Don't Let The Arctic Vortex Fool You

Due to the bone-chilling temps caused by the recent Polar Vortex,  many North Americans (myself included) were contemplating moving closer to the equator. Those who are skeptical about climate change were quick to use the extreme cold as a way to disprove global warming. Don't let the Arctic Vortex temperatures fool you, or those who are trying to dismiss climate change. Global temperatures are on the rise, resulting in extreme weather. Researches have found irrefutable evidence showing the Arctic is the warmest it has been in 44,000 years.

Related Articles
The New Arctic Frontier: Follow the Heat

Arctic Erosion Study

A 2010 study, conducted by 30 scientists from 10 countries, states that Arctic coastlines are eroding in areas up to 8 meters a year- most notably in Canada. This will have a major impact on the ecosystem and the people who inhabit the Arctic tundra.

State Of The Arctic Coast 2010: Scientific Review and Outlook

"Climategate" is no Big Deal

While I was at the grocery store recently I heard two people debating the merits of climate change and how climate scientists allegedly faked data.  One of the people sounded like they obtained their opinion from talk radio and was going on and on about how the "phony" data proved that climate change is not real.  Oddly enough they managed to convince the other person that climate change is not legitimate nor has a scientific consensus.  I'm not going to use the multiple sources argument to negate this opinion.   I will use tobacco company science as the basis for my argument.  It has come out over the years that tobacco studies minimized the risks of tobacco use.  However, despite finding this out tobacco products are still widely available.  So, if faking scientific data can keep unhealthy products available in the marketplace there is no reason that we should not continue to pursue ways to minimize climate change.

Krugman's Empire of Carbon

Last week, Paul Krugman wrote about the Chinese Empire of Carbon. The article speaks for itself and it presents the difficult position the world faces, not only with China, but the billions of other people in developing countries. Everybody wants a better standard of living but nobody wants the constraints imposed by the environment. In the developed wordl, nobody wants to sacrifice what they already have. These positions need to be reconciled before any progress can be made.

Oil Sands

In the March issue of National Geographic they have an article about the Canadian oil sands. If you don't know anything about it then it is a must read. It will give you a different perspective on oil production to say the least. Another good reason to engage in conservation and alternatives.

Climate Change Conference

There is a climate change conference happening in New York City. It is not what you would expect. The conference, hosted by The Heartland Institute, is called Global Warming: Was it Ever Really a Crisis?. I don't know much about the group but the conference is about proving that the science behind global warming is not certain and that not everyone agrees with the consensus.

I think this is a great idea and I want the conference to get some mainstream attention. Any issue as important as climate change needs rigorous debate and a presentation of all the facts. Climate change is not a political issue. It is also not an issue that can only have one school of thought. I'm not a scientist so I don't know who is right or wrong scientifically. I do know that pollution and garbage are not good for humans. I also believe that being alarmist about anything can lead to rash decisions. Hysteria for or against this issue will lead to stalemate and a complete lack of progress in improving the quality of life for people and minimizing environmental damage. Good solutions usually come from looking at a problem from all angles with as much information as possible. Environmental issues should not be any different.

Environmental Impact of the Recession

As the recession gets deeper there could be an overall benefit to the environment. By benefit I mean less negative impacts. Now that the auto bailout has been rejected by the U.S. Senate we could see GM and Chrysler file Chapter 11 and possible thousands of suppliers going with them. The impact on industrial activity will be significant that it could probably translate into measurable changes on the CO2 emissions of the country. How this will impact any new environmental policy will be interesting. Since Republicans have successfully blamed unionized workers (not mismanagement or regulations) for the demise of the auto sector I'm sure they can find a way to take credit for the "improvement" in the environment when they argue against any new environmental policy. Hopefully the Obama administration can find a sensible way to restore balance to the economy and the impact on the environment.

High School Class Monitors Invasive Species

Some high school students from Scituate, Rhode Island are focusing on invasive plant species in their area. Their goal is to raise awareness about the impact on the local environment of these plants. They are posting their findings on their blog so you can follow along to what they are finding. Scituate is located west of Providence (Google Map) and it will be interesting to see if they see any new plants moving in or existing plants patterns changing as a result of climate change. I really don't know what the impact of climate change is in Rhode Island but I'm sure these students will figure it out.

Are "We" able to do it?

We can solve it is a campaign put together by the Alliance for Climate Protection. It has some compelling advertisements as you can see below. I like the idea and this particular video is straight to the point. The one thing I don't like is that it asks the leadership to do it for us. I thought we were in charge anyway so when we tell them shouldn't they react? I'm not knocking the campaign or group at all. I just think their message reflects why we are in the situation we're in. Most of the population is waiting for it to get done and feeling helpless. They are somewhat correct in saying one person can't solve the problem but if every person took personal responsibility for doing something about it would make a difference. Remember that each person contributes to the problem and the solution. Each person has a vote and can have input on policy choices. Don't shirk your responsibility and wait for it to happen.

Arctic Meltdown Speeding Up

Scientist have once again reported that the polar ice is melting at an alarming rate. In the Beaufort Sea, recent storms brought warm air to the Arctic. This, along with effects of global warming, has scientists warning that the Arctic could be free of ice by 2013.

How important is the ice? What effects will result from continued melting?
-The Arctic climate impacts all of the weather in the Northern Hemisphere, and the effects of such change could be devastating.
-Loss of ice = rise in sea levels which could threaten coastal areas worldwide.
-Companies, who would profit from the Arctic melt, would gain access to an abundance of resources that were once protected by the ice such as: oil, gas and minerals. Pollution, loss of species and other environmental destruction would be a result.
-Melting Arctic ice threatens Arctic ecosystems

Go to The National Snow and Ice Data Center for Arctic sea news and & analysis

Is Climate Change Action a Scam in the Making?

Several policies can be implemented to take action to counter climate change. The Kyoto Protocol outlines the benchmarks we should work towards to help reverse the damage. I know some people debate the existence of climate change, global warming or whatever but lets take it as fact for this exercise.

Two policies that have been proposed are cap-and-trade and carbon taxes. While doing some reading on the weekend I found an interesting point raised in the editorial pages of the Toronto Sun. Speaking about these programs, one of the last lines of the editorial summed it up perfectly:

What will they do? Raise taxes and our cost of living through higher consumer prices, with Big Business and Big Government dividing up the cash between them like crooks after a bank job.

That really made me think about things in a larger context. These programs do not really move us to a different economic/industrial model but simply make the current one more expensive. I don't know why I was so surprised but I felt silly and swindled at the same time. I suppose the argument could be made that something needs to be done to transition but as more time goes by without much changing I become more skeptical.

4th of July

In the U.S.A. the 4th of July is Independence Day and most people will be enjoying a national holiday. The U.S. Census Bureau provides a list of statistics for the typical 4th of July. Beef, lettuce, potatoes and fireworks are on the list. I think the celebration is great and I don't want to criticize but we need to look at this from a broader perspective. Think about the environmental impact of everything that goes into a typical celebration and multiply it across the U.S. A lot of transporting of food, those fireworks travel a long way from China and how clean are the conditions when picking the lettuce. It illustrates the point of how if we all changed one thing we could make a big difference and what we do impacts the world around us.

Go enjoy the 4th of July remembering that many people in the world believe in the same ideals of liberty and will be celebrating with you.

Peak Water

There has been more coverage of the peak oil theory but is it possible that we may experience peak water as well? Everybody knows the importance of water but I don't think we realize the amount that is used every day. The discussion around measuring a water footprint is beginning to become more mainstream as we are starting to realize how much water is used in everything we do.

Wired magazine has another great article this month discussing the impact of water scarcity in three place around the world. They also included it in an episode of Wired Science on PBS, which I never seem to catch. To me it looks like the combination of climate change, pollution and increased consumption are overwhelming water supplies.

Wasting water and energy is currently cheap enough that we it seems like we don't have to worry about it. What if every time you flushed a toilet you knew it would cost $20? Would you change anything? $50? $100? By looking at the relationship between gas prices and demand I think we'll see that the price we are willing to pay for wasting water may be too high.

Losing India's Islands

I am slowly getting up to speed on India as I mentioned earlier this week. I found this video which shows how India is being impacted by developments in the world.

Climate Change Economics

The debate between economic progress and environmental preservation is one that is not going away. For every environmental problem there is solution and economic consequences are always calculated. Economic policy development has focused on how to best minimize climate change while maintaining current economic conditions.

Arthur Laffer and Wayne Winegarden have recently written about cap-and-trade systems in the National Post. There assessment indicates that cap-and-trade systems for reducing GHG emissions are not the most effective means to do so and would likely cause harm to the economy. You may remember Arthur Laffer(Wiki) from the Laffer Curve regarding optimal taxation levels. They also have a more in-depth study titled "The Adverse Economic Impacts from Cap&Trade Regulations" sponsored by the Free Enterprise Education Institute.

In the National Post article they make a compelling argument against cap&trade because of the European example not being as effective as expected. They use other economic arguments against cap&trade which are logical. I have not read the complete study so I am basing my comments on the article. Generally, there analysis is sound and regulations do have some sort of economic impact. I do have a problem with a couple of points they raise. First, they determine regulations that would limit emissions would create economic impacts on the economy similar to supply shocks of energy. The idea is that emission limits will limit energy supply and constrain the economy. Quite likely this will happen but any regulations will be known long before enactment giving time to adapt and efficiency is a byproduct of energy supply shocks. They state that overall energy intensity has decreased over the last 30 years while energy prices have generally increased. I have yet to review any energy intensity data or studies but I am not certain if energy intensity measure consider changes in the underlying economy. Obviously technological advances have significant impacts on the energy intensity of the economy but the economy has shifted to a more service based economy possibly creating the reduction.

Needless to say the debate between economics and the environment will continue. I look forward to the day when overall structures change and the two will not be adversarial but will complement each other.

Deregulation and the Environment

Deregulation is seen as a solution for many sectors and electricity is no exception. Opponents of deregulation point to California's failed experiment. Ironically, PG&E, the utility at the center of the deregulation mess in that state, is now one of proponents of emissions caps and supplier of green energy.

Deregulation alone cannot solve market or environmental problems. It needs to be part of a complete policy designed to achieve the goal. For electricity it should be power at the lowest possible cost, generated responsibly to minimize environmental damage. Read this article and I think the U.K. has achieved most of that. I will admit that I am not familiar with the U.K. example so this editorial may be one sided. However, it points out that regulated systems are maintained to generate profits for utilities, stifle innovation and subsidize harmful generation practices and cheap power for polluting industries.

I have not been feeling well lately and will probably not write for the rest of the week. Hope to be back at it next week.

Global Warming Skeptics

In the current issue of Forbes, Steve Forbes has an excellent editorial about global warming titled "Fantasy Fears". His editorial recites many facts from "Diagnosing Al Gore: Truth in the Balance", which I haven't read in it's entirety but is also interesting.

The premise behind both is that global warming concern has elevated to hysteria and everyone is jumping on board and creating a new reality based on "scientific facts". Diagnosing Al Gore, written by Mary Ellen Tiffany Gelder, is an exercise in dissecting claims made in the film and discrediting them. This was bound to happen and, from what I've read, the article does a decent job and is not a scientific research paper. I know that if you look hard enough you will find information to support any argument so I'm not going to debate the alternative facts in the film or Gelder's article.

What I do have a problem with, and what Forbes and Gelder highlight, is the panic to be on the "right" side of the issue. This has created a lemming effect where everybody follows without asking any questions. Forbes also raises the point about calling people "deniers" who don't believe in global warming and likening them to Nazi Holocaust deniers. This does not serve the global warming cause well at all. Democracy allows people to share ideas and debate them publicly. We choose this form of social organization because it is better than one version of everything coming from the top down. By limiting the debate and proclaiming one truth we overlook the possibility of being wrong or finding other solutions.

While the global warming skeptics tend to be from more conservative political backgrounds and are more business/economic oriented they do agree with one position. Business will be helped by efficiency gains and waste reduction. If these people can get on board with supporting new technologies and methods that reduce waste, promote efficiency and create new economic models then everyone will be happy with the results. However, by proclaiming that the "inconvenient truth" is the only truth then the debate has polarized and any action is now paralyzed.

11th Hour

For more information about The 11th Hour, as well as the social movement that this film is bringing about, please check out the 11th Hour Action community at http://www.11thhouraction.com/

Google in the Black

Electrical generation is a significant source of pollution in the world. Computers use a significant amount of electricity. But how can you save electricity while using it? Blackle is a custom search engine that is based on Google but the display is black. Takes some getting used to but according to a post at EcoIron using black on Google could save 750 megawatts a year. A green twist on an old favorite.

Is it global warming or not?

In Canada's National Post today there is an editorial titled "Global warming? Look at the numbers". The focus is on revised data on temperature history in the U.S. being revised lower. This changes the years where the hottest temperatures were recorded and the relationship between increased carbon dioxide emissions and temperature. The author, Lorne Gunter, is really making another point. That this change in data has not been promoted by the environmentalists and that by not doing so are reducing the credibility of their argument. I feel if you don't acknowledge opposite opinions to your own you are doomed to pursue a solution that is missing half the problem. I haven't been able to find the specific data set that is referred to and I'm sure as an editorial piece the facts are skewed to promote one opinion. However, I actually follow this type of news and this is the first I've heard of it. I've either got to stop taking weekends off or I'm only looking for what I want to see. Maybe we've all been blinded by our pursuit of getting the word out that we've overlooked contrary data.