The Feeling of Awe

I have been reading and enjoying Merwin's poetry lately and started reading some of his prose pieces (The Book of Fables) last night but could not really get into it much. 

So, instead I looked up some critical articles and interviews with Merwin on JSTOR. Reading an interview from 1988, I found this paragraph which I thought was worth transcribing and saving because it really echoes the way I usually feel about human endeavors and ventures on earth!

I don't see that our culture and our species are behaving in a more enlightened and gentle and harmonious fashion now than we were twenty years ago. And the cause of the anger is, I suppose, the feeling of destruction, watching the destruction of things that I care passionately about. If we're so stupid that we choose to destroy each other and ourselves, that's bad enough; but if we destroy the whole life on the planet! And I'm not talking about a big bang; I'm talking about something that is happening as we are sitting here talking about it - the destruction of the seas, the destruction of species after species, the destruction of the forests. These are not replaceable. We can't suddenly decide years down the line that we made a mistake and put it all back. The feeling of awe - something that we seem to be losing - is essential for survival.

Blood Oil

Curse of the Black Gold is a book of photo essays, with pictures by Ed Kashi and text by UC Berkeley professor Michael Watts, who has written extensively on the Economies of Violence: Petroleum, Politics and Community Conflict in the Niger Delta. (pdf)


The book takes a graphic look at the cost of oil exploration in the Niger Delta and traces the 50-year history of environmental degradation and community conflicts that have plagued the region. 

See a multi-media presentation about the book here. Also, NPR has featured the book in July; so has Slate.

Related:
- A related earlier post which mentioned the photo-essays book, What Really Matters, which includes pictures from Ed Kashi.
- Nigerian Oil - The Great Spoiler: A National Geographic video, where you can "hear how the people of the Niger Delta view their oil-rich, cash-poor region." You should also read the corresponding NG article, with pictures by Ed Kashi
- Vanity Fair article by Sebastian Junger about Blood Oil in the Niger Delta, including more pictures, these taken by Michael Kamber.

Picture © Michael Kamber

A meeting of minds

The politician with rock-god status and the rock-god with political leanings (perhaps?) meet. :)

Generation E’s Task: Protest or Invention? by Andrew C. Revkin

Former Vice President Al Gore shared a panel with the singer Bono at the Clinton Global Initiative meeting in New York on Wednesday. (Photo: Jason DeCrow/Associated Press)

Also an excellent post on Education for "Generation-E" by Andrew Revkin at the Dot Earth blog at NYT.

Extrapolate the past or Invent the future

The Emerging Technology Conference at MIT started yesterday ...

Technology Review's EmTech Conference brings together world-renowned innovators and senior business leaders to discuss the emerging technologies that are poised to make a dramatic impact on our world. Keynote sessions, insightful panels, and groundbreaking presentations--of a caliber only Technology Review can deliver--are combined with networking opportunities and live demonstrations.

And this morning, even as I sit here and read about all the wonderful work going on around the world in cleantech and renewable energy, a few miles from here, these wonderful talks:

Keynote: Vinod Khosla (8:25 am - 9:10 am)

“Extrapolate the past ... or invent the future. A renewable-energy perspective: financing, forecasting, modeling, and trajectory.” A look at renewable energy—where we are now and where we need to be. The focus is on "Chindia" solutions—how to identify them, the issues with forecasting them, the importance of cost and scaling trajectory, and the policy prescriptions that can help drive them.

Green Transportation (9:10 am - 10:10 am)

Leaders from companies that are transforming transportation discuss how emerging technologies will enable more environmentally friendly planes, trains, and automobiles.
Confirmed Panelists: Steven E. Koonin, Chief Scientist, BP; JB Straubel, Chief Technical Officer, Tesla Motors; Ryan Chin, PhD Candidate, MIT Media Lab

Sigh... I couldn't be there for the talks but luckily you (and I) can all watch these two talks for free at the links above. (Thanks, TechReview for the freebies!)

Khosla, of course, is hugely invested in renewable energy (particularly biofuels, see my earlier post about it).

With regards to solar energy (which is an industry I currently know more about than other cleantech/renewable energy industries), he is not such a big fan, though he has been reported to be pro-solar thermal but not gungho about photovoltaics & solar roofing so much.

Why? Because ..

"I invest in technologies that achieve unsubsidized market competitiveness with five to seven years after introduction to the marketplace. I don't think photovoltaic has reached that point yet but I do think that solar thermal electricity will meet this criteria."

And like he said this week...

"If it doesn't scale, it doesn't matter. Most of what we talk about today--hybrid, biodiesel, ethanol, solar photovoltaics, geothermal--I believe are irrelevant to the scale of the problem" of climate change," says Khosla.

Though I am still a proponent for rooftop solar, which is how I came to be interested seriously (more than just a feel-good renewable-is-good sort of interest) in renewable energies, I am all ears to everything that Khosla has to say because as an entrepreneur, he brings a very practical and realistic view of things.

With regard to solar, I should add that his belief is that large, centralized solar power plants are feasible and we can get "up to 90 percent of the power we need from centralized renewables, which are “getting very competitive” with natural gas and other forms of fossil energy."

You can hear a speech he gave on solar energy at the annual Solar Power conference in 2006.



Ignore the rather irritating and pointless first 2.5 minutes of introduction and move on to hear what Khosla had to say.

Update: Since I wrote about one VC's opinions on solar, perhaps it is important to point out this timely post from the NYT Technology blog yesterday about VC investments this year:

Still, 39 percent of venture capitalists said that solar would become the dominant clean-energy source over the next 20 years, while 27 percent predicted it would be nuclear and 18 percent predicted it would be wind.

Per the article, thin-film solar companies alone have raised more than $800 million this summer! Also linked in the article is the TED Talk: Salvation and profit in greentech by John Doerr of Kleiner Perkins Caufield and Byers, "one of the top venture capital firms in Silicon Valley" which recently announced that "it had raised a $500 million Green Growth Fund and is also investing part of its eighth, $700 million fund in clean technology."

Polar bears on toonies

Earlier this week, I had put up a quicklink at Linkastic about Franke James's artistic visual route to narrate the story of a local accident.

Yesterday, she has posted another creative visual essay with some questions for her (Canadian) Prime Minister.

So, why are you (politicians of Canada & the powers that be everywhere) making us choose between the economy and the environment?

and how much does it cost to clean up pollution?




Picture © Franke James


For the record: Earlier post on polar bears here + news today that the polar bears are now resorting to cannibalism and this is apparently due to the Arctic ice shrinking! (Have not read the report or the details of the study; so, I am not commenting about the validity of the correlatio -- not the word "apparently" that I inserted -- I am mere reporting the observation that is in the news today.)

W00t, hip hip hooray, and a big Whoop!

Seems, the Senate was again voting today on Renewable Energy Tax Credits

Just saw this on the aforementioned Green Inc. blog at NYT

UPDATE, 6:30 PM: The Senate has overwhelmingly passed the bill 93-2.

I have to go cook dinner now but I'll come back and read the details...

Not lack of information but lack of will?

In a post today, lamarguerite has enumerated a great many reasons on why people love to blog. These include (and I quote):

• I am comfortable with blogging. It is what I know, and past the initial hurdle of setting up a blog, which by the way is very low, it’s been smooth sailing ever since.
• I like the feeling of being in control, and of having all my stuff in one place.
• When I contribute to other blogs, it is usually a boost for my recognition and helps enlarge my audience.
• Contributing to other blogs is a no brainer; hardly any setup is required, and I usually do a slight rewrite to address issue of duplicate content.
• I love the creative freedom of writing whatever I want whenever I want.
• My blog is also a social place to meet cyberfriends I have made along the way, and who keep coming back for more discussions.
• I get tremendous satisfaction from direct feedback from readers, particularly when something they read on my blog, either from me or other readers, is making an impact on their thinking or behaviors.
• There is lots of reciprocity going on amongst bloggers, thanks to linking, trackbacks, and pingbacks. As a result, the give and take feels very fair.
• Although I am very familiar with wikis, have consulted for wiki startups, and have started several private wikis of my own, I find making the move from blogging to contributing to public wiki platforms a huge step.
• First, there is the issue of time. If I could somehow export content that’s already on my blog, automatically, I would consider it.
• Second, is the problem of attribution, and ownership of content. Although, I am not one to hang on to my creative product with steel claws, it is very important to me that I be given credit for it.
• Third, is the issue of duplicate content, and how that might affect ranking of original content with search engines. If content is going to be exported automatically, and frequently, I would not have the time to do rewrites to avoid duplicate content problem.
• My blog is not my only source of content either. There are quite a few projects I have been working on, that are sitting either in some files on my desktop, or in Google groups discussions, and that I wouldn’t mind sharing, if I could just turn those over with one click.

Most of them resonate with me, though I do not have many readers and hardly any comments/feedback. I do it because I like to. Blogging started as being a nice central place for me to collect various articles on subjects I was interested in. However, in order to make it of some interest to readers, I have tried over the last year or so to bring some focus to it by honing in on a few topics only; environment & energy issues being one of them.

Anyways, there are literally hundreds of sites (so much so that let alone bookmarks, even feed readers are not adequate to keep track of them) that blog about green issues today. So much so, that I, who admittedly spend way too much time online, didn’t even know about the two wikis mentioned in lamarguerite's post: Wikia Green & Appropedia.

She ends her post of what she envisions as a perfect sustainability wiki. And though I have nothing against more blogs and wikis (more power to them!) , what we perhaps need is just 1-2 (ok, not 2, a few) blogs which capture the people’s imagination on the subject and which everyone comes to read daily. Like what Arrianna Huffington or Markos (of Dailykos) have achieved in their spheres of interest. The green movement does not have such a visible and across-the-board influencer in the blogging world. Sometimes it feels like it is still a small segment of life-minded people reading about issues that they are more or less already convinced about. We all preach to the choir..or so it feels sometimes.

[Related: Dot Earth at NYT is a great blog. NYT, though not read as extensively in the red states probably, has some influence. Just read there that they are starting yet another Green Blog. "Green Inc., that they describe as a “daily churn” exploring the intersection of energy, the environment and business." So, obviously there is some effort being put into this even by MSM.]

But you need people to be passionate and interested in green issues before you can have a famous blogger on green issues …so, I maybe agree with what one of the comments at lamarguerite's post says: “Lack of information isn’t the problem, it’s lack of motivation.” [kiashu].

It’s easy to be reckless, lazy, and not care. It takes effort to care and make a difference. People are not motivated to spend a little more because of concern for climate change, no matter how many times Al Gore (and others) talk about it. They’ll readily go buy $50,000 Hummers and electricity soaking $4-5K monster TVs though! (The norm of $200-400 TVs became 10x that and no one blinked an eyelid! Yes…its superior technology but it rankles me when people talk about how expensive it is to be ‘green’. Yes…it sometimes is, though it does not have to be. And if you care for future generations and what toll human kind is taking on earth (in just 2-3 centuries), you would just be motivated enough to take a few extra steps and spend a little more to ensure that we do not leave such a trail during our brief time on earth. Simple issues of efficiency and conservation* hardly need expensive solutions and yet very few adopt them.

Even with the green movement taking on some urgency and getting mileage in news media due to the rising energy costs, the needle has only moved infinitesimally in the last few years.

So, what will get Americans (I live in the US and so write about it. Not blaming them alone, by any means, for climate change…though they are amongst the highest contributors on a per capita basis to CO2 in the atmosphere) to change their lifestyles… not just us “elitists” on the coasts but all $300M+ of us?

–

* I do not recall how I arrived at lamarguerite's blog recently but one of the things that immediately caught my attention and made me an instant-fan was that she talk's about these issues - efficiency and conservation and not merely in much abused "sustainibility" terms. I am a big renewable energy proponent but it cannot be at the expense of conservation and efficiency. (Whenever I talk about this, I am reminded of a photograph I had seen of a 5000 sq. ft. house with thousands of lights on (admittedly, maybe just for the picture to be taken) which is a Energy Star certified house!)

Slow drip

Andrew Revkin, through pictures he has taken over the years, talks about various slow drip issues that are affecting the earth.

Unlike other posts, this one is short and sweet and ends here -- his pictures and his words say it all.

Where there is a will...

...there is a green city!

I had blogged in mid-2007, when I first started getting interested in solar energy (thanks to a project at work), about how Germany, a country which apparently gets less sun on average than rainy Seattle, had become the #1 country for solar installations due to political will and the people's drive to make it happen.

In the US, though growing, solar is not that common although it is important to recognize California's leadership for their CSI program (that stands for California Solar Initiative, you television buffs. :)), which is directed by the California Public Utilities Commission and has a budget of $2B+ for the 2007-2016 period.

Now, foggy San Francisco has taken the initiative and launched a Solar Energy Incentive Program with the intention of helping put up 10,000 solar roofs in the city in the next 5 years. The program has a budget of $3M for 2008-2009 and further details can be found via the website for the SF Public Utilities Commission. (Considering how much money our politicians waste on so many useless things, $3M a year is a drop in the ocean!)

In June this year, the San Francisco board of supervisors approved this program (albeit after months of political bickering with naysayers) and SF Mayor Gavin Newson, who has been fighting FOR this program for a long time, signed it into law shortly thereafter.

Residents can apply for the incentives of up to $6,000 and businesses can apply to get up to $10,000. The city has launched a great website - SF.solarmap.org - for residents to estimate available roof, costs, and understanding all available federal, state and new municipal rebates. The website also has a great Google mashup that maps the locations of solar installations in the city. Absolutely wonderful!

And it gets even better...

The next step is to make the out-of-pocket cost zero, Newsom said today. He wants to create a municipal loan program to erase the upfront cost, allowing anyone to put solar up. Its another ambitious plan and it took six arduous months for the rebate program become law so don’t expect zero-down solar from the city any time soon.

More power to Newsom! Mayor Menino and mayors across the US, are you paying attention? Show some leadership!

Related: The 2008 SustainLane U.S. City Rankings have been released, with Portland, San Francisco and Seattle named as top three green cities. Boston's at #7 (not too bad.. I didn't expect it to be. The mention of Mayor Menino above was just because I want to see solar panels all around me when I go out for a walk. But I don't see too many; including on my own roof. Clearly, despite the best of intentions, there is something (costs, consumer education, ...what else?) working against us here. But, like the old adage goes: Where there is a will, there is a way!

Fuzzy Math, anyone?

oh.. how did I miss this!

Earlier this week, McCain was asked what experience Palin has about national security. Let alone whether the logic that she has experience in national security because she "understands energy" is true or not.... is he kidding us when he says she "understands energy better than anyone else in America"!

Gov. Sarah Palin "knows more about energy than probably anyone in the United States of America." --John McCain, ABC interview, Sept. 11, 2008.

Also.. guess how she knows so much about energy. Well...

Last week, Sarah Palin told Charlie Gibson of ABC News that her state, Alaska, produced "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of energy." Yesterday, she told a campaign rally in Golden, Colorado, that she had been responsible for overseeing "nearly 20 percent of the U.S. domestic supply of oil and gas."

Guess what...

Both claims are way off.

Correct answer: Alaska produced 14.3% of US oil and 3.5% of overall energy. In addition to that link, Factcheck.org has also already verified the #s but for your benefit, I went and got the #s from DOE website and checked them again! I remember seeing 70% of US oil comes from foreign sources somewhere. That is wrong. This DOE website says ~60% of oil was imported from foreign sources in 2007. [I was surprised to see highest % is from...Canada (18.2%) and then Mexico (11.4%), followed by Saudi Arabia (11.0%), Venezuela (10.1%; Hola Hugo!), and Nigera (8.4%).

And this table verifies that 14.3% of domestic oil does indeed come from Alaska (263,595 / 1,848,450 = 14.26%; those #s are thousands of barrells, btw.)

And per DOE, the share of oil in contributing to US's total energy production is just 18%.

Coal 33%
Gas 28%
Oil 18%
Nuclear 12%
Renewable 9%

So, Alaskan oil contributes to 14.3% of 18% = 2.574% of total US energy needs, not 20%!

We expect and endure rhetoric and empty platitudes from our politicans about our financial woes, the economy, the energy crisis, and so on... but please stop feeding us outright lies!

Related: Wiki entry on Energy use in US

P.S. Pathological lies extend to areas beyond energy. The McCain campaign has taken the "politics of lying" to a whole new level ever since they chose Palin.

P.P.S Sarah Palin and the Environment

Take a stand for solutions

Al Gore's WE campaign has a message for all of us.

Take a stand for solutions. Join us: http://www.wecansolveit.org

The solution to our climate crisis seems simple. Repower America with wind and solar. End our dependence on foreign oil. A stronger economy. So why are we still stuck with dirty and expensive energy? Because big oil spends hundreds of millions of dollars to block clean energy. Lobbyists, ads, even scandals. All to increase their profits, while America suffers. Breaking big oil's lock on our government ... Now that's change.

We're the American people and we approve this message.

Related: Embracing the Challenge to Repower America

At the risk of repeating myself (earlier: 1, 2)..... more drilling is NOT the answer.

Weed powered jet

I had blogged about algae-derived oils last year and also had some updates on investments in algae-based biofuels couple months ago... but now comes news that a algal-oil maker plans to

...target the jet-fuel market and aims to reduce production costs to $40 to $80 per barrel in a few years.

Earlier this year,

Air New Zealand plans to fly a weed-powered jet later this year in a trial to determine if the biofuel technology is worth further research.

Note: OK, I was being a bit disingenuous with the title. I couldn't decide if "weed powered jet" or "$40-$80 per barrel oil" was more catchy! :) Obviously, it is not a "weed-powered jet" but "a weed powered jet". Crucial "a" there! :) The fuel is based on Jatropha oil, produced from the seeds of the Jatropha curcas. Apparently, the plant "can grow in wastelands and yields more than four times as much fuel per hectare as soybean, and more than ten times that of maize (corn)."

Go Duke!

No.. not basketball season yet! I'm just praising Duke Energy and the leadership it is showing in being a proponent of renewable energy.

PG&E has long been the champion of renewable energy in California Now Duke Energy seems to be taking a big lead in the Carolinas.

Duke Energy Carolinas is seeking bids from solar power companies to supply solar panels, electrical equipment and installation services as part of the utility's proposed $100 million North Carolina solar plan. Starting in early 2009, Duke Energy wants to install electricity- generating photovoltaic solar panels at up to 850 North Carolina sites, including homes, schools, office buildings, shopping malls, warehouses and large manufacturing facilities -- both on roofs and on the ground. Electricity generated through the program would total at least 16 megawatts -- enough to power 2,600 homes -- after the solar power is converted from direct current to alternating current. The proposal, first announced in June, requires approval by the North Carolina Utilities Commission before it can be implemented.

More details in an industry announcement at Greentech Media, including these details that Duke Energy is taking a holistic view of renewable and clean energy initatives and is not wedded to one industry or its lobbyists but is genuinely interested in offering renewable energy options to its customers:

In addition to its solar distributed generation plan, Duke Energy in the past four months also has announced a series of other renewable and clean- energy initiatives, including: -- The purchase of the entire electricity output (16 megawatts) from what will be one of the nation's largest photovoltaic solar power plants, to be built in Davidson County, N.C., during the next two years.

-- A partnership with General Motors and other utilities to help lay the groundwork for the large-scale launch of plug-in electric vehicles, starting in 2010.

-- The acquisition of a large wind company -- Vermont-based Catamount Energy -- which has 283 net megawatts of wind power in operation and another 1,750 megawatts under development.

-- A request for proposals from renewable energy developers to supply significant amounts of electricity to Duke Energy customers in Ohio.

-- The purchase of the entire electricity output from a power plant fueled by methane gas naturally emitted from decaying garbage at a closed Durham, N.C., landfill. The facility will produce enough electricity to serve 1,600 homes.

And there's this additional news yesterday on the wind energy front:

Duke Energy announced today a long-term agreement for the sale of 99 megawatts of electricity from its new Wyoming wind farm, as well as the purchase of 100 wind turbines from General Electric that will produce 150 megawatts of power at multiple U.S. sites.

I hope more utilities follow suit soon!

15 by '20

It's not quite Gore's dream (his ambitious and likely unrealistic goal calls for 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020) but it's a start and a welcome change from the shouts* of Drill here, Drill there, Drill now echoing around in the media lately!

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a wide-ranging energy bill that will require most utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar power.

President George W. Bush has vowed to veto the bill because it does nothing to encourage increased domestic production of oil and gas.

...

The utilities provision, the so-called renewable electricity standard amendment, was among the most contested measures in the energy bill. Sponsored by Representative Tom Udall, a Democrat from New Mexico, and several others, it will force utilities to make a significant share of their electricity from solar, wind, geothermal, water and other nonfossil fuel sources, although they can meet part of the requirement through conservation measures. The standard applies only to investor-owned utilities and exempts rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, the Tennessee Valley Authority and the state of Hawaii from the mandate.

The 786-page House energy bill does not include an increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars and light trucks that supporters called the single most effective way of cutting oil consumption and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases. Sponsors vowed to bring it up again when Congress reconvenes in September. The Senate passed energy legislation in June with numerous differences from the House package. The Senate version requires that cars and light trucks sold in the United States achieve a fleet average of 35 miles per gallon by 2020, or 6.7 liters per 100 kilometers, or 15 kilometers per liter. Democrats said if the bill that emerged from conference contained both the renewable electricity standard and the mandate for higher corporate average fuel economy, it would be the most significant energy legislation ever enacted.

Also this welcome change from the norm (which explains why Bush is going to veto it!):

The bill will repeal a tax break for oil companies from 2004, and another tax break relating to income from foreign oil production. Critics of the two tax breaks called them loopholes that the industry had taken advantage of.

However, I fear this might be a fleeting moment of exuberance for alternative energy enthusiasts. Firstly, right now there are differences in this bill from the one the Senate passed in June.

A bill that has been agreed to in identical form by both bodies becomes the law of the land only after:

1. Presidential approval; or
2. failure by the President to return it with objections to the House in which it originated within 10 days (Sundays excepted) while Congress is in session; or
3. the overriding of a presidential veto by a two- thirds vote in each House.
[Source]

Also, President Bush has said he will veto the H.R. Bill with the renewable energy mandates! So, the final law may not have some of these renewable energy mandates! Oh well... for now, lets keep our chin up and hope for the best!

P.S. Drilling down on McCain, Obama energy plans

P.S. S. Elsewhere, a BBC poll that suggests that people across 19 countries fear energy policies are threatening the environment and global stability.

* I've already blogged about it but yesterday's NYT Editorial adds more commentary on why the Republican choice for VP spells more bad news for alternative energy proponents.

Mr. McCain’s choice of Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his running mate raises even more worrisome questions. Her strategy is drill here, drill there, drill now.

She would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in a heartbeat — something Mr. McCain continues to oppose. She has sued the Bush administration for declaring the polar bear a threatened species, fearing it would interfere with oil exploration in Alaskan waters. She has questioned whether humans are responsible for climate change. Governor Palin’s views are alarmingly out of touch with reality. No less alarming was Mr. McCain’s decision to welcome them into his campaign.

Happy Ganesh Chaturthi

I once had a friend write back to a group email saying: "arre..if it's Ganesh's birthday...go wish him. Why are you sending me emails about it?"

So, before someone does that.. let me say this post is only tangentially about wishing you for the festivities. For all I care, you can join Dan OKeefe in celebrating Festivus. :)

This post is however to write about Natural clay Ganesh idols being encouraged to reduce pollution! :)

P.S. Found this link at the bottom of the above link under related posts.

Solar Powered Hindu Temple in California to Open Summer 2008

Now this is one temple I wouldn't mind going to, if only to look at the solar panels. :)

The Republican "Drill Drill Drill" chorus just got louder

Hear it from Sarah Palin, trying to sell you Alaska's resources as a solution to US's energy woes, all the data from the government's own studies not withstanding!

"We need to drill drill drill... "

And here is an eco-rundown and of her anti-environmental record so far.

Update: Thomas Friedman, who has been writing about climate change and US energy policy recently (for example, see my earlier posts: 1, 2, 3) writes in his NYT op-ed piece today about what McCain/Palin's position on energy means for the US (and the world at large):

With his choice of Sarah Palin — the Alaska governor who has advocated drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and does not believe mankind is playing any role in climate change — for vice president, John McCain has completed his makeover from the greenest Republican to run for president to just another representative of big oil.

..

“One of McCain’s last independent policies putting him at odds with Bush was his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,” added Pope, “yet he has now picked a running mate who has opposed holding big oil accountable and been dismissive of alternative energy while focusing her work on more oil drilling in a wildlife refuge and off of our coasts. While the northern edge of her state literally falls into the rising Arctic Ocean, Sarah Palin says, ‘The jury is still out on global warming.’ She’s the one hanging the jury — and John McCain is going to let her.”

Indeed, Palin’s much ballyhooed confrontations with the oil industry have all been about who should get more of the windfall profits, not how to end our addiction.

..

By constantly pounding into voters that his energy focus is to “drill, drill, drill,” McCain is diverting attention from what should be one of the central issues in this election: who has the better plan to promote massive innovation around clean power technologies and energy efficiency.

Why? Because renewable energy technologies — what I call “E.T.” — are going to constitute the next great global industry. They will rival and probably surpass “I.T.” — information technology. The country that spawns the most E.T. companies will enjoy more economic power, strategic advantage and rising standards of living. We need to make sure that is America. Big oil and OPEC want to make sure it is not.

Sigh!

Polar bears

Earlier this year, Newsweek had a good article about the difficult future faced by polar bears, which I have mentioned in a post about penguins and another about gorillas ... but hey.. polar bears are cute enough to deserve their own post! :)

Well.. an opportunity presents itself with this report today of polar bears swimming in open water.

Ten polar bears, an unusually large number, were seen swimming in open water off the northern coast of Alaska recently, some heading for shore and some heading toward the retreating ice in the Chukchi Sea, two U.S. government officials confirmed on Friday.

..

Polar bear sightings in open water were infrequent until about 2004, Miller said, but rising temperatures have melted much of the ice platform on which they live and hunt for seals. In May, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne put the U.S. polar bear population under the protection of the Endangered Species Act, primarily because of the loss of its sea ice habitat.

"It's not unusual for bears to be swimming," Miller said, "but depending on their condition and how much time they're spending in the water, this could be problematic. It's going to cost them more energy to swim through water than travel on land."

In addition, more bears have been sighted on land in July and August than in the past - a possible result of the retreating of the sea ice. But "it's not a clear-cut situation," Miller said, noting that most bears captured by biologists this spring on the ice in the Beaufort and Chukchi Seas have been in good condition. So have several bears caught on land this month.

Polar bears in open water may or may not be a bad thing in and by itself but there is no doubt that the Arctic ice shelf and the Antarctic ice melting away is not a good thing.

Also these news report in the last two days:

In northern Greenland, a part of the Arctic that had seemed immune from global warming, new satellite images show a growing giant crack and a 28.5sqkm chunk of ice breaking off a glacier.

Two of Greenland's largest glaciers lost more ice to global warming over the past month, US researchers said today. Glaciologists at the Byrd Polar Research Centre at Ohio State University observed the break-ups by monitoring daily NASA satellites images as well as time-lapse photography from cameras monitoring Greenland's glaciers.

And so it goes...

Past Peak Oil

Michael Klare, author of the recent book, Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America’s Growing Dependency, makes the argument that:

Unlike the oil ‘shocks’ of the 1970s, the current energy crisis is almost certain to be long-lasting. None of the quick fixes proposed by pundits and politicians – drilling in protected wilderness and maritime areas, curbs on commodity speculators, pressure on members of OPEC to increase output – is likely to have much impact. In 1973-74 and again in 1979-80, events in the Middle East led to a sharp reduction in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf, causing a contraction in global supplies and a rise in energy prices, and thus sparking a global recession. But when equilibrium of a sort was restored to the region, the oil began to flow again and the crisis passed. Now, however, the imbalance between supply and demand is largely due to factors inherent in oil commerce itself – and so is less easily solved.

The oil crisis is the product of three developments: an unexpected surge in demand, much of it from Asian countries; a slowing in the growth of world supply; and a shift in the centre of gravity of production from the global North to the global South.

...

According to the Statistical Review of World Energy, published every June by BP, oil consumption jumped from 69.5 million barrels a day at the end of 1995 to 85.2 million barrels at the end of 2007. Some of this huge rise was generated by increased fuel consumption in the United States (where giant SUVs had become all the rage), but most was the result of increased demand from the rapidly industrialising nations of the developing world. Of those 15.7 million extra barrels, 4.6 million were added by China, and 2.7 million by other Asian states, including India.

While expecting China or India to not go through their long overdue development/growth spurt is hardly pragmatic, expecting people to conserve energy, opt for less oil-guzzling cars, and focus on renewable energy choices is! To quote Klare again:

Throughout their administration Bush and Cheney have worked to impede the adoption of conservation measures (such as tough fuel-efficiency standards for domestic vehicles), to hold back the development of alternative sources of energy and transport, and to sustain high levels of oil consumption. As a result, according to BP, US consumption rose by one million barrels a day over the course of Bush’s presidency while the output of domestic fields declined by roughly the same amount, pushing net imports up by two million barrels. Although not as large a rise as that recorded by China, it still contributed to the pressure on oil exporters and helped to push prices up. Until American and Chinese consumers of oil are put on a diet, and alternatives to petroleum are developed, the world’s energy crisis will only get worse.

But instead our politicians can only indulge in short-sighted rhetoric and think we can drill our way out of this crisis!

P.S. Other books on the topic of peak oil include
Beyond Oil - The View from Hubbert's peak by Kenneth Deffeyes
The Battle for Barrels: Peak Oil Myths & World Oil Futures by Duncan Clarke
The party's over by Richard Heinberg
Sleeping with the Devil: How Washington Sold Our Soul for Saudi Crude by Robert Baer
Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons
and coming later this year..
Resilient Cities: Responding to Peak Oil and Climate Change by Peter Newman, Timothy Beatley, and Heather Boyer

Drill here and drill now

Bob Herbert writes in his NYT op-ed piece this week:

Senator John McCain told cheering bikers at a giant motorcycle rally in South Dakota: “We’re gonna drill offshore! We’re gonna drill here, and we’re gonna drill now!” He told an audience in Lafayette Hill, Pa.: “We have to drill here and drill now. ... Drill here and drill now.”

With Senator McCain and the Republicans painting a false portrait of drilling as a method of relief for today’s high prices, and with polls showing the G.O.P. gaining traction on this issue, Senator Barack Obama has eased off his previous opposition to new offshore leases.

And so dies the possibility of the presidential campaign offering any real clarification of this important issue.

And drilling becomes..

...the latest smoke screen in the presidential election, the bogus contention that lifting restrictions on offshore oil drilling would somehow, in the foreseeable future, bring down the price of gasoline for American motorists.

This absurd contention is now one of the main issues of the campaign. It’s the latest example of a very real fear (that sky-high energy prices will undermine the average family’s standard of living) being exploited shamelessly for political purposes.

Or as John Kerry put it (excerpted again from Herbert's article):

“It’s a completely fraudulent argument. It’s misleading. It’s snake oil salesmanship of the worst order.”

Let me add to that - at the point of repeating myself - the State government's own studies have shown that ANWR oil would have little impact on oil prices and keep the US heavily relying on foreign imports. But I think Jon Stewart had the most appropriate response to McCain's "Drill here and drill now" rhetoric! After all, humor is one of the best ways to deal with stupidity!

P.S. Friedman also has an op-ed piece today in the NYT - Eight strikes and you are out - about McCain and other US politicians big thumbs down for renewable energy. Your campaign ads may some one thing, Mr. McCain...but your actions speak louder than words! Or like Friedman writes: what we require is ..

..a fundamental reshaping by government of the prices and regulations and research-and-development budgets that shape the energy market. Without taxing fossil fuels so they become more expensive and giving subsidies to renewable fuels so they become more competitive — and changing regulations so more people and companies have an interest in energy efficiency — we will not get innovation in clean power at the scale we need.

That is what this election should be focusing on. Everything else is just bogus rhetoric designed by cynical candidates who think Americans are so stupid — so bloody stupid — that if you just show them wind turbines in your Olympics ad they’ll actually think you showed up and voted for such renewable power — when you didn’t.

America on vacation

No.. I am not referring to Bush's Asian (and earlier this summer European) jaunts... but to something that James Kuntsler, who often uses alarmist language and indulges in hyperbolic fear-mongering by taking problems to their logical and sometimes illogical extremes, wrote this week:

America is on vacation from its financial, fiscal, and economic problems, having left the centers of power in Wall Street and Washington for a Nantucket-of-the-mind, where, in a haze of artisanal vodka and bong smoke, it's out in the cool dune grass watching imaginary whalefishes blow, leaving only the TV Bubbleheads behind back home.

Alarmist and fear-mongering - Yes. But perhaps sometimes necessary to wake people out of their stupor?

Kuntsler is the author of the 2005 book The Long Emergency, in which he argues that declining oil production is likely to result in the end of industrialized society and force Americans to live in localized, agrarian communities! (Read an excerpt here.) He has also been an outspoken critic of suburbia and urban development trends in the US, writing:

The tragic landscape of highway strips, parking lots, housing tracts, mega-malls, junked cities, and ravaged countryside that makes up the everyday environment where most Americans live and work [is] … a land full of places that are not worth caring about [and] will soon be a nation and a way of life that is not worth defending.

More ranting about greedy developers and suburban developments some other time!