Weather, Water, Energy 1-23-07

VT is doing some serious planning for conservation and the energy savings it will bring. Good presentation of what's possible, but you sorta wonder about this liberal haven: if VT is just now getting around to this, what on earth have the other states (not) been doing? . . . Looks like geothermal might actually be able to deliver some respite, according to a new MIT study covered at Grist, which also claims that Pelosi is getting Dingell (D-General Motors) on the same page regarding climate change as the sane world (one of those see it when you believe it things). . . . Speaking of sorta sense, Greenland is cutting back on polar bear quotas due to the difficulties the creatures are having getting to their usual ice in the warming, and Canada isn't automatically loading up the big guns as killer whales migrate further north in search of food as their climate changes as well. . . . Here's some unfortunate news. Turns out that aerosol pollution ends up slowing winds, which ends up affecting cloud formation, which ends up reducing rainfall. The result for CA, in particular, could be a 2-5% reduction in water supply each year. I forget, do they have fires out there? . . . The big news, of course, is that a coming report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change not only narrows the odds that we humans can claim credit but that things will be worse in the future, even if we took action, not that we will. Here's the buried money quote:

As confident as scientists are about the global warming effects that they’ve already documented, they are as gloomy about the future and even hotter weather and higher sea level rises. Predictions for the future of global warming in the report are based on 19 computer models, about twice as many as in the past, Solomon said.

Oh, wait, no. This is it:

The future is bleak, scientists said. “We have barely started down this path,” said chapter co-author Richard Alley of Penn State University.

And, no, sorry, won't be saying anything about anything Bushnev says about global warming. He's never fooled me once, much less . . . won't fool me again. . . . Major business leaders clearly get it. They just can't stop themselves and want the government to bail them out. "It must be mandatory, so there is no doubt about our actions," said Jim Rogers, chairman of Duke Energy. Actually, this is a perfect example of why government grows and democracies become more authoritarian in resource scarcity, as we've discussed here before. More government isn't needed just to enforce the triaging and sacrifice that will be needed. It's also needed to provide the conditions so that those who go along with the necessary sacrifice won't get taken by others, and the others think the same thing. IOW, it's needed to guarantee trust that won't be there without an enforcer and so the actions required can be done. Classic "tragedy of the commons" stuff (whether the commons ever really existed historically or not). It's always fun to watch free marketers admit that "pursuit of one's own self-interest" might just take you over a steep, high cliff. . . . And here's why we won't do anything, from no less than the Christian Science Monitor. On its face, it's a fine objective article on the importance of "sound science" in the climate change deliberations. In fact, it's proof that the media still don't get it, even a very good paper like CSM. Here's its effort at reasoned discourse:

But Congress can't go down that path out of blind panic. It is, in effect, asking Americans to buy an insurance policy. Its provisions must not be driven by polls or hyperbole, but by sound science and a careful regard for the remaining unknowns.

Sounds very moderate and thoughtful, right, just like Kevin Drum. Here's the problem: The Monitor acts as if there’s something to balance. There’s not. The “uncertainty” isn’t between “pain” or “painlessness”—it’s over how much and how fast the “pain” and the “uncertainty” are. The writer just doesn't understand that it could be even worse than even the worst “pain” people are saying. It's very likely nonlinear and ahistorical (at least human history). WE DON’T KNOW. So actions have to be based on preventing the far ends of the “pain” scale, hoping they’re enough, and living with the benefits if we’re wrong. “Balancing” and “careful regard” will just create “split the difference” policy, “sorta do something” but “don’t go crazy,” at a time when we should be marshalling everything we have to head off the worst. I'm not advocating going back to the old days—that’s impossible and I couldn’t hack it anyway. Serious problems with hand axes. I am advocating having as clear a view of every moment as possible as it comes and being prepared to tack into it the best we possibly can, adjusting to every new, “uncertain” thing that comes along and recognizing that, while the models turn out extreme, they may be extreme in too optimistic a direction, too. That’s not “hyperbole.” It’s our reality and the Monitor clearly still doesn’t get it. And if, even with this editorial on the need for attention, it still doesn’t fully get it, how will the people who might make a difference? And, if that's not enough, just remember who's giving the SOTU tonight.