Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Weather, Water, Energy 8-21-07

More weather affecting energy. 1.5 m. daily barrels of Mexican oil in the path of Hurricane Dean. But let’s count on offshore drilling to meet future needs around the world. . . . Here’s a good idea. Nissan will put gas-mileage gauges in new vehicles to show people what they’re getting on those multiple trips to everywhere every day in real time rather than having to divide mileage by gallons at the pump and hope that the pump shut off the same place as the last time and that you remember how to divide double digits into triple digits and, jeez, your head starts hurting, and . . . . More “aspirational” goals in global warming policy out of the usual suspects—Bushnev and Australia’s idiot PM. Actually, the word is “asspirational.” . . . The cap-and-trade v. emission tax comparison goes on at ClimatePolicy with a nice discussion of the differences in designing policy for each. . . . Higher gas prices mean lower emissions? Uh, not yet. Certainly can’t count on it, you planners out there. And biofuels mean bigger profits for farmers and less reliance on the big corporate buyers? Uh, not likely. . . . Christian Science Monitor rightly notes the rush to claim the opening parts of the Arctic by Russia, US, Canada, Denmark . . . Denmark?? And rightly notes that the mechanism for resolving claims there is the Law of the Sea Treaty. And rightly notes that the US is the only related nation that hasn’t signed it and calls on us to do so. Without ever mentioning that the brain-challenged in the US Senate (of course, I mean Inhofe) haven’t already pledged to fight to retain our “sovereignty” there. Good reporting. . . . Good model for developing wind power in VT, “poultry litter” equals biooil at VA Tech. . . . At Climate Progress, Joseph Romm rips up a disgusting article that clearly went through an incompetent author, editor, and peer reviewers, as he very ably describes (the paper didn’t cite a half dozen key articles that challenge its thesis—a typical game by these people). They should all be ashamed. Of course, the article is being used by deniers and obstructionists despite its very clear flaws. The only good thing is that it gives Romm an excuse in the follow-up (tomorrow?) to explain why the climate models aren’t overestimating the likely change, as the trash article claims, but likely are underestimating it. . . .Finally, in Germany, enviro groups are hammering the inadequacies of the government’s climate plans. Maybe it’s the 27 new power plants that will go up to undo every gain they make on emissions. Doesn’t that sound a little silly? Ja.

Add to Technorati Favorites del.icio.us