Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Global ocean temperature 16.05 C in November, 2007 is down from the previous several years, and about the same as it was in 1979 when the following graph starts. I am going to be interested to see what December shows.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/NCDCabsOcean.html

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html

Yes, I was listening to some scientist talking on the radio today--didn't catch the name--talking about how the ocean temperatures haven't increased since 2001, if anything have decreased a tenth or so of a degree. However, if we are truly eco-conscious, we won't let a little thing like the temperatures stallling out for seven years bother us.

So here's the latest thing. No need to rape food crops for bio-fuels and we won't need to raise more flatulent cattle for the new beef fat fuels. The affluent world is the most guilty for greenhouse gas emissions, yes? And we are also the world's most overweight.

So here's a pure believer--he and his buddies had liposuction to produce enough fat to help fuel his bio-fueled speedboat. Now that's commitment!

See the whole story HERE

Interesting article, Walter. I assume the fines will be based on some formula for average fuel consumption, based on the number of each model sold. Even so I wonder how they propose to calculate the "excess CO2" or even miles driven, etc. This proposal itself reflects the mindless zealotry of the single-minded true believers.

This is becoming a 21st century Children's Crusade. Happily it is happening in Europe where there are few real children, but apparently no shortage of authoritarian bureaucrats.

I don't think that we'll get it: France, Italy and especially Germany disagree already now, some commissioners did, too.

Like we've already said...bio fuels are not the answer...electricity is. The sooner our politicians realize that the better.

The President was talking about the new energy bill (that the oil companies absolutely hate) in his press conference this morning, and he made the point that he personally strongly favored development of nuclear energy. He also favors more use of bio fuels that do not raise food prices or raise the cost of cattle feed etc.; i.e. developing technology to use wood chips and other non food products. And he approves of the CAFE standards. He said the bill Congress passed was weaker than the one he proposed, though he didn't elaborate on what aspect.

Electricity doesn't materialize out of thin air though. We can't mine it. I doubt there is enough lightning to harness if we could figure out how to do that. So it has to be produced by something.

(I'm disappointed that you guys didn't latch onto the liposuction thing though. Hey we could all enjoy croissants, cream pies, french fries, and prime rib to our hearts content to produce the necessary body fat to run our cars. )

You Americans really can be glad: Congress passed a "good energy bill'' that will "reduce our country's dependence on foreign oil by increasing the supply of alternative fuel sources and increasing fuel economy standards.''

Where does electricity come from?

Anyone hanging their hopes on solar and wind to seriously support growing electricity demands, at least for a very long time, is not a very realistic person.

I read an article the other day, and even when solar and wind capacity seems to look better, the actual yield from the capacity is much lower, primarily because the sun and wind does not perform all the time, and there is still no viable and proven system to store the energy.

I support nuclear, but it is not the answer to solve the entire demand either.

And by the way, ethanol may turn out to be a monstrous boondoggle. I read the other day where the dead zone in the gulf is growing because of increased fertilization required to grow corn in places like Iowa. This plus the surge in price of corn and other crops, causing inflation in food and other products. Remember the law of unintended consequences when you artificially skew the market.

I don't know about this fuel standards bill, Walter, but I seem to recall one or more in the past helped people just go out and buy alot more SUVs or pickups to escape the little cars because of fuel standards for cars, so it amounted to nothing but a demonstration of the law of unintended consequences.

Ethanol will not work because the infrastructure does not exist and will take dozens of years to develop. There is obviously an infrastructure already in place for electricity. Also, by moving to electric cars the maintenance on a vehicle reduces by a great deal as well, as the number of moving engine parts is greatly reduced. This is why car companies don't like the electric car idea, less maintenance and replacement part sales.

In regards to electricity production...You guys aren't paying attention....we've discussed this as well.


Increase renewable energy wherever possible (solar stations in the desert, the mirror/turbine kind, not photov...wind on the coast and in the plains, hydro electric where it won't damage ecosystems, etc)

Increase nuclear power plant production.

Install carbon sequestering capabilities on coal power plants. Hell, even build more coal powers plants (assuming they install carbon sequestering capabilities)

One has to keep in mind, it's not just the supply of energy, but how we use/demand it.

The combination of several actions will result in a sustainable energy balance.

SUPPLY
-more renuable sources for electricity
-more nuclear
-reduce the number of coal plants (and other fossil fuel burners.)
-Private power production (personal solar units) tp augment public power grid

DEMAND
-delevop and implement more efficiant technology (e.g. - CRT computer monitors use a great deal of power compared to many LCD screens at the same size, and the price is going down.)
-energy budget (peak hour cost inflation)
-better insulation in our homes
-etc

take the above and additionally

-regulate deforrestation and forrest restoration
-regulate byproduct runoff into our water system
-switch to electric car and bio fuel technology

and our plant population will be at it strongest to offset the carbon output of the remaining coal plants.

I would never propose a immediate shift, but a great start would be to acknowledge that what we are currently doing equate to slowdancing in a burning room.

T
K
O

The E.P.A. and the administration sell out to industry again..


E.P.A. Says 17 States Can't Set Emission Rules
By JOHN M. BRODER and FELICITY BARRINGER
Published: December 20, 2007
WASHINGTON ?- The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.


The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

In an evening conference call with reporters, Mr. Johnson defended his agency's decision.

"The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules," he said. "I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone."

The 17 states ?- including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut ?- had waited two years for the Bush administration to issue a ruling on an application to set stricter air quality standards than those adopted by the federal government. The decision, technically known as a Clean Air Act waiver, was the first time California was refused permission to impose its own pollution rules; the federal government had previously granted the state more than 50 waivers.

The emissions standards California proposed in 2004 ?- but never approved by the federal government ?- would have forced automakers to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, with the cutbacks to begin in 2009 models.

That would have translated into roughly 43 miles per gallon for cars and some light trucks and about 27 miles per gallon for heavier trucks and sport utility vehicles.

The new federal law will require automakers to meet a 35-mile-per-gallon fleetwide standard for cars and trucks sold in the United States by 2020. It does not address carbon dioxide emissions, but such emissions would be reduced as cars were forced to become more fuel efficient.

California's proposed rules had sought to address the impact of carbon dioxide and other pollutants from cars and trucks that scientists say contribute to the warming of the planet.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the E.P.A. decision.

"It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation," Mr. Schwarzenegger said. "We will continue to fight this battle."

He added, "California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today's decision and allow Californians to protect our environment."

Twelve other states ?- New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington ?- had proposed standards like California's, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they would do the same.

If the waiver had been granted and the 16 other states had adopted the California standard, it would have covered at least half of all vehicles sold in the United States.

Automakers praised the decision. "We commend E.P.A. for protecting a national, 50-state program," said David McCurdy, president of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. "Enhancing energy security and improving fuel economy are priorities to all automakers, but a patchwork quilt of inconsistent and competing fuel economy programs at the state level would only have created confusion, inefficiency and uncertainty for automakers and consumers."

Industry analysts and environmental groups said the E.P.A. decision had the appearance of a reward to the industry, in return for dropping its opposition to the energy legislation. Auto industry leaders issued statements supporting the new energy law, which gives them more time to improve fuel economy than California would have.

The California attorney general, Edmund G. Brown Jr., called the decision "absurd." He said the decision ignored a long history of waivers granted California to deal with its special topographical, climate and transportation circumstances, which require tougher air quality standards than those set nationally.

Mr. Brown noted that federal courts in California and Vermont upheld the California standards this year against challenges by the auto industry.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, the California Democrat, said: "I find this disgraceful. The passage of the energy bill does not give the E.P.A a green light to shirk its responsibility to protect the health and safety of the American people from air pollution."

Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California and chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, said the E.P.A. decision defied law, science and common sense. He said his committee would investigate how the decision had been made and would seek to reverse it.

Richard Blumenthal, the attorney general of Connecticut, called the ruling a "mockery of law and sound public policy."

Andrew M. Cuomo, the New York attorney general, said the state would challenge the decision.

Mr. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, cited federal law, not science, as the underpinning of his decision. "Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive," he said.

Mary Nichols, the head of the California Air Resources Board, which had geared up to enforce the proposed emissions rules on 2009-model cars, said the reasoning was flawed. "Thirty-five miles per gallon is not the same thing as a comprehensive program for reducing greenhouse gases," Ms. Nichols said.

David Doniger, a lawyer for the Natural Resources Defense Council, said that since 1984, the agency has not distinguished between local, national and international air pollution.

"All the smog problems that California has are shared with other states, just like the global warming problems they have are shared with other states," he said.

Here's a link for the article Au posted:
http://www.nytimes.com/

So you don't make anybody happy.

Steve excoriates all U.S. efforts as disgraceful.

The oil companies HATE the energy bill as passed because it forces them to implement wasteful processes that are not only largely unprofitable but probably have more negative consequences than the problems they are supposed to solve. The refineries report that higher emissions standards are fine--big oil has been on the leading edge of ways this can be done and has contributed a lot to the technology of reducing or eliminating industrial emissions, but what SHOULD happen are federal standards for gasoline formulations. Right now among the various states, there are some 40 or more state mandated formulations, and the refineries have to shut down for a time as they switch over to produce the various formulas ordered by each state. Uniform standards, no matter what they are, would greatly reduce the down time, greatly increase efficiency and production which in turn would lower the price we pay at the pump. They would like to dump the less efficient and more costly bio fuels.

The auto makers hate the higher CAFE standards but at least will be able to compete in big market states like California again however miffed Californians are about that. The greenies are incensed that any concessions are being made to industry at all and rational economists know that all the increased regulation will have a negative effect on the overall economy.

The states righters hate that more and more choices are being federalized. Those that want big government control of everything hate that big government isn't being meaner and more coercive re greenhouse emissions.

Like I said, nobody seems to be happy about it.

Have they stopped selling cars in California? I must have missed that.

Nope. But they don't get the market share they would be getting if they didn't have to downsize so much or increase their prices to meet the California emissions standards. The much higher CAFE standard California would have imposed would have much favored the European and Asian cars that can be manufactured more cheaply.

European cars can be manufactured more cheaply? How that? (Especially since GM and Ford say just the opposite.)

Okay, maybe they can't. But Toyota is overtaking General Motors as #1 in auto sales in the USA, and it isn't because they necessarily build better cars, but they can build good cars more economically than we can with our more costly regulations, wage and benefit requirements, and union mandated restrictions. Now that you mention it, most European cars I see here are the high value types - Mercedes, Porsch, Audis, Volvos etc.

The current weight and/or size of nuclear energy facilities and solar panels precludes their use in ground and air vehicles. Unless a way can be found to make ground and air vehicles be driven by perpetual motion machines, wind mill power won't work for them either.

Well how about batteries? The trouble with current batteries is that they too will have to be too large and/or too heavy to provide enough power to drive land and air vehicles for required time periods between recharges. And what alternate fuels will be sufficient for driving all the motors required to drive all the electric generators required to charge all the batteries that will have to be periodically recharged?

By the way, what liquid or solid fuel has been found that actually produces less pollution per land or air vehicle mechanical energy unit (e.g., horsepower, thrust, foot pounds per second) than does oil?

Are you reading a Popular Science magazine from 10 years ago?

With LiOn batteries you'll see 300-400 ranges very soon and speeds that rival high end sports cars.

Make these cars plug in hybrids that run on gasoline or deisel and you solve all of these problems. For my current driving habits (I can't remember the last time I drove over 100 miles in a single day) I'd probably need to buy less than 20 gallons / year (assuming a modest 60 mpg).

On top of that, even with the EV1, the car's range exceeded that of the daily demand (of about 35 miles) by alomost 5 fold on a full charge.

T
K
O