Weather, Water, Energy 11-07-06

Hadn't checked on Climate Progress in a few days. Some nice posts up right now. One on the international climate conference in Kenya that we talked about throughout the election (huuuhh?), one pointing out how serious droughts over large parts of the US and China are predicted by global warming models and, uh, well, we're seeing serious droughts over large parts of the US and China right now, and finally one on the ice getting so thin around the North Pole that the long-dreamt-of Northwest Passage is being talked about seriously, maybe by 2015, according to the Canadians. Won't it be cool when everything is covered by water? Huh? Huh? . . . Meanwhile, in Australia, where the third stupidest political leader in the world resides (after Bushnev and Inhofe), an expert says their drought is the worst in 1000 years, and their Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization says that their rainfall could drop by another 40% by 2070 as global warming heats up that continent. But the PM (aka 3rd stupidest) doesn't take policy advice from Al Gore movies so you know what? In a democracy people do get what they deserve (even as they screw the rest of us over). . . . Case in point--"the effects of climate change are imperiling countless [heritage] sites revered by millions [all over the planet]." It would actually be cheaper to protect them all in one swoop by dealing with global warming than by trying to save each individual one. But what do those people know at that Kenya conference (huuuhh?)? . . . Should we listen to the International Energy Agency instead? When it says that we have two scenarios for our energy future--"Stay the Course" or "Alternatives"? The first leaves us with demand for power going up 53% worldwide by 2030, the second 10% less (really doesn't sound like that good a choice, does it?). The latter would amount to 16% less CO2, though, and that would be good. The article talks about options (including biofuels, which experts downplay because we might need to, you know, eat that stuff to live). Here are the quotes to pay attention to: ". . . the energy future we are facing today, based on projections of current trends, is dirty, insecure, and expensive" but shifting to alternatives would "serve all three of the principal goals of energy policy: greater security, more environmental protection and improved economic efficiency." Still a tough choice? . . . Finally, speaking of dirty energy, three cheers for China and its overuse of coal. Yes, we're horrible on energy use in the US, but these guys are doing their share and have to come onboard if we have a chance of dealing with this . . . omigod, I just sounded like Australian PM John Howard. Does that make me fourth????