leads Obama advisor to resign

I'm too irritated to write anything on this.

I'll let Democracy Now tell the story.

Please sign these petitions

The right wing is working to support dirty, antiquated energy policies. Among them are Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh who have joined forces with ExxonMobil and other obstructionists to fight meaningful climate warming legislation.



Urge your Senators to resist the obstructionists and pass a strong global warming bill.

The U.S. House has already done its part and passed a bill that would set a legal limit on America's global warming pollution. Now it's the Senate's turn.

But the right wing has millions in dirty money, and with America's clean energy future at stake, we need your help.

Don't let Palin and Limbaugh bring back the "Drill-Baby-Drill" mantra. Send a letter to your Senators urging them to support the strongest possible global warming bill.

Thanks for taking action!

The link above shows many listings for climate petitions sign one or all of them, PLEASE! You may need to register first, and you will be informed of many important progressive petitions and news stories. It is not spam!

Company information below:

Care2.com, Inc.
275 Shoreline Drive, Suite 300
Redwood City, CA 94065

Congress votes in favor of natural gas research

Yes, Mr. T. Boone Pickens' natural gas company stands much to gain, but in the long run, in the face of the increasing rarity of petroleum both domestic and foreign, the actions of Congress are welcome.

It has already been a great week for natural gas and the Pickens Plan.

Yesterday, another piece of legislation promoting the research and development of natural gas-powered vehicles—H.R. 1622—was passed by the House of Representatives. As CQ Today noted in the coverage of the bill, “Oilman T. Boone Pickens has been crusading for a switch to greater use of natural gas vehicles, as a centerpiece of his campaign to reduce dependence on foreign oil. His plan has been winning growing support from members of Congress, including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.”

The bill, sponsored by Rep. John Sullivan of Oklahoma (one of the original co-sponsors of the NAT GAS Act), provides $30 million per year for natural gas vehicle research from 2010 to 2014 and directs the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection Agency to focus research on commercial vehicles. The legislation also charges those agencies with developing procedures and national standards for the vehicles and for natural gas fueling stations. A special thank you goes out to Representative Sullivan for being a leader in the nation’s fight to reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The vote? It was overwhelmingly in favor of the bill, 393 to 35. It was a huge victory. It’s further evidence of the fact that Members of Congress are recognizing the tremendous benefits of natural gas: it’s clean, it’s abundant and, most importantly, it’s American. Army, you’re really making a difference by reaching out to your elected officials.

This was a great achievement but we need you to keep up the momentum to get the NAT GAS Act—H.R. 1835 and S. 1408—passed by both chambers of Congress and signed by President Obama into law this year. Take a minute to send your Member of Congress an email asking them to become a co-sponsor of the NAT GAS Act. Click here to send an email today.

-- From Team Pickens

G8 Climate Change promises insufficient, says UN

Ban Ki Moon, the current Secretary-General of the U.N. says the commitment to reduce emissions by two percent is not enough to counter current global warming trends, according to Political Affairs.net.

HAVANA, Cuba, Jul 9 (acn) Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, today said that the goals agreed to by the members of the Group of the eight most industrialized nations of the world (G8) are insufficient to counter climate change.

The climate problem brings along a responsibility, which is historical and mandatory for our planet’s future, Ban Ki-Moon told the press at the end of the G8 Summit, held in the Italian city of L'Aquila.

The main industrialized countries decided to reduce global warming by two percent, amidst huge demonstrations on the city’s streets demanding a greater commitment from those governments to mitigate the effects of climate change and the economic crisis.

In the summit, heads of state and ministers from Germany, Canada, The United States, France, Great Britain, Italy, Japan and Russia agreed to a 50-percent reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, EFE news agency reported.

UN figures point to these countries as responsible for 80 percent of the gases launched into the world atmosphere; therefore, they are the ones to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, which is one of greenhouse gases.

According to the UN data it is necessary to strengthen bank regulations and promote reforms of international financial institutions, in order to cushion the effects of the economic crisis and the food situation on the planet.

From the Cuban News Agency

Others, however are heartened by the fact it was discussed at all, according to cbsnews.com, though even there, it is referred to as a "half-measure."

Why? Because no solid plan of action was agreed upon.

The most exciting thing about this week's G8 meeting in l'Aquila in the hot and sunny mountains of Italy was that it managed to say something new and important.

Contrary to last year's summit in Japan, G8 leaders at this year's summit managed to produce two pieces of news on climate change: First they acknowledged the scientific view that global temperature increases should be limited to two degrees Celsius. Secondly they agreed that the developed countries should reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 80 per cent or more by 2050. G8 leaders have never agreed on this before.

If the leaders are serious about what they agreed - and I wouldn't dream of suggesting that they are not - this sets a new, clear direction for the international efforts to combat climate change.

The reference to the science on 2 degrees limit indicates that science must be the basis for where we set our level of ambition on climate change. And the agreement to reduce emissions by 80 per cent in 2050 puts us into the right order of magnitude. WWF would like to see even higher ambitions that would further limit the disruption to our climate system, but this is an important new starting point, and it creates a common, global language on what we are aiming for.

And this was not limited to the developed countries in the G8. Thursday, the same agreement on limiting temperature increases to 2 degrees was also reached in the Major Economies Forum, meaning that developing countries such as Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Mexico, and South Africa, are now part of this new, global language. Like all countries, they have felt the impacts of climate change and they do not want to miss the narrow window of opportunity available for limiting future damage. They agree on the ambition to limit warming to 2 degrees, and they know of course that there is no way that we can achieve it, without serious climate action on their part as well.

So all the important players agree what the game is we are playing. That's important! Why is it then that I'm only half excited?

My main concern is that the G8 leaders still haven't said much about how they will translate this long-term, principle agreement into the immediate action needed to fulfill the vision. As a group, they have not committed to anything near the level of emissions reductions needed in the short and mid-term. And they have presented very few ideas on what funding they are going to contribute to African countries and other developing countries for adaptation to climate change and for climate action and emissions reductions. What they are offering to the poorest countries in the world, is a little bit like a rich friend's postcard from a 5 star resort saying: I wish you were here.

However, in a surprise move on Thursday, President Obama presented an idea that may help resolve this issue. He got the heads of state at the Major
Economies forum to ask their Finance Minister, or Secretary of Treasury, to come up with ideas on finance for developing countries and to report back to the upcoming G20 meeting in Pittsburg in September. So now we have a process and a timeline that may help us break one of the major deadlocks in the global negotiations on climate change. All eyes will now be on Pittsburgh.

There was also some progress on technology, which is another of the key building blocks in the climate negotiations. The Major Economies Forum agreed to double public funding for research and development of green technologies. They also agreed to a series of country-led initiatives on specific technologies like solar power, smart grid, energy efficiency and advanced vehicles. By November, we will have proposals for roadmaps and action plans for these technologies, and if done well, they can become very important for a global climate agreement.

Progress is still not fast enough but the positive steps on long term vision and on finance and technology in the Major Economies Forum mean that an ambitious global climate deal in Copenhagen is still mission possible.

Notice the difference in language and numbers? This is a reflection of the complexity of the problem. However, through human ingenuity, I have faith that things will work out. Let's just hope no more species go extinct and no one else dies as a direct cause of warming. Wishful thinking, I know, but one can dream. That said, I do believe the denialists will eventually come around.

They can't ignore facts forever.

I hope.

The Catastrophist

The June 29th issue of The New Yorker contains a feature on James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in NYC. He is also one of the leading experts on climate change on the planet.

He earned the job through the Ph.D. in physics he received from the University of Iowa where he wrote his dissertation on the atmosphere of Venus, a planet that illustrates the Greenhouse Effect to the nth degree.

Beginning in 1981 he became the director of GISS and later that year forecast that the decade would be peculiarly warm. That prediction came true. He went further to say that the 90s would be even warmer. Right again.

Narrowing the issue, he bet a roomful of scientist that 1990 or one of the two following years would be the warmest on record. According to the article, "Withing nine months, he had won the bet."

During the Bush administration, the White House "insisted that all communications between GISS and the outside world be routed through political appointees at the agency." This is one of the policies that led Howard Dean to accuse the administration of bullying scientists when it came to discussing gloabal warming or the milder term, climate change. He was also forbidden from giving a "routine interview" on NPR.

Not that the Obama administration is doing much better. He gave a letter to John Holdren, a friendly acquaintance of Hansen's and Obama's chief science advisor.

The letter read, in part:

"'A stark scientific conclusion, the we must reduce greenhouse gases below present amounts to preserve nature and humanity has become clear. It is still feasible to avert climate disasters, but only if policies are consisitent with what science indicates to be required.'"

In a later email, Holdren stated he could not discuss "'what I have or haven't given or said to the President.'"

Hansen said he hopes that Obama grasped "the reality of the issue and would seize the opportunity to marry the energy and climate and national-security issues and make a very strong program."

"'Maybe he still will, but I'm getting bad feelings about it.'"

Yes, the Earth has undergone climate fluctuations, but what is happening now "is that climate history is being run in reverse and at high speed, like a cassette tape on rewind.'" (I won't go into the obscolence of that statement.) It continues: "Carbon dioxide is being pumped into the air some ten thousand times faster than natural weathering processes can remove it."

While ice sheets won't melt overnight, when they do, "sea levels will go up two hundred and fifty feet. So [it can't happen] without producing a different planet."

There is no specific term for the human footprint on the environment, but scientists and policy-makers have come up with "dangerous anthropogenic interference."

CO2 is already at a dangerous level - 385 parts per million, 35 ppm over the hazardous level. One way to fight this is to cut off coal. Clean coal plants could curb this but "for a combination of technological and economic reasons, it's not clear that [this will ever happen]."

The amount of summer ice on the Arctic ice cap is "only a little over half what it was just 40 years ago."

As a result, "highly populated areas, including the Southwest and the Mediterranean basin, are likely to suffer more and more frequent droughts." I live in Texas. I can testify to this firsthand.

And although John Holdren has been wishy-washy on his communication (or lack thereof) with the president, he does say:

"'Any reasonably comprehensive and up-to-date look at the evidence makes clear that civilization has already generated dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system."

And Steven Chu, Nobel Prize-winning physicist and current Energy Secretary, said in a speech, "'There's enough carbon in the ground to really cook us. Coal is my worst nightmare.'"

Hansen also states that "'Almost everyone in the scientific community is prepared to say that if we don't do something now to reverse the direction we're going in we either already are or will very, very soon be in the danger zone.'"

Rather than the current cap-and-trade system now facing a Senate vote, he suggests direct taxes on emissions and distributed back to Americans on a per-capita basis. This would mean that "households that use less energy would actually make money." Those that use more would soon find it prohibitively expensive. (This would be a good place to encourage solar panels or wind generators for the home and business.)

Hansen feels the best thing to happen to the cap-and-trade bill would be to fail so that Congress would have to "'come back and do it more sensibly.'"

He argues that politicians "willfully misunderstand climate change." By the same token, "it could be argued that Hansen just willfully misunderstands politics."

A conumdrum either way, a sympathetic lawmaker recently approached Hansen and said, "'I assume you're used to telling policy-makers the truth and then having them ignore you.'"

'"You're right,'" was Hansen's reply.

What does the climate bill mean?

The Associated Press' Dina Cappiello and Eric Carvin have given readers a brief overview of what cap-and-trade, offsets and pollution credits actually mean. Rather than re-word it here, I direct you to the Houston Chronicle's site:

Questions and answers about the US climate bill

Tomorrow, a rundown of a New Yorker article about James Hanson, NASA's climate expert and a scientist that predicted the current warming trends over 30 years ago, starting when he working on his Ph.D. in physics at the University of Iowa. His dissertation? The atmosphere of Venus. (Hint: it's primarily CO2 and HOT! - even hotter than its proximity to the sun would explain and a prime example of the greenhouse effect.)

It's a couple years old now....

but I wrote this for a UT Libertarian magazine in 2007. It was in the wake of Molly Ivins' death and was meant to capture her spirit but it addresses the theme of this blog:

He actually said it.

During January’s State of the Union address, the current president of the United States [George H.W. Bush] actually admitted that the doomsayers, dirty stinking hippies and celebrity pundits may just be right about this whole crazy global warming thing. After years of denying statistics, the administration is finally opening its eyes to the signs of climate change.

The [then] president stated goals that included cutting oil consumption by a fifth by 2017, which would reduce our independence on foreign oil by a projected 75%. The math seems a little wonky to me, but I ain’t no economist, so I’ll take it at face value.

Ignoring ambiguity, the proclamation does make sense. After all, most major oil companies have begun extensive research into alternative energy, so as the titular head of both the country and the oil community, the [then] current president of the United States was sure to follow.

Such was not always the case, however. In a [not so] recent report to the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, it was alleged that pressure had been placed on scientists to avoid apparently loaded phrases like “global warming” and “climate change” when reporting findings.

Democratic Party Chairman, Howard “Scrappy” Dean, went so far as to accuse the current administration of “bullying scientists” on CNN’s “Situation Room”.

So, until [not so] recently, the administration wanted, sometimes forced, scientists to lie to Americans and the world. Over 150 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol, a United Nations sponsored agreement designed to reduce fossil fuel emissions to their pre-1990 levels. The US signed the accord, but did not ratify it.

The worst part of it is, the decision to fly in the face of facts had nothing to do with public safety - it wasn’t a safeguard against mass hysteria. They just wanted America to keep consuming.

This isn’t the first time a scientist’s findings have been suppressed by the arrogant and power-mad to protect their power. Nicolaus Copernicus was branded a heretic in the 16th century for making the blasphemous assertion that the Earth was not the center of the known universe.

Such hubris was not unheard of; he wasn’t the first person to make this claim. Normally one who did so would be punished forthwith and severely, but Copernicus came from a good enough family that he was somewhat protected and even enjoyed readership by Catholic luminaries until it caused dissension.

He died, disgraced among students and friends before seeing the final edition of his works published.

Even though the Church recognized the validity of Copernicus’s claims, to make them public would mean admitting it was wrong. How, after hundreds of years, could the Pontiff approach the flock and say, “Well, actually, we were wrong about being the center of the universe, but everything else we say is right on”?

However, the Church knew that sooner or later someone with one of those new-fangled telescopes would wise up, so it changed its tune.

Fortunately, the only real crisis the Church was facing then was one of pride.

Unfortunately, the crisis we are facing now is more material than that.

In March 2002, a chunk of ice the size of Rhode Island broke off the Thwaite Glacier in Antarctica and melted into the sea. Since there were no reports of mass amounts of whiskey introduced to the aquatic segment of the ecosphere, I would assume heat was the cause. Yet nothing was done to minimize consumption.

Granted, Antarctica is far from a vacation spot and barely qualifies for extended research visits, so one may be tempted to ask, “Who cares?”

Well, probable penguin protesters aside, what about Greenland? Earth’s northernmost independent landmass worth mention is shedding its icy shield like gran’ma and her panties under the spell of Wayne Newton. That must be heat, ‘cuz there ain’t no Caesar’s in Greenland.

Not yet.

I don’t think.

Although I hold the secret hypothesis that an ice castle in Greenland belonging to a major player in the current administration melted and ruined all her fun [that would be Condee], the fact of the matter is that oil reserves are dwindling. That, I’m sure, was the big wake up call for the current executive branch.

Just as the Catholic church was forced to change its dogma in the face of advancing scientific knowledge in order to save its mug from blistering in the shifting winds of public opinion and an increasingly hostile Mother Nature, this [then] administration had no choice but to call for a decrease in fossil fuel consumption.

It may a case of too little, too late, however. Even if all the accords of the Kyoto Protocol are met and Americans begin walking to the corner store today, scientists estimate that sea levels will rise 7-23 inches by the end of this century.

Well, it’s about time you woke up, sleepyheads. Sorry, the coffee is cold and stale. Me, I’m going out to buy some beachfront property just south of College Station.

[Unfortunately, nothing was ever really done by said administration and this one seems flummoxed by political wrangling.]

It's begun

The House of Representatives narrowly passed an energy and climate change bill designed to revamp the nation's industrial economy.

But it barely passed by a vote of 219-212, which does not bode well for the fate of the bill in the senate where it is expected to undergo changes and rewrites. Even with Democrats holding the majority vote, 44 of them voted against the bill, although only three Texas dems voted against it.

Going back to what I said about pawns of the petroleum industry, Texas Republicans called the bill a "'monstrosity' that would result in 'epic job losses' and 'largest tax increase in history'," according to an article in the June 27th Houston Chronicle. To those and their ilk, I refer them to yesterday's column about cap-and-trade that distinguishes between cost and price.

Rep. Gene Green, D-Houston, on the other hand stated that the result "is a reasonable first step to protecting our energy infrasructure and keeping good-paying jobs here at home." This seems more consistent with the projections of non-partisan experts.

Only time, of course, will tell. But here's to hoping the Democrats and the experts are right.

Cap and trade

In a June 26th column in the Houston Chronicle, Fred Krupp, president of the Environmental Defense Fund and Andrew M. Liveris, CEO and Chairman of the Board of the Dow Chemical Company lay out the benefits of such a policy.

Cap-and-trade is a free market way of ensuring environmentally and economically sound ways of reducing our dependence on carbon-emitting fuels while allowing companies to continue their business almost as usual. Companies are given carbon credits.

The column explains it thus:

"Companies that are under their emission targets can sell their allowances on a new carbon market. Companies that cannot meet their targets can buy extra allowances from the same carbon market. Cap-and-trade uses the efficiency of the marketplace to drive innovation, creating new carbon-reducing technologies at the lowest possible cost."

When acid rain became a true menace in the '80s, the Clean Air Act was instituted and "the cap-and-trade approach reduced emissions faster, and more cheaply, than anyone predicted. Under cap and trade, government doesn’t pick winners and losers — private markets do that job."

The tag team columnists go on to say, "This is how it should be."

For those who argue that this could be crippling to the economy, especially in its current state, the pair clarify:

"Opponents claim that this bill will result in higher energy costs. They are confusing price with cost. Although this legislation will lead to modestly higher energy prices, this, in turn, will lead to greater energy efficiency and new, cleaner energy technologies. This will, in all likelihood, result in lower overall energy costs. A true win, win, win — lower energy costs, greater energy security and fewer carbon emissions!"

Not only that, but the policy has the potential of creating new jobs in the lagging manufacturing industry.

"A single wind turbine, for example, contains 250 tons of steel and 8,000 parts, from ball bearings and electronic controls to gearboxes. Jobs manufacturing those parts can be created right here in America, especially in our manufacturing heartland, the Midwest. Ohio has lost more than 213,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000. For Michigan, the figure is almost 497,000 jobs lost. One way to jump-start our economy is with a cap-and-trade bill."

Another win, making it a win, win, win, WIN situation.

And keep in mind, one of the co-authors is the head of Dow Chemical, a company not exactly renowned for its environmental and social responsibility.

Wake up, America!

Climate Change

IS a reality. The only ones denying it are the politicians with their hands in the petroleum pocket and their pundits. The Bush administration is no longer in power and therefore not bullying scientists anymore but idiots like Rush Limbaugh are still in denial.

Today he stated that average temperatures have decreased over the last seven years. This is in direct conflict with scientific findings. Not only is that just plain dumb, it's tragically irresponsible. Take some more oxycontin and crawl in a hole, jackass.

Thomas Friedman has it right on (almost)

In his June 24th column, three time Pulitzer winner Thomas Friedman of the New York Times suggests that the "Green Revolution" in Iran could be best supported by a Green Revolution in the western world, particularly the US.

His column, titled The Green Revolution(s), states simply and directly that the student- and reformer-led revolution in the divided country would have the best support from the west if we would only lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

Despite our protestations of the treatment of his people, Jews, foreigners and anyone else not falling into the conservative Islamic line, the theologically backed Ahmadinejad's arrogant anti-western stance is only fueled by the fact that we need Iranian oil more than the Iranians need anything from us.

He proposes a $1 "Freedom Tax" on gasoline (with "rebates for the poor and elderly") that would have a three-fold effect:

"It would stimulate more investment in renewable energy now; it would stimulate more consumer demand for the energy-efficient vehicles that the reborn General Motors and Chrysler are supposed to make; and, it would reduce our oil imports in a way that would surely affect the global price and weaken every petro-dictator," he writes.

This is all well and good but there is one Leviathan-sized caveat that I can see: the current economy.

If Obama - who, in my humble opinion is doing the best he can with the huge pile of dinosaur dung that the Bush administration left him - even so much as proposed such a tax, the lynch mobs in front of the White House would not be far behind.

Some auto manufacturers are offering incentives and deals on hybrids and fuel effiecient vehicles (as well as not so efficient) and at this point, that's really all they can do.

While I agree with Friedman's assessment that reducing our dependency on foreign oil would pull the rug out from under said "petro-dictators", such a proposed tax is utterly unfeasible in this beleaguered economy.

Not everyone makes the kind of money a prize-winning NYT columnist pulls down.

It's like I've always said:

Idealism is great but usually falls only within the demesne of the weak and the rich. Those living paycheck to paycheck, the un- and underemployed simply cannot afford such lofty Utopian goals. Not now. But they (we as I'm among the jobless currently) CAN do something: use public transportation, walk to the corner store, use our bikes for short trips and do anything else to reduce our carbon footprint.

That said, Ahmadinejad is the truly evil one and, to quote Cpl. Maxwell Klinger of M*A*S*H, may the fleas of a thousand camels nest in his armpits.

And may the ghost of Neda Agha-Soltan haunt him in both this life and the next.

Rick Perry

The governor of Texas, Rick Perry, recently "accused federal environmental protection officials of 'actively working to do more economic harm' to the state through potential regulation of carbon emissions linked to climate change," according to the Houston Chronicle.

This is because he has his hand in so many energy-producing pockets that he would stand to lose part of his growing personal fortune. He wants companies to worry about their emissions and the government to stay out of it. That way, companies can continue to cut corners and make decisions based on economic want and not the good of all.

Figures.

More Sci-Fi becomes reality

Some scientists have realized that the quickest way to cool the earth is to shade it from the sun.

The November issue of Scientific American lays out three of these plans. "A Sunshade for Planet Earth" by Robert Kunzig illustrates the ups and downs of these hypothetical projects.

The first involves the same scenario that quite possibly killed the dinosaurs. Sulfur, Brimstone, the Devil's smoke is the key but may become a culprit. The theory that volcanic activity killed the big lizards gained credence when Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines erupted in 1991. The earth's overall temperature went down by one degree that year. Rainfall also dropped because evaporation was retarded by the lack of sunlight. This may help topsoil maintain its humidic integrity, but it also robs the rest of the planet of rainfall and fresh water. It also requires less carbon emissions or the upkeep would be more than it's worth.

The second involves making our clouds' metaphorical silver lining a thing of reality. Huge, satellite-guided ships would troll the oceans, shooting sea water into turbines (fueled by the churning of water and wind - NICE!), shooting vaporized sea water into the air. The sodium would bond to the clouds, making them thicker to block out solar radiation. However, rainfall would drop, brightening of the atmosphere may be unpredictable and the political repercussions are unknown. What happens in the ocean would affect airspace not necessarily belonging to the country involved and could cause problems. And, again, if carbon emissions are not curbed, it may be a moot point.

The third involves launching a cloud of satellite controlled plastic disks out of the atmosphere to deflect harmful sunlight while letting enough through to ensure survival of the flora and fauna that rely on it (i.e., every living thing on the planet). The prototype is a silicon nitride ceramic paid for by the Discovery Channel. Fractions of the width of saran wrap, it is far stronger and channels the good energy in, bad energy out. Set at L1, a Lagrangian point where the sun's gravity is equal to the earth's, the discs would act like a cosmic parasol, letting some energy in and scattering the rest.

All amazing, awesome ideas to cool the planet and keep the polar bears and penguins living in the style to which they are accustomed, but the underlying problem still exists.

Carbon emissions must be restricted, outlawed or replaced altogether. The above are referred to as a "quick fix."

As cool as they are, does that ever really work?

Texas coal-powered electrical plants

According to a Daily Texan article, Texas currently has "10 coal plants permitted or awaiting approval," says the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. "Three more have been proposed."

At a panel discussion and film screening Thursday night, representatives of the Sierra Club, ReEnergize Texas and Power Vote organizations promoted alternate energy sources. Citing the fact that Texas produces a third of the nation's wind power, the panel lamented the fact that companies prefer staying with "ancient technology" - because the infrastructure is in place, it's cheap and there really isn't a profit in cleaning up carbon emmissions.

Cyrus Reed of the Sierra Club stated that only "One-tenth of one percent of profits is dedicated to developing new energy technology," adding "Even the dog food industry spends more of its money on development."

What needs to happen is politicians need to quit worrying about oil industry lobby money and become more involved in ensuring that the climate doesn't get any warmer and that Texas stays as clean as it is.

The by-gone "Don't Mess With Texas" anti-pollution campaign now seems hypocritical when the leaders of the state are allowing dirty coal plants to continue proliferating.

T. Boone Pickens: "A Surprising Environmentalist"

The Republican Party should listen more carefully to one of their own.

T. Boone Pickens, long-time oil baron and author of the entrepreneurial treatise The First Billion is the Hardest has become one of America's leading proponents of alternate energy. He is calling for government vehicles to run on natural gas, replacing natural gas powered electric plants with wind power and encourages off-shore oil drilling to end our dependence on foreign oil once and for all.

He calls it the PickensPlan and the website offers any visitors a chance to sign a petition or pledge their support.

And although some environmentalists have problems with off-shore oil drilling, such as the Committee Against Oil Exploration (CAOE - pronounced "K-O") due to the possibility of oil spills and the environmental impact inherent in fossil fuels, some of his other ideas are sound, safe and ecologically sensitive.

For example, Pickens recently invested billions in a West Texas wind farm that could conceivably power 1.3 billions homes with almost no emissions of any sort.

Perhaps some of his fellow oil-rich right wingers will finally see the light and follow suit.

Whoops

Wow.

Congress rejected the bailout.

Of course it's important, but guess what the news is going to be about for the next few weeks, if not years.

The debate

Yeah, it's been a couple of days since the debate, but everyone seems only to be concerned with the economy.

Fair enough. The plight of the nation's middle class increases daily; the nebulous business practices of quasi-legal government-investment partnerships led many to buy houses that they really could not afford. Now it's coming back to bite them in the behind.

Foreign policy was much discussed as well but the true reason behind our Middle Eastern aggression was left unmentioned: our dependence on OPEC countries.

Though Obama brought up wind, solar and and bio-diesel early in the debate, he was met with derision from McCain who simply spouted the same sources. The republican candidate then insisted that Obama was anti-nuke power when, in fact, the democrat is not against using nuclear energy, he is just concerned with waste removal and storage.

It doesn't take a sci-fi geek to know that nuclear waste is about as welcome as a weeping boil on the forehead and to undertake the construction of such plants requires careful planning for the future.

The energy from nuclear plants itself is very clean - most of the emissions from such energy consist primarily of steam. However, when the radioactive material used to create this energy is expended, the leftovers still have enough residual radiation to keep a small city glowing (NOT lit) and growing multi-limbed children and pets.

France gets 75% of its electricity from nuclear power.

The US gets about 20% (according to Wikipedia, the only site I could find with a solid number).

Although the US economy is certainly an immediate concern, our future on a healthy planet requires forward thinking in the energy market.

Obama seems disturbed by the state of the environment and genuinely willing to do something about it. McCain, I'm not so sure.