Weather, Water, Energy 1-10-06

The big news, even the Big Boys caught it, is that 2006 was the warmest on record in the US (and 6th warmest for the world). That December that you thought was so weird. It was. But might not be in the future. . . .AZ has finally figured out that, maybe, we ought to sorta, you know, plan its water use for the future. I personally think they’re too late, overdeveloping and proving how helter skelter isn’t always best, but I have a surprising number of friends there I’m hoping don’t end up getting hosed. Of course, if there’s no water in the hose . . . . Turns out that annual plants, because of greater adaptability, may be better bets than perennials in a global warming world. . . . EU’s plan to cut greenhouse emissions 20% by 2050 and reduce energy import dependence is being called an “industrial revolution.” Those don’t have much impact as a rule, right? One thing they’re considering is “breaking up the ownership of energy businesses to avoid conflicts of interest.” Cheneyov’s not really going to let that precedent get set, is he? . . . What turds lead Exxon. Not a question. Notice the lack of question mark. Just “what turds lead Exxon.” (h/t Grist). . . . When you hear the reports on how China’s going to do this and going to do that regarding energy use and fighting global warming, keep this in mind. They’ve already missed their 2006 goals. Maybe they can think about that as forest fires eat them up, if their awful water doesn't kill them first. You know how bad it is there when Vietnam is ahead of their game. . . . Here’s a bit of good news. When Arctic ice melts, it adds water to the oceans that can absorb more CO2. Not enough to offset anything, but maybe slow things down a little. That can’t be bad. . . . Japan is calling for a new international system beyond the Kyoto Treaty, more stringent and far-reaching. And wants Bushnev to sign on. Let us know how that works out. The problem, again, is that the possibility that econ development might not be sustainable if the necessary actions are taken just is not within these folks’ mindset. They want people to continue to “prosper” and to “strike a good balance between economic activity and environmental protection.” What if that can’t be done? Which wins? Well, in the long run we know who loses. Yes, I know no politician can come out and say this. But do they even ever think it? If not, how will they know what to do when hooey hits fan? . . . Want a big surprise? Looks like only really big corporate producers will be able to get into biofuels big time. . . . Here’s one UN official who understands the difference between rhetoric and reality and is tired of the former driving out the latter. He says “I think there’s a risk. The longer it takes, there’s a risk that the process begins to lose credibility. If the process loses credibility people will look elsewhere.” See, he gets it. Possibly the greatest casualty of a sudden shift in climate will be the legitimate authority of the government entities that ignored it. Nice to see at least one person understand.