Efficiency is not an option

Well as Bush signs the new energy bill, maybe the next debate will be on nuclear power. Personally, I don't (nor do I think "most environmentalists" do) see nuclear energy as "irredeemably evil." One of the huge problems with this article is the same that plagues countless other articles attacking nuclear (or other alternative fuels) as being less cost-effective than efficiency. Well, yes. But the government has made it clear they're not going to spend money on efficiency. I and others have written about the benefits of efficiency. When discussing alternatives to energy production, it is important to concentrate on actually producing energy. Somewhere down the road, we need to plug in our TVs. The debate about alternatives is often unfairly characterized as "X energy vs. efficiency," when it should be "X energy vs. fossil fuels." Efficiency is not an "alternative" – it is a must. It needs to be debated in its own right.

Meanwhile, this blog is going to go into hibernation mode, as I will be spending most of the next four weeks in the land of nuclear power. No, not North Korea – France. I'll make sure to tell the pilot to fly a little lower than usual on the way over, and if anyone wants to put me up or buy me dinner, let me know.

BP at least sounds okay

The head of BP announced that it's time to take action on climate change. A novel idea. What they do is another question, which is why I'm not going to recommend we all switch to BP. Skipping ExxonMobil will do for the time being, thanks.

The latest on the global warming and hurricanes debate, courtesy of National Geographic. I always like NOAA's pictures.

It's too bad global warming didn't kill off the sloths. That kind of has a nice ring to it.

A change in the Executive

Why don't we just do what we've been itching to do for years now? Replace Dick Cheney, our Vice President who is traditionally in charge of energy policy, with a robot that runs on crude oil and simply spews greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Isn't that where our policy has been headed anyway? It will increase demand for oil and accelerate, rather than mitigate, climate change. In this situation, no one loses. Except everybody.

So the ridiculous energy bill passed Congress, as expected. $12.3 billion. Garbage. I'm at least proud of my Florida senators, but what the hell was Joe Lieberman thinking?

But our new clean development club will be the savior of us all. Or not.

Zero congressmen read this blog

On NPR this morning, the guest (not quite sure who at the moment) referred to the pending energy bill as a large cake of oil, coal, and nuclear subsidies with a little bit of frosting of the good stuff (alternatives and efficiency) on top.

The bill is clearly moving us in the wrong direction. A common question is whether this bill, from an environmental standpoint, is better than nothing. I would have to say no. By structuring the bill how it is, we are further increasing our oil dependence, and keeping alternatives from developing to their potential. The major thing lacking – which was put forward in the Senate – is increased support for efficiency. Didn't the House learn anything from Efficiency Week?

Business-as-usual scenarios for the U.S. rules in the new Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. If you ask me, there's a 98% chance that the word "Clean" is only modifying "Development" – not climate. Details expected later today.

I really like puffins.

Energy compromise

When I forecasted a failure to compromise on an energy bill, as happened the last time Congress tried, it was mostly because of the large disparities in the House and Senate bills. Well a compromise was reached. With Barton at the helm, the House proposal seems to have clearly won out. While there are incentives for cleaner and alternative fuels, there is a focus on developing more domestic oil (can someone say "Alaska"?).

"Republicans will vote for it because it pays off their constituents in the oil, gas, coal, electricity and nuclear industries," he said. "Democrats will vote for it because they're afraid of Republican TV spots in next year's campaigns attacking them for voting against a bill labeled energy." -Philip Clapp, President of the National Environmental Trust

The most striking thing to me is that the bill "deters unfair foreign competition from undermining U.S. energy security." In other words, the government is going to be able to veto the Unocal purchase by the Chinese National Overseas Oil Company? Hm.

And I'll try to keep abreast of what looks like the beginnings of a new climate pact "to rival Kyoto." The question is whether it will be something useful or a nice coal-sharing plan between the U.S., Australia, China, and India.

There have been a lot of "odd years" recently

Sure, it could just be an "odd year." But we can't settle on calling it that. Marine ecosystems have been disrupted, which is exactly what has been predicted. Personally, I don't know what it is, and I wouldn't make a claim to. I'm not a marine scientist. Yet they don't know either, which is perfectly acceptable. It only highlights the need for more research, from both the private sector and, more importantly, the U.S. and other countries' governments. From this rather serious change to the more ridiculous ones I like to highlight, the effects of climate change are and will be far-reaching and important.

And the less I look for global warming-flying fish connections, the more often I come across them.

Cicerone starts off strong

New NAS President Ralph Cicerone testified before several senators from a Commerce subcommittee, and according to the Post, they had "concerns." 'Bout time. I like the use of the Pentagon's report on climate change from last year. If Bush will listen to anyone, maybe it will be the Pentagon. Or Karl Rove.

So I've been reading a lot of the Post. David Ignatius wrote a good column on the recent Joe Barton saga, and he mentions about the same conclusion that RealClimate came to; even if Mann et al. were wrong, it "wouldn't change the scientific picture very much."

And more global warming ridiculousness - ducks, this time.