Recently in Global Warming Category

A week before Obama spoke to Congress last month, there was this little article about BYD.

Obama urged us to become a technology leader in green automobiles, hybrid cars, and batteries. Obama said America can lead the way.

As I heard him say that, I was thinking about BYD. I've never heard of this company before I read this article.

Check out this portrait of the CEO. It is so staid and serious and old fashion but Mr Wang Chuanfu struck me more as a visionary.

BYD makes lithium ion batteries. The ones we rely on in all our gadgets. The same battery technology required for electric and hybrid cars. A few years ago Chuanfu's battery company bought a car company because he saw something.

He recognized that trying to beat established companies at making cars was foolish. It was too hard to catch up. As he put it, "who can beat the Swiss at making a Swiss watch?"

No, what he saw was a wide open playing field for electric cars because the giants left the door open for decades. As we dragged our heals resisting the future, the future has become more and more obvious. And that future represents a huge opportunity for new companies like BYD.

I have say, I see a lot of merit in his analysis. While we futz around trying to urge our auto companies to lead, someone else can just do it. And I suspect they will.

Maybe a few years down the road, we will all have heard of BYD.

The WSJ ran this photo last week. It gave me pause.

What are these animals trying to tell us? It is hard to imagine they got so confused they swam on shore. Why would they beach themselves? These are intelligent mammals not fish.

Taken with the local news about the "crashing fish stocks" of Pacific Salmon, one wonders about the survival of non-farm animals.

(I cannot find the photo in WSJ but there Google turned up hundreds of other articles about the issue, some with the same photo.)

I have been critical about any attempt to bailout the Big3 auto companies. After showing decades of resistance to change, it seems like throwing good money after bad.

Instead, we ought to put that money to use investing in new companies with new ideas like Tesla.

At least I thought so. This profile in the WSJ Magazine really gave me pause.

I have heard a lot about Tesla. It is kind of a darling of techies. Electric engines, carbon fiber body. The future.

Sadly this profile of the CEO Elon Musk made him look like a total prick and not someone I want to support. I didnt know he co-founded paypal and SpaceX. Assuming the article is true, I also didnt know he was such a paranoid egomaniac. Tech is full of young guys who think they are smarter than everyone else and any problems they face are because other people, who arent as smart, are holding them back. Oh brother.

As I read about all the people he has fired and all the jobs that couldnt be done unless he did them himself, I got concerned. When I read about his feud with Henrik Fisker and his Mark Cuban-esque comments about others, he lost me.

It was really disappointing to see these two pioneers waste energy on competing with each other when there is so much need overall. It is also disappointing to see them pursue the super-luxury car market.

We dont need more toys for the super-rich; we a modern Model-T, an emission-free car for Everyman. I expect the Volt to be a total failure but I was hoping a Tesla could do it. Oh well.

If you put together all the news stories about the auto industry recently, you can see a picture of historic change in the industry. The end of domestic car leasing because of massive losses. The very possible end of one of the big 3. Big changes.

And yet, as I read this WSJ review of the new Nissan Murano by J. Sabatini I was dumbfounded by how unchanged things are. They compared 4 vehicles: 2009 Nissan Murano S AWD, 2008 Mazda CX-7 Sport AWD, 2008 Ford Edge SE AWD, and 2009 Subaru Tribeca 5-Passenger.

4 family sedans (cross-over SUV's) under $30k and every one of them weights 4,000lbs, has almost 2x the power of my 1996 cross-over SUV and gets 18MPG max. Given that EPA estimates are overstated by 10%, that means all these family vehicles gets LESS than 18MPG!!

It is criminal. Where are the carbon fiber vehicles? Where are the electric vehicles? Where are the high MPG vehicles?

What will it take to force us to change our ways?

The idea of car sharing is a terrific but I dont think the implementation is there yet.

Given where most American's live, we have made cars essential to us. They are a tool. Personal transportation and goods transportation.

If you look at your toolbox, you probably have a large set of tools because different tasks require different tools. Sure you can try to hammer a nail with a screwdriver or a wrench but neither will work as well as a hammer. And you will never be able to screw in a drywall screw with a hammer.

But look at cars and the number of different tasks we try to do with a single vehicle:

• Drive yourself to work.
• Drive your family on vacation.
• Carry groceries.
• Carry furniture.

For the daily commute, a small even tiny vehicle is ideal but that vehicle wont carry the whole family and it certainly wont move any furniture around. So we tend to purchase vehicles that are much larger than our normal needs because there is not an easy alternative. (I will leave aside the psychological needs of "power" and "luxury".) Many households purchase several vehicles and leave them sitting around for the time they are needed.

On the other hand, my experience with U-Haul and the Home Depot pickups has been unsatisfactory. It takes a lot of time, the service is poor, the vehicles are crap, and it feels expensive (although a real comparison may show it is actually much cheaper). I definitely see the appeal of having a spare vehicle around for a special use.

But I can envision a world where we all have vehicles just large enough for our basic needs and there is an easy way to rent nice vehicles that suit our unusual needs - like a vacation or moving.

I dont know if car sharing companies are working on that but Im hopeful we will eventually get there.

Car Sharing Gains Traction

Higher Fuel Costs, Congestion Make People Reevaluate Their Needs; But Hurdles Remain

August 18, 2008

Wall Street Journal

A combination of high energy costs, urban congestion and changes in the way people feel about cars is increasing interest in the idea that a car can be something you borrow and give back, not a cherished possession.

The concept of car sharing -- buying the right to use a car instead of the car itself -- has been kicking around for decades. It's an idea that many Americans can relate to at this time of year, when summer vacations can land you in a city where you need a car or a van for just a few hours and renting seems like a hassle.

...

Sanjay Rishi, leader of IBM Corp.'s global auto industry consulting practice, says interest in car sharing reflects a dwindling passion for automobiles in some parts of the world, such as Europe. That, plus rising fuel prices, means fewer consumers will want to spend money on big vehicles that serve what he calls "the maximum need."

Selling consumers more vehicle than they need has been the mainstream auto industry's business model for most of the past century. The wreckage created in Detroit by the bust of the bubble market in large sport-utility vehicles is just the latest example of how dependent auto makers are on the strategy. Mr. Rishi predicts that going forward, more consumers will be content with a car that serves their "median need," and will look to get occasional use of larger or more luxurious cars through car sharing.

Here is my quote for the day:

Critic of the Firms Sadly Says 'Told You'

By JOHN D. MCKINNON

July 12, 2008

Wall Street Journal

So how does he feel to be proved correct about the possible risks of a huge government bailout? "Terrible," he said. "I would have preferred that Congress had listened when something could have been done."

The quote is from an article about a guy who has criticized the structure and corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for 25 years, since he served in the Treasury department for Ronald Reagan.

While the housing problems are bad and a clear result of greed and corruption, the quote makes me think mostly about global warming. Money is important but global warming is life and death.

Another article in today's paper details the Bush Administrations battles to prevent the EPA from doing anything about global warming. Sure, the White House now publicly agrees that global warming is real (a reversal of their original position) but apparently it is not real enough to actually do something about. Why? Because change will be expensive.

Maybe someone in 2050 can fix the problem with "scientific advances". Maybe more people need to watch Al Gore's movie and think about that scale with the world on one side and gold on the other...

Will Congress be able to do anything better with a new President?

Administration Releases EPA Report, Then Repudiates It

Blueprint to Reduce Greenhouse Gases Called Too Costly

By STEPHEN POWER and IAN TALLEY

July 12, 2008

Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration published a government blueprint to reduce the U.S. output of global-warming gases, but at the same time rejected the document out of hand -- saying it relied on "untested legal theories" and would impose "crippling costs" on the U.S. economy.

Essentially, the White House presented critics of the report with a prepackaged rebuttal brief, in what is expected to be the Bush administration's last major effort to frame the national discussion on responding to global warming before a new president inherits the issue. The White House argues the Environmental Protection Agency must not be allowed to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, for fear it would be able to block development across the country.

The EPA document was written to respond to a Supreme Court order: The court instructed the agency to decide whether greenhouse gases are a danger to public health or welfare. Instead, the final document took no position on the court's question -- yet escalated the extraordinary battle between the agency and the White House.

The White House rejected an earlier draft that did find a danger to welfare, which would trigger application of the strict rules of the Clean Air Act to regulating greenhouse gases. This time, the agency stopped short of the endangerment finding, but still drew up a road map for using the Clean Air Act. That led the White House to warn of a government "command-and-control" regime that would regulate virtually every aspect of American life from cars to factories, hotels and lawnmowers.

Despite the presence of fairy-tale villains like Dick Cheney, one hopes that individuals grow both wise and generous as they grow old and wealthy.

Warren Buffett appears to be one of those individuals and his willingness to donate the bulk of his fortune after his death is a reason why. Perhaps T. Boone Pickens is another.

This week I saw Pickens speak on the Nightly Business Report and I read his op-ed in the WSJ. He is a wealthy oil man. He has a plan for change. He is willing to spend his own money to make people hear it. One hopes he is sincere.

I like his plan. Most of all, I like that someone in the industry has a plan other than "drill more oil to make me richer". Our unwillingness to face global warming is sickening. Our willingness to leave such terrible problems for our children is unconscionable.

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil

By T. BOONE PICKENS

July 9, 2008

Wall Street Journal

One of the benefits of being around a long time is that you get to know a lot about certain things. I'm 80 years old and I've been an oilman for almost 60 years. I've drilled more dry holes and also found more oil than just about anyone in the industry. With all my experience, I've never been as worried about our energy security as I am now. Like many of us, I ignored what was happening. Now our country faces what I believe is the most serious situation since World War II.

The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil – it's extreme, it's dangerous, and it threatens the future of our nation.

Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil.

This is a staggering number, particularly for a country that consumes oil the way we do. The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq.

In fact, if we don't do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

Why do I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is such a danger to our country? Put simply, our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. Foreign oil is at the intersection of America's three most important issues: the economy, the environment and our national security. We need an energy plan that maps out how we're going to work our way out of this mess. I think I have such a plan.

Pickens' plan is basically a short-term stop-gap to address our energy (and financial) problems in the immediate term while we build a better long-term solution.

He would replace gasoline with compressed natural gas as the fuel for individual transportation. I would add making lighter, smaller cars which are better suited to our actual use. People buy vehicles that are much larger than they really need because they imagine they need a 3rd row of seats for 7 people or they need to haul a piano or they need 4WD so they can scale a mesa. The reality is that most cars do one thing: drive a single person to work and back or on errands. In addition to smaller vehicles, we need more electric-hybrids like the Prius.

He would invest immediately in wind power generation built in the center of our country across our wide-open prairies. I believe that in order to make that work, we will also need to spend a massive amount of money on electricity transportation as in transmission-line infrastructure.

He would put a lot of money into alternative energy research. I would add nuclear power to the list.

Lastly I think the government will need to institute a large national tax on gasoline. The only reason we are seeing any attention on this issue now is because of $4 gasoline. If the price of gasoline drops back to $2, American's will lose interest in change. To prevent this, the government should institute a tax that gets larger as the price of gasoline gets lower. Keep the retail price of gasoline high and use any tax revenue to invest in transportation.

With this presidential election, change is in the air but the election will not be enough. We need substantial change on energy and environmental policy and we need it immediately. We need real leadership.

March 2008. What a month! If you had written a movie about the Bush White House -- no one would have believed it yet here we are.

strike one

After years of obvious and unsustainable behavior, we finally witnessing a complete meltdown of our financial system and housing. The canary in the coal mine is Bear Stearns. Teh poison gas is cheap money and the morgage-backed security.

At the end of last year, we had a "credit crunch" because of the process of turning mortgages into bonds. Bear was a leader in this financial wizardry and they profited handsomely from it. Then in Q4 2007, the world woke up and admitted it wasnt such a good investment after all.

The shares of Bear fell and the experts assured us the worst was over. I even considered buying shares of Bear in Dec/Jan. (How dumb was that.) Fast forward to March and from Friday to Monday, Bear shares fell from $150 to $2 and a buyout was announced by JP Morgan. What?? Out of the blue, a total meltdown.

How could this happen so quickly? So suddenly? Most of all, how could this happen with the FED orchestrating it? Why on earth would the federal government reward unscrupulous speculators?

Suddenly the small-government-dont-tax-me-free-market evangelists like Bear are getting a bailout from the federal government. It appears to be the ultimate fast one, the ultimate financial joke on Americans.

Tax payers pay for all the risk when things go bad and the bankers get all the profit. Even the purchase of Bear's assets by JP Morgan while the Fed assumes all of Bear's liabilities stinks to high heaven. That is 100% NOT how the free market is supposed to work. In fact, things are so upside down and confused its like an alternate reality sci-fi mini series...

And the revelations keep coming. The truth is we still dont know much about the details nor is it clear why the middle class should foot the bill for the wealthiest 1% when they screw up. Every day, I find myself aghast. Again.

strike two

If financial market debacles arent enough for you, we also have the Iraq occupation. Go on YouTube and watch interviews of Donald Rumsfeld telling us that the "war" would cost $50B. A few government analysts predicted $300B -- and got fired for the trouble. Oh it seems so quaint and jocular now.

A few years later, economists say well actually, it will be more like $1,000B or $1T. A year after that and we have more estimates - $2T to $3T!!! $3,000B of your tax dollars. An inconceivable amount of money and it went to pay for... what exactly?

"The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict" by Joseph E. Stiglitz, Linda J. Bilmes

We didnt get any free oil. We didnt create freedom or democracy. We didnt make friends or even keep our old friends... We also didnt rebuilt New Orleans, repair our own crumbling public schools or worn our bridges or put fiber optic networks into every home for the "information economy"...

strike three

A third major Bush Administration contribution to the world is also shaping up in March -- global warming. A giant ice sheet in Antarctica has now crumbled away. Glaciers are melting everywhere and our government still has a policy that says global warming is not real enough to actually do something about... gosh no, that might be expensive. Better wait until someone else is president.

you're out!!

Wow.

Bush wanted to go down in history. It seems pretty clear that he will.

And yet there are no riots in the street. No calls for impeachment. No nothing. We as a country are lining up and happily bending over. It is just bizarre. Think about the protests in the 1970's and compare that with the business as usual experience today. The people who do complain are "left-wing nuts". There isn't even a national consensus on whether or not we have problems let alone any unified moral outrage. (It's not just tax dollars after all. We have killed hundreds of thousands of people in Iraq - an we NEVER talk about it.)

vote with your wallet

Who do you think is going to pay for all these things?

Do you think cutting taxes is going to pay for the $1T in losses when the housing bubble finally resolves itself? Or Iraq?

We seem so removed from our own condition these days. Oh sure, you are broke, you borrowed all the home equity you could and spent it on a vacation, a new TV and a BMW... but dont worry, you will get our economy going again with more shopping...

And dont get me started on "accountability" or "individual responsibility". Republicans have preached for years about "responsibility". We shouldn't have welfare!! People should be responsible...

Well I dont see anyone lining up to pay the check for any of these crisis. I dont see anyone lining up to pay MORE taxes so we dont have to borrow so much. I dont even see any Republicans talking about how to fix these things with the next president. Apparently when it comes to your mistakes, accountability is synonymous with total denial.

Perhaps our voting system would garner a lot more attention and responsibility if we paid for our choices. After years of Bush Tax Cuts, I would like to see Congress enact the Bush Tax. If you voted for the president in 2004, you should be personally responsible for any debts he acquired since then. Just send the money in with your tax bill. If you didnt vote for him, why should you have to pay for him?

Maybe we can apply market forces to our political process and attempt to get the people who spend the money to pay the money. Then again, we would probably put Bear Stearn's in charge of the plan and screw it up.

I had never heard of this movie. It was recommended to me by the software-gremlims at Netflix. Once it arrived, it sat on the table for weeks before I finally popped it in. The movie sounded boring and preachy. But I was wrong.

"A Crude Awakening - The Oil Crash" by Basil Gelpke, Reto Caduff, Ray McCormack

This movie was gripping in a "is that how it works?" kind of way. If you expect to live another 10 or more years, you should see this movie.

I always believed that Iraq's oil was a major reason we invaded. Not the only reason, but one of the main reasons. However, I will admit I dont really know how. All I knew is that oil is important, it makes a lot of people rich, and Iraq has a lot of it that was kind of up for grabs.

I have never been able to grasp the enormity of oil. After watching this movie, I think I can say that the world I grew up in exists only because of the existence of cheap oil.

The corollary of this epiphany is that the world I know would go away if we used up the oil. And since God isn't making more oil....

I am not sure what I was expecting in this movie but that issue is what the movie is about. The movie talks about the history of oil, how oil created the modern world, and how oil will soon be gone. Fascinating stuff with lots of old photos from the last 100 years of oil and interviews with a lot of people who know about oil.

I have been quite worried about global warming, particularly about the creation of global warming gases generated by burning fossil fuels. I have argued that we need to change our behavior and quickly move to using dramatically less oil. But a change like that is like losing weight; its something you know you should do, and something you talk about doing, while eating your second helping of desert.

What I was not aware of before now was that we may not need to be strong and force ourselves to diet. The oil supply may just run out all by itself. Forget the nicotine patch or the methadone - we will all be quitting cold-turkey. Oh shit...

The reason for that is that oil is finite and the people in charge of oil have been lying about reserves for decades.

If the oil runs out, we wont need to worry so much about Kyoto treaties. That is the good news. The bad news is global recession, no more air travel, and the planet may suddenly only generate enough food for 1 person in 6.

This is a great movie about an aspect of oil you have probably never thought about. Our leaders certainly never talk about it. And oil is integral so so many aspects of our lives, the movie covers one topic after another, on and on and on.

Having said that, if I had to complain about the flick, my complaint would be that it focuses too much on oil used for transportation. It barely talks about oil's use in making almost every item in your household. The carpet, the paint, the refrigerator, the computers, the food packaging...

So dont be surprised. Watch this movie and start the conversation.

I dont have a membership card but I suspect I belong to the liberal left intelligencia. As such, I thought this article was right on the mark.

We continue to depend on burning a massive amount of fossil fuel (oil and coal) and we NEED TO CHANGE. But the same lefties who urge change cannot agree on what to change to.

We dont like nuclear energy. Even though it has no emissions, it plays into our distrust of everyone paranoia and those 5 people in Nevada dont want the waste.

We dont like hydro because the dams damage nature and fish habitat.

We dont like wind because the towers look bad and apparently kill very slow-flying, near-sighted birds.

Solar is great but we dont want to pay for it.

So that leaves us with pie-in-the-sky ideas like wave energy.

Well, folks. It is time to pick a poison.

Green Projects Generate Splits in Activist Groups

By GREG HITT

December 13, 2007

Wall Street Journal

On Capitol Hill, the Audubon Society is leading the fight to increase production of climate-friendly power. So why are Audubon enthusiasts battling a wind farm that could help meet that goal?

For one thing, there are trout in nearby streams, which activists say are at risk from chemical and sediment runoff from construction of 30 turbines, each soaring about 400 feet -- taller than the Statue of Liberty. Then there are the bats and hawks, which might be puréed by the giant blades that would catch the wind gusting along the Allegheny Mountains of Western Pennsylvania.

"They're enormous," says Tom Dick, a retired veterinarian who founded the local Audubon chapter. "When you start looking at this, it's like, 'hell, this is not right.'"

Even as Americans become convinced they need to change the way they power their lives, the environmental community is splintering over how to do that. Does ethanol promote clean fuel or destroy the rural landscape? Is emission-free electricity worth turning mountains into wind farms?

The Energy Bill passed yesterday. Excuse me if I dont jump for joy.

The bill included 4 parts:

1. Repeal the tax cuts specifically for oil companies
2. Address emissions from coal power plants
3. Mandate the use of "bio-fuels"
4. Raise CAFE standards

#1 and #2 failed to pass. #3 and #4 did pass.

Seriously, there was not enough political will to stop the tax breaks for America's MOST PROFITABLE CORPORATIONS? That just boggle my mind. Oil companies should be the last in line for tax incentives. The fact that we pay taxes and they dont is a sign of their awesome power and influence.

It is also something to ponder when you talk about global warming. If we are unable to cut their taxes, how on earth will we ever be able to cut their business, ie burning fossil fuels?

Coal power plants. You can wrap your hot water pipes or turn your lights off but the only meaningful way to cut our CO2 emissions is to change the big sources, like power plants. Oh well. We have coal so I guess God wants us to burn it all.

So much for the big measures that failed. Lets talk about the little measures that did pass.

Bio-fuels. Any bill that includes ethanol from corn is a bad bill. Cut the farm subsidies (another bad bill) to corn farmers before we completely drain the fresh water aquifers in the mid-west.

CAFE. CAFE is a terrible law. It is ineffective. It is constantly being resisted/fought in court. It is a bad idea leading us down the wrong road. Supporters of CAFE want you to think they are making great progress; they probably have a few subprime loans to sell you as well.

But CAFE is the law. The best thing we could do for CAFE is, as Republicans say, enforce the law we already have. CAFE was intended to cover ALL PASSENGER vehicles with exceptions for farm vehicles and heavy industry. Your Yukon and the Governator's Hummer are neither. All cars and light trucks for passenger use should be covered by the existing 25MPG rules for CAFE. If you have ever looked at the actual MPG of new vehicles, you will clearly see that is not happening.

Raising CAFE from 25 to 35MPG and covering all passenger vehicles is nice. Especially the latter. But 2020? Seriously, 12 years to comply with this rule? 12 years from now the polar ice caps will be ice cubes in LA. 12 years from now you will be driving a boat not a car.

The real problem with CAFE though is the structure of the bill. It is a government mandate on car suppliers. As such, it will always be fought by people that dont like government mandates and by the folks with the money to fight the government, ie car manufacturers. Car companies argue that its not their fault; customers want 400HP, 5000lb behemoths with 3rd row seating. There is a suburban mom arms race out there!

The right way to address car emissions is to address the demand side. Instead of regulating the supply, tax the demand. Drive any car you want - if you can pay for it.

Create a federal tax on vehicles. Base the tax on vehicle weight and MPG. Make it stiff. Make it stick. Make it tomorrow, not 2020.

This kind of law would create incentives for the right behavior rather than punishments for the wrong behavior. It also picks on the people, who we already know have a much weaker lobby than corporations. If you want to see changes in vehicles, change the demand. Magically car companies will begin to do the impossible; start offering lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles.

The vehicle tax would do another thing CAFE does not- raise revenue. The tax would create money for government. Money that could be spent on green technology research. It could be spend on mass transit. It could go towards improving our power grid so that we lose less energy when we transport it (which would mean fewer power plans needed). It could do a lot of things.

So big whoop for the energy bill of 2007. Wake me up when Obama waves his magic-hands-of-change and creates a meaningful action to address global warming before too many millions of people die.

Everywhere one turns these days, one is faced with environmental changes and problems. Few problems are bigger or less discussed than water.

The News Hour had an excellent story today about water in our largest state, California. We all saw the fires in SoCal but that is just the tip of the iceberg regarding water issues for the state. The country is getting dryer and the billions of dollars we have spent to move water to the people is not keeping up with the demands of agriculture or people.

How long will it take before we are forced to make real changes in our behavior and the way we live?

Environmental Issues Fuel California's Water Wars

Southern California is coping with water shortages due to a judge's ruling limiting the amount of freshwater that can be pumped from the northern part of the state. Environmental advocates, concerned about the effect on wildlife, lead the battle over water.

read it here

Year after year, our country is getting dryer. Like a lot of our biggest problems, this change is normally out of sight, out of mind. Then there are times with dramatic events, like the fires raging across California.

Fires.

We saw them in California a few years ago. Then we saw them in Colorado. Now they are back in Calfironia and worse than ever. Two years ago Southern Califnornia was deluged with rainfall, creating the mudslides in Malibu we all watched on TV (mudslides are especially bad in areas where folliage has been burned off by summer fires). Last year it did not rain at all. The lack of rain (stored as foliage water content) and the strong Santa Ana winds are now creating a wild fire of historic proportions.

The entire region is getting dryer and dryer and water is not just a problem in California.

The giant aquifer that sits under many of the Western states has been diminishing each year. We are pumping up more water for agribusiness than nature is putting back in with rain. People have pointed out that raising corn and cattle are making this problem worse but there has been little change. (It's cheaper to ignore the problem.)

Then we have rivers.

Eight years and counting of drought throughout the southwest. Rivers like the Colorado are at their lowest levels in years and reservoirs are straining. States as far away as Georgia have asked for federal help with their water shortage and even Michigan is facing water problems as warmer weather increases evaporation off the Great Lakes. Will the Great Lakes turn into the Aral Sea?

Tens of millions of people as well as agribusiness depend on water from major rivers like the Colorado and the Rio Grande. What we never discuss is that Mexico depends on these rivers too - or at least it did. We have been violating the US-Mexico water treaty for years but using up the water before it reaches the border. (Las Vegas needs more fountains, you know.) And the problem is getting worse.

These are the kind of changes Al Gore has been warning us about. If dreaming that this is just a natural cycle makes you feel better while you water your lawn, fine. The rest of us need to face reality and adapt. The oceans may rise but the amount of fresh water we depend on to keep us alive is shrinking.

Some interesting data on the cost of different fuels.

The price of gasoline seems a bit odd to me. Since oil just comes out of the ground, is the price of gas based on refining? Even if the cost of oil seems a bit arbitrary, I noticed that the study is based on $65/bl oil. Wonder when we will see prices that low again.

The sooner we forget about corn and move research onto cellulosic waste and biodiesel the better. But given the power of special interests over common interests (and common sense), Im not holding my breath. The goes for focusing on "better" rather than "cheaper".

Brazil's Sugar-Cane Ethanol Gets a Boost From IMF Report

By BOB DAVIS and LAUREN ETTER

October 18, 2007

Wall Street Journal

WASHINGTON -- Brazil's sugar-cane-based ethanol is the only form of ethanol that is generally cheaper to produce than gasoline, according to an International Monetary Fund analysis, boosting Brazil's plans to make itself a fuel powerhouse and undermining U.S. corn growers' efforts to present themselves as price competitive.

The analysis, part of IMF's semiannual World Economic Outlook, also said none of the current crop of biodiesels can compete on price with conventional diesel, except perhaps for a biodiesel being developed from India's drought-resistant jatropha tree.

As part of the report, the IMF compared costs and environmental benefits of different ways of making ethanol and biodiesel. Sugar-cane-based Brazilian ethanol was at least 15% cheaper to produce than gasoline, the report said, while corn-based U.S. ethanol was 18% more expensive than gasoline. Sugar-beet-based European ethanol was twice as expensive to make as gasoline, as was ethanol made from cellulosic waste. The latter is in early stages of development. Sugar-cane ethanol and cellulosic ethanol also had far fewer greenhouse emissions, per kilometer traveled, than corn ethanol.

For its study, the IMF assumed oil was trading at $65 a barrel -- about the average for 2007 but 34% lower than today's closing price -- and that crops were trading at the average price for the first half of the year.

Before we moved to Seattle, we thought hard about moving to San Diego. One of my concerns at the time was water.

It was well known to me that the southwestern states (CA, AZ, NV, CO) have less water and more people every year. This week I heard that the southwest is in the 8th year of drought and the past 7 years have been the lowest levels of water in the Colorado river in recorded history. Water is a serious problem for all the people in that region, even if they are oblivious of that fact for the moment.

What I have not heard people talk about is the impact we have already have on Mexico. By using up all the water from Colorado River, there is little water left (and a lot of pollution) by the time it drains in the gulf of Baja. This has destroyed the fishing industry there. Sorry Mexico.

What I had not heard about was the same thing is happening in the Great Lakes.

Lake Superior is massive. It is deep and cold. I went camping there in the 1990's. Coldest place I have ever tried to swim. Insane cold.

Now I heard that the lake is so warm, locals are swimming in the Fall and the lake does not cover with ice in the winter. Without a cover of ice, the water evaporates all winter. Water is leaving the lake faster than rain is replenishing it so the lake is shrinking. The water level has already shrunk over a foot! That is a LOT of water.

It has been raining a lot up here in Seattle. But even here we are having water problems because there is less snow. Snow is a basically a water battery. Snow and ice store water in the winter which slowly runs off during the summer. These days the battery is smaller in the winter and melts faster in the summer so even the Pacific NW is seeing climate change due to less water in the later summer.

Take a moment to think about this.

If these changes have happened already, what will things look like in 20 years? How bad will things be when my daughter is in college?

Our actions are changing the Earth that we depend on for life. Take a moment to think about your contributions.

Are you doing enough to stop climate change? Are you doing anything at all?

I had a little Colbert Report chant in my head as I read this article.

Nice to see that when it comes to destroying the global environment, we are still the biggest pigs on Earth.

When Bush retires to his glory in the sun, I sincerely hope the next President will restore my pride in America by taking a leadership position on climate change.

The first thing we should do is a complete ban on burning coal - replace all of our coal power plants starting with the biggest polluters first.

The second step is to reduce our electricty needs by increasing efficiency in the power grid and reducing consumer and business use, both through new technology and through old fashion "use less" behavior. (Nice to see that Congress is already working on a law to replace all incandescent light bulbs with compact flourescents.)

And the third step is cars and trucks. All trucks should convert to bio-diesel grown and distilled in this country using bio-waste and crops grown specifically for bio-fuels (not corn). Cars should be converted to LNG, hybrids, bio-fuel or a combination. Drop CAFE entirely and implement a tax system on buyers and sellers where the fee is based on vehicle weight and MPG.

It is about time we lead the way into the future instead of just complaining about how hard or how expensive it might be. Americans used to be known for their "can do" chutzpah, not their whining complaints.

What a winter!

Worldwide there have been record highs, record lows, record snow storms, record ice storms and the jet stream has shifted.

Locally here in Seattle we had a record windstorm that knocked out more power than any time in history. Then we had snow and hail that jammed the roads once, twice, and now three times. We lost power for 4 days due to wind and then we lost water for a day because the cold snapped a water main. Apparently a sewer main also broke and leaked sewage under the streets for who knows how long before the city put in a temporary replacement; thankfully we never lost our toilettes :)

Are all these events one-time occurrences or is this a sign of things to come?

Since I have yet another snow day, I thought I would post photo's from the windstorm back in December. This is some of the damage to our apartment complex. The situation would have been exciting if we had not lost power for days when it was 30 degrees outside.

For some discussion on the topic, check out Confab from December 21, 2006.

A lot of people refused to see "An Inconvenient Truth" because of their dislike for Al Gore. Still more people have been swayed by the FUD from the oil lobby and believe that global warming is just a natural trend. Even among people that respect the work of scientists and acknowledge global warming, human nature dictates that it is easier to continue doing what we have been doing than to make a change.

As 2006 comes to an end, this is a good time to reflect on global warming, on what we have been doing and on what we could/should be doing moving forward. This series of articles from MIT's Technology Review back in July are a terrific read.

Global warming is not a natural cycle and we continue to ignore it at our peril. As these articles and others point out, the problem here are not technological they are political. Until we elect and support leaders who will change the laws, little if anything will change. We are in this position today because the cheapest course of action is inaction and that means more pollution.

The answer is political action and the first step towards that is an educated public. So do the world a favor and spend 30 minutes reading this set of articles, particularly The Messenger and The Dirty Secret.

Technology Review: July/August 2006

read it - please

If you enjoy eating fish, enjoy them while you can. Overfishing and man-made changes to the environment are rapidly killing off the world's supply of fish.

This is a long and excellent article about the salmon vs dams debate in the Pacific Northwest. The dam issue was mentioned repeatedly in the recent election with both parties supporting hydro-power over wildlife.

Like New Orleans, this salmon issue is another example of how we make changes to the environment and then take decades to figure out the impact of our actions (which are almost always negative). Natural processes are a lot more complex than most of our economically-driven projects consider or take into account.

The 2006 election is a few days away and election rhetoric is at a fevered pitch. It saddens me that so much of our attention is on completely irrelevant wedge issues like gay marriage and stem cell research. I havent heard a single politician discuss climate change.

Global warming is THE issue for our generation. Global warming is going to change the ability of the Earth to sustain human life. Even Iraq is small potatoes in comparison.

Despite the lack of US electoral attention, this week had a raft of disturbing global warming news.

Two articles on Honda - one good, one less good.

I vividly recall a heated discussion I had a year ago with a Pacific Northwesterner about China and pollution.

Her augment was that the environment is so important, China should be go far beyond what the USA is willing to do to protect it. China was being a terrible global citizen by polluting like they do.

My counter-argument was something about the fact that China has 1.3 Billion people and their social stability depends on finding jobs for people so that they can literally survive. I agreed that the environment is important but it seemed a bit hypocritical to expect China, a much poorer country, to do more than we in the USA are willing to do. I think it is hard for us, with our Patagonia's and Subaru wagons to grasp how hard life is for most Chinese.

This is a very interesting article on what they are willing, or at least, trying to do. I certainly hope that I am wrong and China is able to do more than we seem willing to do.

This is the first good news regarding global warming that I heard in a long time. Possibly ever.

I have been of the opinion that serious changes cannot be made until the government creates financial incentives (and laws). But it would appear that companies are taking initiative in much the same way local and state governments have been. Which is to say, in sharp contrast to our Federal government which continues to act as if there is somewhere safe they can go (heaven?) when the rest of us are suffering.

Global warming is happening. Global warming is caused by human beings. (Americans are far and away the largest contributors to the problem.) Global warming is on a truly global scale. The effects of global warming are terrifying.

The world, that's the place your children live, needs more American voters to be educated about the problems so that we can make sane decisions and avert the billions of deaths we are heading for.

So watch this episode of Nova and educate yourself.

Dimming the Sun talks about the conflicting effects of greenhouse gas trapping more of the suns heat and pollution particles reflecting more of the suns heat into space. It also talks about how burning fossil fuels is impacting the weather, the rain, and the Earth's temperature. Like An Inconvenient Truth, there is talk about projections of sea level and the impact that will have on cities. (I see high-water pants making a fashion comeback.)

As terrifying as this stuff is, it is real and it will not go away unless American's face the problem and act. So quite hiding and be a part of the solution.

Changes to the ocean environment are producing massive die-offs among coral and fish.

Israel's invasion of Lebanon and the mass kidnapping in Iraq have been getting all the headlines but those are small problems when compared to climate change.

Even though it was so cold in Seattle today that I had to wear a fleece, almost the entire country had temperatures above 80 degrees and more than half had temperatures above 90 and those temperatures have been that way for almost two weeks. Looking at a graph of temperatures globally, temperatures above 90 degrees can be found across Europe and China/Southeast Asia. (I cant seem to find a suitable weather picture of this but take my word for it.)

Last summer the heat wave in Europe killed hundreds. This summer it is our turn. California has had dozens of heat-related deaths after two weeks of triple-digit heat and now Chicago and NYC are preparing for the same thing. Not only are we setting record high temperatures but the number of consecutive high-temperature days is unprecedented.

In other words, we are seeing predictions from An Inconvenient Truth already. You still think its a naturally occurring change in historical weather patterns? Turn up the radio in your Yukon, keep watching Fox News and enjoy your life of denial. It wont last much longer.

The worst drought in decades? Seems like we should have heard more about that.

This weekend I saw the movie Syriana, which is one of the best movies I have seen in years. The depth and complexity of its plot showed how simplistic hollywood movies are. More importantly, it also gave one the sense of how important oil is to our economy and our economic and government systems.

Would we invade Iraq just for oil? You bet we would, although the average person wouldn't know that.

And we can expect to see more turmoil due to our complete dependence on oil for our lifestyle and our economic systems combined with the complete lack of federal leadership on energy.

This article provides a lot of detail on our changing relationship with oil.

I found it interesting to note how much more oil we use than other counties like China. Considering how much flak we give China for using up all the oil and for pollution, I was surprised to see that we use 3x as much oil as they do.

Of course none of these supply and demand questions take global warming into account. At least not yet.

I have heard Lefties in the USA basically call China the devil because they have the audacity to do exactly what we have done instead of doing better than us.

On the one hand, I share their concern for the environmental damage caused by a billion Chinese consumers. On the other hand, I understand that China's main concern is jobs.

It is too easy to criticize others from the wealth and luxury of our country. In the world outside of the Star Trek Federation, people need money to feed and cloth their families. Starvation kills you in a few weeks but pollution takes many years...

Just this weekend I heard that 1 job in 10 in our country is directly related to the auto industry. If anything, I would expect the USA, with all of its power and wealth, to lead the way in stopping car use. I find it disingenuous for us to blame China for something we cannot do ourselves and I dont see any signs of us changing.

This article does a good job explaining the economic issues around cars and pollution. And we can expect to see the $7,000 Chery cars for sale in this country soon.

As long as companies dont have to pay for "environmental woes", they will profit from doing things that harm/kill us.

Will scrubbers be enough? I hope so.

But 50% of our electricity still comes from burning coal. Should we be burning coal at all anymore given what we now know about global warming? Does anyone think about the legacy we are leaving our grandchildren? A lot of attention is paid to China's coal plants but we need to fix things at home before we start telling others what to do if we ever hope to see change.

Cars are one thing but the electricity that we depend on for almost everything largely comes from burning coal. Still. And not just in China.

Mining coal damages the environment physically and burning coal damages the atmosphere. Coal is a two-time loser and our dependence on coal is something more people should know about.

This was a good interview for what sounds like a good book.

Listen yourself

Burning coal and oil/gasoline is going to kill us. The emissions cause the planet to warm up and the particles cause the sun the dim. These two effects, although they work to both warm and cool the planet, are creating global changes to our biosphere.

People want to discount global warming as a myth because its mechanism is not obvious. Watch this episode of Nova and learn more about why the doubters are wrong and why we cannot afford to avoid this problem any longer.

The Dimming Sun

Nova

Opening weekend I saw this homage to Al Gore and his Apple Powerbook. (I saw The Corporation too, which made for a thoughtful double-feature.)

I think everyone should see this movie even as I find it hard to explain to people why they should. We are so obsessed with having fun that it is hard to explain to people why they should even be aware of things that are unpleasant. "It's good for you" just doesnt compute anymore.

I took away three things from the movie.

1. The graph of atmospheric CO2, ie greenhouse gases.
2. The graph of population.
3. The statistic on scientific papers and media reports.

I also left the movie with a deep sense of resignation, not the optimism that Gore tries to instill.

In contrast to the execrable Meet the Press episode Sunday, Warren Onley's show today was very good. They talked about leadership from California, the way things are in Europe, the larger picture of energy consumption, and national policies.

The show was a good listen and helped me conclude that the market just isnt going to solve this problem. Markets react; leaders plan.

Oh boy am I sick of hearing about $3/gallon gasoline! What makes things worse is that the conversations we are having about gasoline are so useless. Case in point: Meet the Press.

As much as I enjoy this show, the discussion on $3 gasoline this week was worthless.

I just heard a radio program about Terrapass. You basically pay them to invest in "green" projects to offset the emissions from your personal transportation vehicle.

Undoing the global warming impact of your car's CO2 emissions is easier than you think.

TerraPass funds clean energy projects like wind farms, methane capture and more.

Third-party organizations verify that TerraPass has a guaranteed impact.

TerraPass is surprisingly affordable – a whole year of emissions for as little as $29.95.

This is a cute idea and I reckon that anything is better than nothing when it comes to the environment. But Terrapass is basically an opt-in charity program based on individual awareness and guilt. I seriously doubt the people who choose to purchase Yukons and Escalades in the first place are going to feel enough guilt about their decision to pay into this system.

What we need are mandatory systems to reduce emission which is to say, we need laws. I would start with electricity (coal power plants) and transportation (trucks and cars).

The picture quality is lousy but at 60 Minutes finally has a way to watch their stories after they air. (The video should show up on the right side.)

This episode on the environment and how the Bush Administration hired an oil company lobbyist to censor environmental science reports is something you should watch and know about. Very disturbing.

Rewriting The Science

March 19, 2006

(CBS) As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

After watching another very depressing story about the environment and the Bush Administration last night on 60 Minutes, I ran across these two links on cars.

A lot of the environmental stuff is out of our direct control but one thing all of us CAN DO to lessen the amount of greenhouse gases in the air is change the way we drive. If you cannot drive less, at least get a vehicle that fits your actual use and a vehicle that gets good mileage and has low emissions.

If you spend most of your time driving alone, dont have children or a big dog, if you drive "to the mountains" once or twice a year -- get a SMALLER CAR. Sheesh. If you arent getting over 30MPG, your car is too heavy and too inefficient and you shouldnt be driving it.

The Hybrid Center has interesting data on hybrids and how they stack up with each other and with traditional cars. For instance, you can how much less gas you would use if you drove a Prius and you can learn to stay clear of the fake "hybrids" being peddled by GM.

FuelEconony.gov has a cool "side by side" tool for comparing different vehicles and their pollution levels.

People tend to appreciate things AFTER they lose them. As Westerner's we tend to see ourselves in control of the environment rather than a part of the environment. Neither mindset bodes well for the environment we depend on for food and shelter.

Two articles this month on how bad things are getting out there thanks to our stewardship.

So much for Salmon

It turns out that overfishing (this particular article doesn't blame overfishing) and damming rivers are doing a number of wild Salmon here on the Left Coast. Who would have thought? The Feds have been debating this issue for over a week with no decision as of yet.

Salmon season postponed for Bay Area coast

Bay City News Service

Tue, Mar. 14, 2006

Salmon season, set to begin April 2 in the Bay Area, has been postponed at least one month at popular fishing spots from Bodega Bay to Point Sur while officials deal with dangerously low levels of the popular fish.

But while the postponement and potential cancellation of salmon season could mean millions in lost revenues for commercial fisheries and high prices for consumers, the Pacific Fishery Management Council said it could mean the survival of the popular king salmon.

Open-ocean fishing can deplete the number of grown salmon able to make the trip upstream to spawning grounds. Many of the salmon that end up in the Bay Area make their way from the Klamath River on the California-Oregon border to the Sacramento River and eventually to the Pacific Ocean.

According to the Pacific Fishery Management Council, however, levels of Klamath salmon started dwindling after environmentally damaging dams were built along the salmon's spawning routes, not because of over fishing. The dams have contributed to rising water temperatures, increased parasite infestation and low river flows.

Biologists estimate that there are now 110,000 adult Klamath River Chinook salmon in the ocean. Before last year's season, the estimate was 185,700. The lowest number on record was 96,000 fish in 1992, according to the council.

Coral Reef die off

First graders are taught that the ocean's food system depends on the coral reefs... This issue really isn't about tourism.

Ghostly coral bleachings haunt the world's reefs

Tue Mar 14, 2006

By Michael Perry

readit yerself

SYDNEY (Reuters) - When marine scientist Ray Berkelmans went diving at Australia's Great Barrier Reef earlier this year, what he discovered shocked him -- a graveyard of coral stretching as far as he could see.

"It's a white desert out there," Berkelmans told Reuters in early March after returning from a dive to survey bleaching -- signs of a mass death of corals caused by a sudden rise in ocean temperatures -- around the Keppel Islands.

Australia has just experienced its warmest year on record and abnormally high sea temperatures during summer have caused massive coral bleaching in the Keppels. Sea temperatures touched 29 degrees Celsius (84 Fahrenheit), the upper limit for coral.

"My estimate is in the vicinity of 95 to 98 percent of the coral is bleached in the Keppels," said Berkelmans from the Australian Institute of Marine Science.

Marine scientists say another global bleaching episode cannot be ruled out, citing major bleaching in the Caribbean in the 2005 northern hemisphere summer, which coincided with one of the 20 warmest years on record in the United States.

Bleaching is due to higher than average water temperatures, triggered mainly by global warming, scientists say. Higher temperatures force corals to expel algae living in coral polyps which provide food and color, leaving white calcium skeletons. Coral dies in about a month if the waters do not cool.

"The traces suggest we are tracking the temperature profile of 2001-2002, which led to the worst incidence of coral bleaching ... for the Great Barrier Reef," he said.

In 2002, between 60 and 95 percent of the reefs that make up the Great Barrier Reef were bleached. Most corals survived but in some locations up to 90 percent were killed.

Hoegh-Guldberg said projections from 40 climate models suggested that oceans would warm by as much as three to four degrees Celsius in the next 100 years.

"We're starting to get into very dangerous territory where what we see perhaps this year will become the norm and of course extreme events will become more likely," he said.

Maybe it is the book I just finished, but I keep thinking of a comment Richard made to me at one of the Confabs. "We are living in a golden age and we dont even know it."

Perhaps it is a bit melancholy but is it true? Is this a golden age? Is it about to end?

Sadly they dont provide streaming video but tonight's story about the environment on 60 Minutes has me thinking about the end of a golden age. While we party in our Escalades and our coal-powered apartments, Rome is burning although this time Rome is not a city, it is the planet.

I hope I am wrong, but I think the world we will face when my first child turns 20 will be a very different place from today. For starters, there wont be any wild polar bears left and there will be a whole lot fewer people.

A Global Warning

60 Minutes

Feb. 19, 2006

(CBS) The North Pole has been frozen for 100,000 years. But according to scientists, that won't be true by the end of this century. The top of the world is melting.

I have fallen way behind in my reading of the newspaper. Here are two quick hits on global warming.

The President is busily leading from the rear on this one. It is nice to read about someone who describes themselves as "Christian" who actually seems concerned about non-voting constituents.

Evangelical Group Calls For Climate-Change Policies

By MAYA JACKSON RANDALL DOW JONES NEWSWIRES

February 8, 2006

WASHINGTON -- Global warming was a popular topic Wednesday as a coalition of evangelical Christian leaders urged President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress to move on new climate change policies and utility officials and senators discussed potential legislation.

Although moving forward without the full support of the National Association of Evangelicals, an alliance of more than 85 evangelical leaders released a statement calling on the nation's leaders to support a new law that would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, which is thought to trap heat in the atmosphere and lead to global warming.

However, research and development funding isn't good enough, said Mr. Ball, speaking at a briefing in Washington.

"It's more research. What we need is a requirement. That's the legislation we need," he said, referring to a bill that would limit the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted into the air from power plants or automobiles, for instance.

The White House has backed only voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Christian leaders at the briefing called global warming "a pro-life issue," and said the purpose behind the Evangelical Climate Initiative is two-fold.

"It's God and it's people," said Rev. Dr. Leith Anderson, former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, explaining that solving the global warming crisis fits in with the Christian belief in being steward's of God's creation and loving neighbors.

Poor and needy people across the world are suffering due to droughts, hurricanes, tornados, wild fires and heat waves triggered by rises in the Earth's temperature, said Mr. Bassett of the Salvation Army.

A good article on how the scientists disagree.

Hurricane Debate Shatters Civility Of Weather Science

Worsened by Global Warming? Spats Are So Tempestuous, Sides Are Barely Talking

Charge of 'Brain Fossilization'

By VALERIE BAUERLEIN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

February 2, 2006

The 2,000-plus scientists at this week's annual meeting of the American Meteorological Society had plenty to talk about, from last year's droughts to flash floods and wildfires. But the biggest question at the meeting in Atlanta -- why last hurricane season was the worst since recordkeeping began 151 years ago -- was almost too hot to handle.

William Gray, America's most prominent hurricane scientist and an ardent foe of the belief that global warming has worsened hurricanes, was supposed to join a panel discussing the storms. So was Greg Holland of the National Center on Atmospheric Research -- who disagrees with Dr. Gray. But the organizers withdrew the invitations after deciding the dispute had grown so nasty it was too risky to put the two in the same room.

His adversary Dr. Holland is among a group of prominent scientists who argue that the recent burst of powerful storms isn't part of a normal pattern. In a recent article, he and co-authors said that global warming caused by human activity, while not affecting the number of hurricanes, appears to be causing more of them to be very intense. Dr. Holland went to the meeting despite the cancellation of his joint appearance with Dr. Gray and presented his paper's conclusions during a session on a wide variety of weather issues.

What is going on with hurricanes like Katrina and the subsequent Wilma, which was the strongest ever recorded in the Atlantic, matters urgently to millions of people wondering whether coastal areas are safe. Insurers and other companies are trying to calculate future risks of operating in the vulnerable regions. And policy makers are wrestling with whether to rebuild some shattered communities.

...

Most serious weather and climate researchers, including Dr. Gray, agree the planet has gradually warmed in recent decades. Last year was the warmest year since 1880, climatologists at National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Goddard Institute for Space Studies said recently. All sides also agree 2004 and 2005 were unusually active years for big storms.

The sides disagree about how much global warming is attributable to natural cycles and how much to human activity such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels. Among meteorologists who say humans are behind global warming, many contend there isn't enough evidence to link it to increased hurricane intensity.

There are educated, intelligent people who do not think global warming is real or that humans are the cause. I look at the trend-lines of greenhouse gas emissions and feel comfortable saying that after a century of burning everything we could find, mankind is changing the global environment. Moreover it is easy for me to believe that those changes will ultimately prove catastrophic.

What really irks me though is that we will look back on today and know that not only did we see it coming, we chose to do nothing. One aspect of this "do nothing" approach is cars.

Our society is built around personal transportation. I get that. I am a part of that. I own a car which i use for transportation. When i lived in a large city, I used a motorcycle not a bus to get around. I have tried to use a bus (Seattle doesn't have a rail option) but I preferred a personal vehicle.

We can argue about whether personal transportation is the right thing and the effect PT has had on city design. On one hand, we prefer the perceived convenience of personal transportation, even as we spend hours a day in traffic. On another hand there is a cultural stigma that equates poverty with mass transit. We can also see our that our collective spending reflects this bias against mass transit as we have no trouble subsidizing roads and bridges for cars but expect mass transit to pay for itself. And a few argue that mass transit overall still pollutes as much as personal vehicles because the "energy has to come from somewhere".

These are old debates and I am willing to let them go. We are hooked on individual transportation but the thing that bothers me is the way we have chosen to implement individual transport.

Individual transportation could be completely different and still achieve the same functional results. We could all be driving zero-emission golf carts powered by low-emission or emission-free power plants. We could be driving motorcycles which get 40+MPG or super-high MPG gasoline cars or even biodeisel.

But we arent.

Instead we are driving larger and larger trucks and SUV's with lower and lower gas mileage. As the evidence for human-caused global warming gets more clear, we have increased not decreased our consumption of gasoline for individual transportation. When I drive on the freeway, 9 out of 10 people are alone in their vehicle yet vehicles continue to get larger with selling points like, "Room for 8 and 0 to 60 in 6.5 seconds." I spend much of my time on the roads in traffic going less than 30 MPH but even the new hybrid vehicles tout that they offer "V8 power with V6 MPG." Even these high-tech vehicles choose power over fuel efficiency as their selling point.

Like many other products, functional improvements no longer generate car sales. Cars are no longer about function so much as fashion. The question is not whether you can get from A to B but whether you can do so in style. And style is optional, ie a choice.

If we were willing to make due with less, our roads could be very different. And so could our impact on the environment. Time will tell how bad things will get. I just wish more people would choose to live with less today so that there will be more for tomorrow.

Not. Cheap gas creates social problems not goods. I am pleased to see a decline in giant SUV's. There are still way too many of them.

Funny that they dont even mention the MPG in the article or the fact that the EPA overstates MPG considerably so actual MPG is even worse.

GM Drives to New Image for SUVs

Goal Is to Shift Perception To Fuel-Efficient Vehicles; Jabs at Rivals Are Planned

By GINA CHON Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

December 27, 2005

General Motors wants to change the perception of its sport-utility vehicles from gas guzzlers to fuel economizers.

In a new marketing campaign for its 2007 Chevy Tahoe -- which hits showrooms in January -- General Motors will flaunt fuel efficiency as one of the vehicle's main selling points.

"We've been positioned over time as the gas-guzzling company," says Mark LaNeve, head of GM's marketing and sales. "Do we sell a lot of full-size SUVs? Yes, but do our SUVs get the best in class for fuel economy? Yes."

Sales of the Chevy Tahoe alone dropped by almost 20% in November to 7,850 vehicles compared with the same period last year, while those of the comparable-sized Avalanche fell by more than 31%. Sales of the larger Chevy Suburban dropped 43.6%. After years of double-digit growth, GM expects the market for large SUVs to remain flat in 2006 at about 780,000 units.

In the same vein, I heard an interesting story on NPR this weekend about an "alternative fuel" loophole Detroit uses to get around the clean air regulations so they can sell more of these fuel efficient Tahoes and Suburbans.

'Flex-Fuel' Concept Fails to Deliver on Potential

by Martin Kaste on All Things Considered

December 26, 2005

You may be surprised to know that since the 1990s, American roads have been filled with cars capable of running on alternative fuel. These so called "flex-fuel" vehicles can burn either gasoline or ethanol -- or almost any mixture of the two. The problem is, most drivers don't know their cars can do this, and the "flex-fuel" concept is backfiring.

listen

While Washingtonians slug it out in the ballot box trying to decide whether or not to build a cutting edge 20th Century rail system for mass transportation, it is nice to hear Seattle get some national recognition for doing something, dare i say anything, progressive. (Although California still gets a nice plug in this report regarding auto emissions.)

We were also mentioned in a recent Business Week article on environmental technologies for our biodiesel efforts.

Seattle Tackles Greenhouse Gases

by Elizabeth Shogren, NPR.org 

Morning Edition, November 28, 2005 · States and cities are jumping into the campaign to reduce the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. One of the leaders in that effort: the port city of Seattle.

Listen to the podcast

Not to worry people, this is clearly not global warming. It is surely raining someplace on the planet as we speak. And if we run out of corn, Im sure we can just eat cake...

All joking aside, this issue hasn't been in the news much. Many years ago (ten?) I heard people concerned that we were draining the water table from Nebraska to Texas as we pumped more water to farms than nature replenishes. I'm curious is this is the same issue.

I've been saying this for some time now. I thought i was crazy but now i see that I am not crazy at all; I just should be working for a think-tank.