Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science ...

Oh Gawd, shall this be an (anti) abortion thread? When our mojo feels the ground shifting away beneath him, he calls 'Wikileaks' or 'Climategate' or take your pick. I call it distraction, every time.

Different countries have different abortion laws:

Abortion law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If there is one you want the USA to be very much like, or unlike, just take yer pick. Trends towards FHo Politics though, I'd say. Every country has its own gun laws too, so don't miss that distraction if you feel the ground shifting away beneath you.

Gawd.

One might hope that we could here discuss optimal environmental policies, strengths and weaknesses. Economic and earth-system impacts. One might be goofy

Some guidance comes from 'the climate models', that are far short of Oracles. Guidance comes from clear observations we have already made, that can't make future predictions. It is frustrating. I could only ask 'Koch and friends' what evidence they might require to stop opposing a 10% per decade reduction in fossil-CO2 emissions. Something like that. Something readily achievable without large economic disruptions.

If we did that, and paid attention to the earth system, we could all, together, later, decide if it would be better to dial that up or dial that down.

We could be rational about this...

 

AustinG has reminded us here that Solyndra is bankrupt. Yeah, got that, and it is not the only failure from the energy-related economic stimulus. But 90% (95%, something like that) of the money went to companies that are still cooking, and I would suppose are providing employment, innovation and all that good stuff. A more comprehensive accounting would be much welcomed, and I can't do it. Anybody?

We hear lots about the losers. What about the winners? Totally on topic, Congress might decide whether throwing more money at the the 21t century is a good plan. 'Cause you know, simple-minded me, more of that congressional largesse might just be a good thing. But let's first ask the CBO whether fossil E or renewable E has added more jobs recently. It's their job to know.

Recently, bad air in Beijing has been in the news. I am happy to have missed it. But I watch the TV news, and the way they measure such things is with 'Thermo Scientific' turnkey big boxes. Just now I am trying to get more info (like cost) but my google (via HK) is very slow. Somebody else might fill in the gaps about what these systems cost; I will just suggest that China has bought >100 of them for the big cities and is... doing whatever it wants with the data.

But, they bought them, from one innovative US company that employs some number of workers. This is one thing that the US does now: it innovates high tech (related to environmental matters or otherwise) and sells to whoever. I like it that my country is doing that. I want them to do it more. Whether further economic stimulus could make the US a better $upplier of high-tech to the world, let's discuss it.

If we turn our backs towards the 21st century, and invite Koch&friends to lead us towards a redo of the 20th, I'm just not quite sure that the US can continue to lead as it has done. Let's pick a path. If it looks to take more taxpayer money, let's choose carefully.

 

Frankly, I believe that there is more money to be made in biomedical than environmental at the 1-2 decade scale. So, when students cross my path who look to have 'the stuff', I tell them so. There are overlaps, mostly in genomic analysis. If a fella can latch onto that technology, there seems to be no upper limit on where you can go along either path. But it is intellectually demanding. I can explain ITS primers and PCR and 454 pyro and GENBANK and BLAST as well as the next fella, but that does not mean that I can actually do them. Intellectually demanding. I am just a simple ecologist, a carbon-chaser, who unfortunately can see that what we have done there in the past is not hardly good enough.

We suck at what I do. Which is a whole different thing than 'do we know enough to plan the best carbon path for 21st century?' Whole different from the economic questions. It kinda looks like we suck at everything.

How to do better? Data. Models. Thinking. Observations. Testing. All for free? I doubt it.

 

Acceptance of Keystone is a defacto endorsement of Albertan Tar Sands oil, it production, refinement and use. Tar sands oil is quite possibly the dirtiest oil (on a number of levels!) on the planet.

My opposition to Keystone has nothing to do with the potential to leak but because of the environmetal disaster that is the tar sands. As has been pointe out, stopping Keystone won't stop tar sands oil production, but by forcing the Canadians to spend more money to sell thier already too expensive product, hastens the day when the body politic in Canada MIGHT stand up and say...ENOUGH! The public infrastructure costs of the tar sands are staggering, and if they are forced to build a pipe facility to ride water at either Rupert or Montreal it ony makes it harder to sell.

For those that are interested here is a link to a pretty good book on the subject!

Amazon.com: Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent, Revised and Updated Edition (9781553655558): Andrew Nikiforuk: Books

Icarus

 

I've heard of the recent study probably being referred to here that measured downwind methane from a natural gas field and found the leaking to be several times higher (I think) than generally expected.

I also recall another study a months earlier that measured leakage from a different and older (conventional?) field and similarly found leaking quite a bit larger than the EPA generally estimates. They calculated that if those higher leakage rates were typical then the global warming impact of natural gas would be equivalent to coal over the first 100 years. Methane is much more powerful as a greenhouse gas but is broken down in the atmosphere after a decade or so into CO2 which then hangs around for another few decades before being captured by the ocean, plants & soil, etc. Over periods longer than 100 years natural gas (methane) is still quite a bit better on climate impact than coal in addition to having much cleaner combustion.

The takeaway is really that methane leakage from the fields has really been poorly studied and regulated. There are things that can apparently be done to mitigate leakage if it is properly regulated.

I don't have links or citations to these 2 studies handy and don't have time to find them right now.

 

Although I think there could be merit in global focus on reducing methane, keep in mind there are many methane sources like landfills, rice/livestock/ag business, etc. Also methane does not survive in the atmosphere as long as CO2.

 

Yeah, I probably would have said the same until I watched this:

(graphic depiction) and found out what a killing industry it has become, largely funded by our tax dollars.

Read more: http://priuschat.com/threads/some-may-still-deny-the-overwhelming-judgment-of-science.121203/page-2#ixzz2IuUE2nyU​

​

Read more: http://priuschat.com/threads/some-may-still-deny-the-overwhelming-judgment-of-science.121203/page-3#ixzz2IuU6Ckj5​

Doug, DBCassidy is making the connection between population and "problem". There are some that will use whatever means to justify their "solution" to the "problem". It is relevant to the discussion.​

 

I was responding to the point that we will get all these green jobs when we close down all the coal quikly. solyndra wasn't my poster boy for green jobs, it was the presidents. They just don't get created in any where close to the numbers that the advocates suggest. Unlike solyndra in wind, we have had a great deal of success, replacing over 8% of fossil fuel with wind in less than a decade in the texas grid alone, and this was with fairly low subsidies, but changed regulations. I would call it a success, but again the jobs are not there. We can switch to renewables much faster, but when the ideas of just closing all the coal mines today comes up, there is a great deal of irrationality from that environmental group. It scares people into moving slower, as we know it will cause great problems. Close down all the coal plants older than 40 years in the next 8 years, and you have a big benefit

We have a number of very powerful politicians in the coal states. These guys were able to gut cap and trade, by giving their pet projects extra money. Really we need to understand that we can't protect coal jobs, and we can't simply create green jobs. What we get is the protection of polluting stuff, and more expensive renewables.

Somehow it seems both Koch and Gore and McKibben are more powerful today than ever. They will continue to squabble with their gerrymandered districts and make sure no bill gets through that shows real progress. I would really like to see Reid and Boehner along with Pelosi and McConnell do a duel to the death. All four of them have failed in climate legislation, in deficit reduction, in just about everything.

Individuals are making progress inspite of Washington.

 

That was an abortion at nearly 6 months when the a fetus could normally live given proper medical support in a hospital. Is there some reason you didn't show something describing an abortion at under 3 months where the large majority of them occur?

 

You probably should just block him like the rest of us He rarely has anything on topic of value to add, so when you put out responses to his nonsense, it looks like you are the one bringing in the crazy.

 

We have a problem in Journalism. Most familiar with the technology expect there to be leaks and methane belches, but some official figures are very low. When these higher estimates come out the journalist acts as if its something really really different that was just discovered. I still haven't seen good figure about how much is coming up. To do this we need to put in the equipment to capture this released methane and measure it. Unfortunately there are no incentives for the gas companies to do this. If the number is high it will get regulated and added to costs, if it is low no one will believe the numbers.

That seems like something the Koch brothers put out. I have never seen figures approaching that, but perhaps you can point me to the study.

Yep and health wise there is a reason epa measures nmog (non methane organic gases) at the tailpipe, they don't care about the methane, or at least didn't when they put the rules.

You can capture the gas, compress and send it through the pipeline. This adds a lot more cost to the well, and companies are fighting the regulation. If you fairly also regulated coal pollution it would be a level playing field, but most proposals are to add this gas regulation but keep the coal loopholes. That may shift us back to using more coal.

 

What is the difference?

 

I sorta understand what you are saying but there is a lot of crazy talk on the subject out there, some of it based on his premiss.

 

If you are Canadian, I can see your opposition to the Tar sands. As an American I can't see opposition other than on the grounds of empty symbolism.

Canada is going to develop this resource. If the US builds a pipeline, it can benefit from the energy security and jobs and put some environmental conditions on it.

If instead the US refuses to use any of the tar sands syn oil, then it is likely some will be refined in Canada and some will be shipped to China. The oil shipped to china has more of a chance of being refined with heavier pollution, and of course it is adding the energy costs of shipping the oil. All of that probably means more oil that the US imported from Opec with more of a risk of a price spike from things going on in iran or sudan or the next hot spot, versus long term supply contracts to companies operating in Canada.

Now the Canadian's will make larger profits if the Keystone pipeline goes in, and if you hate profits from the oil sands you may not like that, but they are our friend and a great trading partner. I don't think we should reject keystone just to spite Canada and help OPEC keep its power over the US government on the next oil blackmail.

I am with you, I would prefer that American's cut down on oil use, and got our energy security that way. Unfortunately bad policies in the 1990s and early 2000s - no fix to café standards favoring SUVs which encouraged them, less gas tax than roads cost, SUV subsidy in tax code for business - has given us a very fuel thirsty fleet. At least now we have improved café standards going through 2025 an incentives to build plug-in vehicles. The only lever not used is raising oil taxes. Not building keystone will not save 1 drop of oil.

 

Looks like we have both gotten off topic here and neither one of us is going to change the others mind. Cheers.

This station will now return to it's normal programming.

 

POSTPONED dependence on OPEC.

 

OK

 

It's very likely that I am thinking of a study by Robert Howarth of Cornell. The controversy about the study and alternative analysis of it are nicely summarized here:

On Shale Gas, Warming and Whiplash - NYTimes.com

 

Thanks. I find this the most interesting point of the reply

Which gives a big perspective why the conclusions are so far outside the norm.

When people talk about substitute natural gas for coal, we are talking about doing it for electrical generation. The author gets natural gas to look worse than coal by adding in all the natural gas used for heating. I'm sure the authors did not consider how much pollution would be created if we swapped from our natural gas heating to electrical non heat pump heating and coal hot water heaters. I am interested in studies that actually try to measure the impacts of say dropping 50% of the coal and fracking our way to replace it with wind + natural gas, but when you pump the figures up with home and building heating you get some numbers that are far out there.

 

Back to reality.
Mojo

"President Obama, I agree we should strongly consider the overwhelming judgment of science. Let’s apply the overwhelming judgment of science to your three cherry-picked examples and see what the science reveals."
The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims - Forbes