Goodbye From the World's Biggest Polluter Indeed!

Hokkaido, Japan was the setting for a rather unusual exchange between world leaders. As the G8's meetings on climate change and policy were wrapping up George Bush decided he would say "goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" and then pump his fist in the air and smile.

The rest of those in the room sat in silence, shocked that they had just heard that statement on the back of the most important climate talks between nations. And that is a hard thing to do, most of the people in the room were world leaders who have made a career out of speaking their mind. And maybe they were stunned because it wasn't so off-the-wall that he would say something like that.

As The Independent put it, the "remarks were taken as a two-fingered salute from the President from Texas who is wedded to the oil industry. He had given some ground at the summit by saying he would "seriously consider" a 50 per cent cut in carbon emissions by 2050."

Bush's comment was most likely an attempt at humor after a few grueling days of talks, but I think it speaks volumes about the administration's views towards environmental protection, conservation, and securing the best basis for economic growth in the future. If this was a meeting of the Coalition for Life or MADD I doubt Bushie would've injected levity about those U.S.'s transgressions, but the health of our planet and finding ways to manage it is not out of the realm of sarcasm.

To make the situation more disturbing, Bush probably has the best chance to secure an emissions and trade deal before the new President comes in. Although the Democrats can install a President who will take a more proactive and aggressive stance on environmental issues, pressure to protect American farmers during the election campaign will make it hard to secure a deal after a new U.S. President is in office in January. This fully places the issue of our nation's environmental health (which I stress includes our health, think: rivers, air, soil and crop contamination, ocean pollution, etc) in the hands of someone who has shown little respect, and even contempt, for the environmental pressures we are placing on the planet.

I feel like Bush has check out though and is coasting these last 6 months, he has had a lot of pressure on him and even the record number of vacation days couldn't keep him fresh and interested in issues that will affect his population (that he will leave to his mistake while he sips mojitos and looks for the next business venture he'll run into the ground) and its children.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Cheney Values Big Oil Over American Lives...Again

Dick Cheney has always been viewed as, well, a dick. He's not a very likable guy, overly secretive, arrogant, and that famous sneer is never far from his faceplate face. Now, there have been plenty of unlikable characters who have wandered the halls of the White House (ahem, Nixon), but come on, this dude shot a man in the face!

Ok, let me say that again. Dick Cheney shot a man, with a shotgun, in the face! And yep, he's still the Vice President. Still blows my mind.

And anyone who has been paying attention is aware that he has no problem sacrificing a few thousand American youths and the country's economy in order to help out his buddies/coworkers at Halliburton. Can we end the bullshit? Call it "energy independence" or whatever you want to, this war was, and is, about getting the oil in the Middle East into American (Corporate) hands. Why do you think John McBush and the other Republicans want to stay there forever?

Ok, I digress...

In another stunning example of, I can't help it, Dick Cheney being a dick (I must be channeling John Stewart today), we have learned that Cheney's office ordered the deletion of testimony to Congress about the effects of global warming on public health. Yes, again, Dick would rather cut his BFFs in the oil industry a break on regulations etc than inform the American Public about the dangers their oil-addicted lifestyles are imposing on themselves and their children. According to a letter in response to an inquiry by Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., former senior adviser on climate change to the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator, Jason K. Burnett, claims that Dick ordered the removal of six pages of testimony, out of 14, for Center for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding which was to be presented before Congress last October. The pages in question dealt with "discussions of the human health consequences of climate change," according to Burnett. Hmm, might be important information for the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I would think.

So Cheney's an asshole, nothing new here, but this manipulation of science and outright reality-denial is an outrageous affront to the dignity and security of the nation. I pray for some sort of accountability for these, and many other actions but the Bush Cabal, because given the spineless wonders with the "D" after their names in Congress, praying is pretty much all we have left.

"I fear for the future of our nation, for God is just."
-Thomas Jefferson

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Moratorium Placed on US Solar

What the fuck?!?!? Yes, that's right, the U.S., the country I live in and call home, land of the largest collective research and university system/intellectual property bank, the so called "richest" country in the world, the self-made policemen of the world, the home to more scientists and engineers than any other place on earth, has shut down all solar projects on public land.

Surely the reason behind this should be an earth shattering revelation to the rest of the world, who are currently pressuring the market for silicon in an attempt to build an energy infrastructure powered by an INFINITE AND FREE SOURCE. Wait, what?...we're shutting down solar projects because a two year study into their environmental impacts needs to be done? That's right, the same government who refused to open emails from the EPA concluding that greenhouse gases are pollutants and must be controlled, has decided that solar installations may be too harmful to the environment to begin construction on them. Yes, the same government that has decided that offshore drilling is the answer have had an epiphany of conscience.

If it has not been clear that the Bush administration is simply an arm of the oil/gas/coal industry before, then this should seal the deal. Detriment to the environment is something that we as a human society cannot escape, but it is feasible to minimize the negative impact we have. I'm unconvinced and will remain so that further oil/gas/coal dependency is safer for the environment than a push toward any renewable source.

And the problem could be magnified by the time we are ready to start building in the future. The New York Times reports:

The decision to freeze new solar proposals temporarily, reached late last month, has caused widespread concern in the alternative-energy industry, as fledgling solar companies must wait to see if they can realize their hopes of harnessing power from swaths of sun-baked public land, just as the demand for viable alternative energy is accelerating.

The unfortunate story of many of those start-up companies will end with failure, a fact no moratorium would have changed for many, but some would have survived. Those that did would have become the experienced companies, those looking to expand and rethink their first designs, one thing that can not be learned is experience. With this moratorium there will be none of those survivors, the few who go on to become second generation alternative-energy companies. The logic baffles me.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Texas GOP passes Theocratic Platform

The Texas Republican Party Convention has just ended and their platform has been set for this election cycle. The Texas Freedom Network has delved into the document and highlighted some key points, but really this is the same document the party has used for the last three election cycles. The platform calls for religious zealotry and the destruction of separation of church and state. The party's assault on religious freedom for all people, regardless of beliefs, has been renewed once more. The far-right extremists once again pushed a platform that calls on government to promote their own religious views above all others, here are some highlights.

• The Texas GOP declares that "America is a nation under God founded on Judeo-Christian principles" and that the party is pledged "toward dispelling the myth of separation of church and state." [pp 18]
• "We support school subjects with emphasis on the Judeo-Christian principles upon which America was founded and which form the basis of America's legal, political and economic systems." [pp 17]
• "We oppose any governmental action to restrict, prohibit, or remove public display of the Decalogue (Ten Commandments) or other religious symbols." [pp 11]

The platform also reaffirmed support for policies that undermine public schools, sound science and medical research.

• The GOP would challenge the teaching of evolution in science classes by promoting "intelligent design"/creationism and the so-called "weaknesses" of theories such as evolution. [pp 17] The platform does not recognize that evolution is the foundation of all biological sciences.
• Texas Republicans "oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage." This position prohibits teaching students age-appropriate, medically accurate information about birth control and the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. [pp 17]
• The party not only rejects medical research involving embryonic stem cells, it calls for imposing criminal penalties on medical professionals and scientists who engage in such research. [pp 14]
• The state GOP supports shuttling millions of dollars from public schools to pay for private and religious school tuition through tax-funded vouchers. It opposes requiring that private and religious schools, even those receiving tax-funded vouchers, meet any state standards and other regulations set for public schools. [pp 16] The platform also calls for the abolition of property taxes, which provide nearly all local funding for public schools in Texas. [pp 21]
• The party supports granting the heavily politicized State Board of Education sole authority over content in and the adoption of public school textbooks. [pp 16] In 1995, due to hundreds of changes in textbooks to meet personal, political and religious objections by the state board, the Legislature limited the state board's authority.
• Texas Republicans call for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education and government-sponsored programs that deal with early childhood development. [pp 16, 17]

Page 19 of the platform declares that Texas Republicans "deplore all discrimination." Yet the platform also calls for widespread and systematic discrimination against those who are not heterosexual.

• The platform calls to support "sodomy" laws in order to fine and/or imprison adults who engage in private, consensual sexual intimacy with someone of the same gender. [pp12]
  
• The party would push for a federal constitutional amendment banning any state from permitting same-sex marriages or any other legal recognition of or benefits for same-sex relationships. Issuing marriage licenses or performing civil ceremonies for same-sex couples would constitute a felony charge. [pp 12]
• The party supports the repeal of the state's hate crime statute. [pp 19]

And to top it all off we have the platform trying to trash what good the Texas government has done or is trying to do.

• The Texas GOP opposes any taxes or regulations designed to deal with the serious threat of climate change. [pp 21]
• The platform calls on the state Legislature to transfer the powers and funding needed to investigate and prosecute charges of government corruption (such as former U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land) from the Travis County Public Integrity Unit to another body. [pp 11]
• The party opposes mandatory vaccination programs for infectious diseases that endanger children in public schools and the general public outside them. [pp 16]
• The state party reaffirmed its hostility toward the international community by calling for the U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations as well as the World Trade Organization. It also opposes measures, such as the Endangered Species Act, that protect the environment. [pp 9]
• The party supports the repeal of the minimum wage laws. [pp 22]

There are many more topics including opposing women's reproductive rights, threatening judicial independence, and weakening civil/equal rights that are included in the document and if you have a few hours and are ready to get your mind blown I suggest you try and read the full document. Then maybe you'll have a better understanding why the school system in Texas is about to get blown to shit, because it is run by neocons who are in bed with the religious right and the GOP to steer education toward their spiritual beliefs.

In all honesty this isn't a new document, but you would think that eventually the party would come to terms with the fallacy of Judeo-Christian superiority.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Please Stay Away From Science!

So I really am tired of dealing with the evolution and vaccine denialists, but the climate change denialists have taken it to a whole new level. Here's an example of someone claiming that greenhouse gases can't cause global warming.



Kate McMillan has officially given up on reality. Here's my favorite line of the whole piece:

Moreover, the actual trapping of heat cannot raise an object's temperature in the first place. It only slows down heat loss.

Really, Kate? Here's a little experiment for you. Car, rolled-up windows, sunny day, then get back to me on how heat transfer works. Holy mother of Jesus that woman is an imbecile, but guess who else is willing to swallow the same utter bunkum? You guessed right, the fundie republicans.

Now for everyone out there that hasn't been schooled in physics or chemistry I'll go into the basics of greenhouse gases and why this argument, that trapping heat can't raise an object's temperature, is completely false (and another example of people who don't understand science using it as a justification for their beliefs).

First we'll talk about what a greenhouse gas is. Water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and ozone are the major players in the greenhouse effect, with the above being listed by their relative abundance and importance. There are many other gases considered greenhouse gases, including: nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, chlorofluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride, but they are not major players. The mechanism of their effect is very simple. As the sun is very hot it emits very short wavelength energy that has enough energy to pass directly through the atmosphere. When the energy waves hit the Earth some of it is absorbed and warms the surface while most of it is reflected back out to the atmosphere. As the Earth's surface is much cooler than the sun's, it radiates energy at much longer wavelengths, peaking in the infrared at about 10 micrometers. The atmosphere (read: greenhouse gases) absorbs these longer wavelengths much more efficiently than the shorter wavelengths from the sun. The absorption of this energy warms the atmosphere as does the transfer of latent and sensible heat from the surface of the Earth. Greenhouse gases also emit longwave radiation both upward to space and downward to the surface. The downward part of the emitted radiation from the atmosphere is the "greenhouse effect." The major atmospheric components (nitrogen, N₂ and oxygen, O₂) are not greenhouse gases because homonuclear diatomic molecules (a molecule made of only two atoms of the same chemical element) neither absorb or emit infrared radiation.

So now that we've had a very very short primer on greenhouse gases (you could write books about their properties and actions) let's look at Kate's arguments again to see what science has to say about it.

Kate uses the example of a coffee thermos for this comparison. "Neither does coffee in a thermos get hotter because its heat is trapped. It just retains its temperature for a longer time. Otherwise...the thermos would self-ignite."

You're right Kate, heat can only be transferred from a hotter object to a cooler one, and being trapped in a container will cause the heat transfer to happen slower. But you've missed one big part of the problem, the coffee is warmed to a certain temperature and then no net heat or energy is transferred to it, unfortunately we can't get the sun to warm up the planet and then stick it in a thermos to keep the temperature the same, the sun is always adding new heat.

Correcting Kate's example, if you took the thermos and placed it over a burner (a constant energy source) your coffee would heat up and yes, eventually self-ignite. But if you took the top off of the lid (ie. removed the greenhouse gases), the coffee could radiate more of its heat energy back out into the air and maintain a cooler temperature for longer.

This is just another example of why science should be left to the professionals, you wouldn't trust someone who learned how to pull teeth from a youtube video to be your dentist and you shouldn't allow those with little understanding and training in the sciences to be the guiding voice on the subject. This is all getting a little ridiculous, and its unfortunate that so many experts have to spend their time debunking a bunch of stupid theories and outright falsehoods instead of working on gathering more information.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

The Bug That Killed Exxon

Revolutionary stuff here via C&L. Evidently Silicone Valley has developed a strain of bacteria that might put the OPEC/Houston Cartel out of business. Evidently this little critter consumes organic agricultural waste, such as straw or wood chips, and excretes freakin' CRUDE OIL.

This "Oil 2.0," as developing company LS9's senior director Gregg Pal calls it, is completely interchangeable with today's fossil fuels, which means that switching to this type of fuel would require minimal, if any, infrastructure adjustments. You could pump it into your regular gas tank from regular ol' gas pumps.

The bast part? Oil 2.0 is carbon-negative! That means that the carbon emissions from burning this fuel are actually less than the carbon the bacteria absorb in creating it, if I understand correctly.

Obviously, there are some challenges to be faced in making this product market-ready. Production of Oil 2.0 requires some pretty large vats and would necessitate some square-footage intensive plants, but the cost is fairly reasonable. The bacteria can be developed in a matter of weeks for around $20,000, and when we are staring down the barrel (rimshot!) of $140 barrels of oil, a few grand seems very worthwhile.

Bam, Oil Crisis solved.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Ready To Throw Out Your Refrigerator?

Came across an interesting fact today that may make you change your mind about whether you can really afford to buy new Energy Star rated appliances.

Refrigerators qualified under the new Energy Star guidelines use less energy than a 75-watt light bulb left on full time. That's a lot of energy savings, $92 million a year if everyone in America who buys a fridge in 2008 buys an Energy Star model.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Why Politics Should Stay Out of Science

Close to 900 scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have experienced political interference in their work in the last 5 years. This study was conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists who sent out 5,419 questionnaires with 1,586 responses. 889 scientists (60%) said they suffered at least one instance of political interference. 224 scientists had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA scientific document." Full information about the report can be found here.

This shouldn't come as a surprise as the Bush administration's political interference is very pervasive. I'm afraid its at a point where only a complete change of those in charge will release the hold that the corporate handhold has over true study and unbiased information. The EPA scientists obviously have something to say and I wish that they felt like they could come out and say it. The scientists, in fact, are the ones who own the EPA (an organization that means nothing without scientific backing) and all of the information deposited there. They should have ownership over the data, reports, and press releases that the agency constructs. This is bullcrap plain and simple and combined with the pervasive head-turning over the ozone issue leads me to believe that the only ones looking out for our wellbeing is ourselves. I shouldn't have to worry about the government skewing the information to further their corporate measures but I do and you should too.

Here are the report's top findings and quotes:

– 889 scientists (60 percent) said they had personally experienced
at least one instance of political interference in their work over the
last five years.

– 394 scientists (31 percent) personally experienced frequent or
occasional "statements by EPA officials that misrepresent scientists'
findings."

– 285 scientists (22 percent) said they frequently or occasionally
personally experienced "selective or incomplete use of data to justify
a specific regulatory outcome."

– 224 scientists (17 percent) said they had been "directed to
inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from an EPA
scientific document."

– Of the 969 agency veterans with more than 10 years of EPA
experience, 409 scientists (43 percent) said interference has occurred
more often in the past five years than in the previous five-year
period. Only 43 scientists (4 percent) said interference occurred less
often.

– Hundreds of scientists reported being unable to openly express
concerns about the EPA's work without fear of retaliation; 492 (31
percent) felt they could not speak candidly within the agency and 382
(24 percent) felt they could not do so outside the agency.

"OMB and the White House have, in some cases, compromised the integrity
of EPA rules and policies; their influence, largely hidden from the
public and driven by industry lobbying, has decreased the stringency of
proposed regulations for non-scientific, political reasons," said a
scientist from one of the agency's regional offices. "Because the real
reasons can't be stated, the regulations contain a scientific rationale
with little or no merit."

"Scientific integrity is the bedrock on which the federal science
establishment must rest," said Bill Hirzy, an EPA senior scientist and
senior vice president of the National Treasury Employees Union, Chapter
280, the union that represents EPA scientists. "Too many EPA scientists
have had to fight interference from political or private sector
interests and fear retaliation for speaking out."

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Global Warming, a Piece to a Larger Puzzle

Global Warming has become a hot button issue over the last few years. A vision of huge hurricanes, ice sheet loss, and extreme drought are brought up frequently in the media as the true story of global warming. But to truly understand global warming we must analyze it through the larger scope of climate change, because it is only one mechanism at work in large machine which drives the world's atmosphere.

In 1993 a paper came out detailing how radiation from the sun had decreased by 0.33% yearly from 1967-1986 (Stanhill and Moreshet). This was a little understood phenomena and in the past 15 years has been dubbed "global dimming". Global dimming has the opposite effect of global warming. As pollutants such as Sulphur Dioxide, soot, and ash are released in the air they collect with clouds causing a dense mass to form and reflect much of the suns light. This in turn causes the oceans to cool a bit and changes weather patterns.


A large effect of this was seen in the 1990's in Africa as the waters which regularly evaporated from the Northern Atlantic and brought upon the rainy season on the Sahel in Northern Africa disappeared. In a January 15, 2005 BBC documentary titled Horizon a chilling conclusion was offered: "what came out of our exhaust pipes and power stations [from Europe and North America] contributed to the deaths of a million people in Africa, and afflicted 50 million more" with hunger and starvation.

Scientists believe that Asia may be hit soon with effects from dimming. Every year the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia receive nourishing rains from a "monsoon season". If the evaporative mechanisms which produce these rains are altered the irrigation and sustenance of not only farming ventures but wildlife reserves may be threatened.


Another mechanism affecting dimming is called the "Contrail Effect" where the "condensation trails" of jets are leaving behind remnants that form cirrus clouds which block sunlight but also trap heat. Studies have shown that contrails from just six aircraft can expand to shroud some 7,700 square miles. Just after September 11, 2001 scientists had an opportunity of a lifetime to study the contrail effect as all commercial flights were grounded due to the terrorist attacks. During those three days that commercial aircraft were grounded the days had become warmer and the nights cooler, with the overall range greater by about two degrees Fahrenheit. David Travis of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater and two colleagues measured the differences and say the results suggest "that contrails can suppress both daytime highs (by reflecting sunlight back to space) and nighttime lows (by trapping radiated heat)."

In skies usually crosshatched with condensation trails, the only contrails seen in this image from September 12, 2001, were left by the plane returning President Bush to Washington from Nebraska and several escort fighters (image credit: NASA).

In this true-color satellite image shot above northwestern Europe, the contrast between skies with contrails and those without offers a striking sense of the influence these pseudo clouds might have on regional climate.

This phenomena of global dimming is not the hot new issue or the latest thinking about global climate change, it is simply a cog in the understanding of how our climate is shaped and what we are doing to alter its natural cycles. This is the same way we should consider global warming. Everything we throw into the atmosphere is going to have a different effect with secondary and tertiary cascading effects which we may not understand for another 20 years. There are going to be mechanisms discovered which will shift the way we think about global warming and dimming, and that in turn will shape what we know about climate.

Fire and brimstone fear induction should stop now. This is something that is serious and with enough research our scientists will begin to understand the complex workings of our climate. But it is important to realize that we are affecting the world around us and that everyone, whether you are rich or poor, or republican or democrat, needs to agree that right now the Earth provides for us very well and we have to make an effort to maintain our relationship with that equilibrium or be forced to adapt when our safety net of normality is shifted. The reality is that the public needs to be aware that we may face a global crisis very soon because of our interaction with the planet, for millions of years the Earth has shielded our fragile bodies from the harshest of conditions and let us tread on favorable ground. But now we must show the same respect and care that has been given to us, we are a powerful force with the overreaching ability to manipulate and alter our surroundings. Attention must be paid to how we tread and our minds must be open to new discoveries and a shift in the way we think.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Beat of the Nation: Environment

Here is a link to the full results of all questions polled. After checking over the numbers one thing jumped out to me. People are ready to start accommodating cleaner technology but they want a cash incentive. When asked about buying a hybrid most respondents said they would get one to save money on gas rather than protect the environment; and when asked how to best save water, homeowners said cash for conservation would be the best motivating factor.

Another point to discuss is that people expect the next generation to care more and do more for the environmental mess. Respondents thought the average American was not very eco-conscious and that the next generation would be more so, results also say Universities should put a large emphasis environmentalism. I think that this is a pretty sad statement as our generation may be trying to wash their hands of the environmental problems and pass them onto the next generation. Unfortunately that has been the modus operandi for the last 50 years or so and is why we keep seeing a perpetuating problem as one generation is not willing to take responsibility for the problems their production technology has with the environment.

A very large majority of respondents believed we were doing far too little to protect the environment and the most overwhelming response of any question was that there is too little research being done on renewable energy. The problem is that nobody is willing to stand up and argue for a change from the government and from their neighbors, everyone is willing to have a problem with the way we're operating but unwilling to make a sacrifice for the better. This does not bode well for future conservation efforts. Instead of relying on the next generation to solve problems we leave for them why not lead by example now and carve a path towards a more sustainable future? Voices will have to be raised and people gathered together in order for a difference to be made. Will your voice be heard?

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Beat of the Nation: Environment (full results)

Here I go with the 4th installment of Beat of the Nation. My polling abilities slowed down with my committment to the Obama campaign for the Texas primary/caucus, but I finally have the data here.

I'll post all of the data here and later have a review of it all.

Q: How environmentally conscious do you think the average American is?
A: 53% 'Not Very'; 36% 'Somewhat'; 6% 'Not at all'; 4% 'A good amount'; 1% 'Very'

Q: How concerned are you about the air quality where you live?
A: 38% 'Very concerned'; 31% 'Somewhat concerned'; 31% 'Not concerned'

Q: Are we doing enough to protect the environment?
A: 70% 'No, its not enough'; 16% 'Yes, its the right amount'; 13% 'No, its too much'

Q: Will the next generation be more "eco-friendly" than this one?
A: 52% 'To some degree'; 35% 'Yes, alot'; 9% 'No, not really'; 4% 'No, they'll be less'

Q: Which gobal issue would you want solved first?
A: 43% 'War'; 20% 'World Hunger'; 19% 'Destruction of the Environment'; 10% 'Global Warming'; 8% 'Other'

Q: Do you think the consequences of global warming have been overstated?
A: 61% 'I do not'; 39% 'I do'

Q: Which of these issues most touches your life personally?
A: 33% 'The ecnonomy'; 27% 'Healthcare'; 16% 'The environment'; 16% 'Education'; 8% 'Women's Rights'

Q: Which of these is the best way to get homeowners to conserve water?
A: 66% 'Cash for conservation efforts'; 25% 'Higher fees for water use'; 9% 'Strict limits on water usage'

Q: I would buy a hybrid more to?
A: 66% 'Save on gas'; 34% 'Protect the environment'

Q: How much emphasis should schools put on environmentalism?
A: 63% 'A lot'; 23% 'Some', 14% 'None'

Q: The amount of research into renewable energy is?
A: 87% 'Too little'; 9% 'About right'; 4% 'Too much'

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Texas Energy Crisis

Texas again reigns supreme as the leader in CO2 production in the nation! This is just another award that embarrasses me being a native Texan along with our degradation of science principles in high schools (I'll cover this on Saturday) and being some of the fattest Americans. This report though hits on the underlying problem in the state; that our local and state governments are in bed with big industry.

So being a scientist I like to tease out all aspects of the facts in order to get a full picture of the information. I'll steal from a Newsweek article here:

If Texas were its own country, it would be the 48th most populous in the world, right between North Korea and Ghana. In terms of landmass, at 268,000 square miles it would be the 40th-biggest. Were the Lonestar State to secede from the union it would be the world's eighth-largest emitter of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide, just behind Canada, with 630 million metric tons spewed into the atmosphere in 2005, according to new figures released this week by the U.S. government's Energy Information Administration. That's actually a reduction of 40 million metric tons since 2003, when Texas was the globe's seventh-largest CO₂ contributor. But even though the state is improving, Texas still outpaces the combined emissions of California and Pennsylvania, the states with the second- and third-highest CO₂ outputs.

Wow! We produce more greenhouse gas than the number 2 and 3 states combined?!?!? Of course Texas is the nation's largest energy producer, and has more cattle and oil refineries than any other state, effectively making us the power plant, gas pump and beef basket of the nation. So is industry totally to blame for this? Hell no, its us the citizens who really need to look at ourselves. Our 23.5 million citizens use 3,000 more kilowatt hours every year than the average American, and we like to drive large gas guzzling cars. According to the Texas DPS there are 20 million vehicles registered in the state, and a full quarter of them are pickup trucks (nationally 16% of vehicles are trucks). And this last year 61% of new vehicles were light trucks (nationally, 47%) .

A third of our emissions come from transportation and in such an expansive state little to nothing has been done by either local or state governments to ease this environmental pressure. As defined by the EPA's Clean Air Act more than half of all Texans live in areas where the air is unsafe to breathe.

And you think this type of health hazard would spur the government to enact change but Texas stands as one of only 15 states without a climate action plan. And of those 15 states 11 have bills under consideration, but Texas has yet to even begin to consider a plan! And here's how serious our governor is about climate change, last year he said "Al Gore's mouth is the country's leading source of carbon dioxide, not Texas." And bless the good Aggie's heart, you know he's just looking out for big business in his state, but at some point Texas is going to have to break the co-dependence on the oil industry for policy and money.

So how is big industry affecting Texans energy policies? Well last year the Texas Association of Manufacturers and Houston-based Exxon Mobil successfully lobbied against a bill that would have provided tax incentives for businesses and homeowners who install solar panels. The state legislature even voted down a bill that would have increased taxes to provide for a light rail system in the state. The Texas Oil and Gas Association and Texas Automobile Dealers Association spent $12 million to successfully defeat a bill by an Austin Democratic senator that would have set up a task force to study climate change. And in 2006 TXU announced it would build 11 coal plants to supplement the 18 Texas already has. The state government even fast tracked the application process to ensure the public had little to no time to comment on it. Luckily a coalition of 40 cities and local governments blocked the plans and TXU was bought out. An upcoming documentary by Robert Redford, "Fighting Goliath: Texas Coal Wars" will detail the fight against big industry.

But things aren't all bad. Texas continued to push wind power and added $3 billion in wind generation last year. Legendary oilman Boone T. Pickens has invested billions of his own money to build the largest wind farm in the world in the Texas panhandle which should begin construction in 2010.

And even though the state government has dropped the ball, local governments are making a push towards renewable energy sources with Austin leading the way. Austin mayor Will Wynn put forth a plan to have the city run 100% on renewable energy sources by 2012, that's only 4 years!!! The plan also calls for every new single-family home to be zero-net-energy-capable by 2015!

The push for innovation in these areas will come from local governments and their citizens who demand that energy production be adjusted to uncuff the state from the oil industry. Big business has little interest in these goals as witnessed by GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz who during a closed door meeting with journalists in Dallas said, "Global warming is a total crock of shit. I'm a skeptic, not a denier … I’m motivated more by the desire to replace imported oil than by the CO2." Wow, talk about a real desire to help not only our neighbors but our planet.

I for one am planning to make myself less oil dependent in the next 5 years and for many reasons. One will be the cost of oil consumption. Basic economics tells us that as supply decreases (we keep taking out oil, but no new supplies are being created) and demand increases (humans have used 1 trillion barrels of oil since 1859, more than 93% of it since 1973) prices will skyrocket.


I am unwilling to use a vendor who's cost of service has tripled in the last 7 years and has a 62.8% medium or worse risk of delivery failure. I'm unwilling to rely on an industry which can cut off 97% of its supply for political, weather and policy demands.

Ordinary citizens are starting to listen as well. A family friend of ours has recently added 78 wind turbines twice the size of the Statue of Liberty to his farm outside of Sweetwater, TX. He gets paid abou $500 a month for allowing the turbines on his land and his new favorite catch phrase is "that's just money you're hearing." The New York Times even picked up on this story and has made Louis a local celebrity with farmers and city dwellers alike asking how they can get in on some of the money. This is a very telling movement as always has been the case with human reason, if there is incentive your ideals will change to meet the reward.

So go out and make a difference Texans, this is our damn state! Don't let the businesses and suits in Austin tell you how the energy policy should be, be heard and make a stand. Contact your local politicians and tell them how you feel. I myself have had good conversation with Senator Ogden concerning two separate energy bills which the congress will see this year. I encourage all of you to get out and shoot a quick email or phone call to these guys, its their freakin' job to listen!

Senate District 5--Senator Steve Ogden
District Address: 3740 Copperfield Dr., Suite 103
Bryan TX 77802
Phone: (979) 776-0521

House District 14--Representative Fred Brown
District Address: 1920 West Villa Maria Road, Suite 303
Bryan TX 77802
Phone: (979) 822-9797

And our national representatives:

Congressional District 17--Congressman Chet Edwards
111 University Drive East, Ste. 216
College Station, TX 77840
Phone: (979) 691-8797

Senator John Cornyn contact.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson contact.

*All of these Congressman have email addresses on their linked pages. I encourage you to slip a little note that this sort of stuff is important

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

To the Victor goes the Spoils

(click for larger image)

Technology is increasing available to the layperson and Landsat images give a good account of what's happening in our oceans, and sadly most of it is not good. The image above is of the Gulf of Mexico in 1992. The cloudy water that you see is the direct result of commercial bottom trawlers dragging large, heavy nets across the seafloor, denuding it of all life in their quest for a few marketable fish and shrimps. Most trawling efforts capture 20 pounds of "bycatch" in the search for commercially viable fish, and in their wake leave large, suffocating clouds of mud and sediment that may take a month to settle.

Recently the impact of bottom trawling has been seen with services like Google Earth providing large amounts of Landsat images in a public forum. John Amos, president of SkyTruth in Sheperdstown, West Virginia states: "Until recently, the impact was basically hidden from view," he continued. "But new tools -- especially Internet-based image sites, like Google Earth -- allow everyone to see for themselves what's happening. In shallow waters with muddy bottoms, trawlers leave long, persistent trails of sediment in their wake."

The bigger problem is that most bottom trawling is done in deep open waters where damage to the sediment layer is invisible to satellite imaging. "Most .. trawling happens in deep waters, out of sight. But now we can more clearly envision what trawling impacts down there by looking at the sediment plumes that are shallow enough for us to see from satellites," said Les Watling, professor of zoology at the University of Hawaii-Manoa.

Sponges, corals, and other light dependent organisms fail to survive week long periods in the darkness and this in turn knocks out the habitat and food supply of most commercially available fish.

So what can you do to help reduce this environmental destruction? Until the industrial fishing industry proves that they are acting in a more environmentally responsible manner, you can boycott eating orange roughy, Chilean sea bass (Patagonian toothfish), and all shrimps. (Keep in mind that those shrimp species that are not caught by trawling are usually farmed in shallow coastal mangroves, which also leads to tremendous, and possibly irreversible, environmental damages).

Fortunately politics are starting to listen to the scientific community and in 2005 restrictions on bottom trawling were levied in the Mediterranean Sea and in shallow water areas off the coast of Alaska. In 2006, the South Pacific Island Nations voted to stop bottom trawling in their waters, which accounts for 14% of Earth's total surface. The UN will meet later this year to decide whether to place a moratorium on the high seas, which covers 45% of Earth's surface. Lets hope they listen to the people who monitor Earth's vitals.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

The Internet, the Solution to Global Warming.

Did you know the internet first reared its head in 1957? Now it may have been a short-lived multitasking network, but it was the progenation of the internet. The term "internet" wasn't coined until December 1974 when it appeared in the publication of RFC 674, by fellows at Stanford University.

In 1985 the first 56 kilobit/second network was setup by the National Sciences Foundation. A full 28 years had passed before the internet had grown into a behemoth of a network capable of handling 3 colors and 20 lines of text on a page in under 2 minutes. So what does this have to do with the "solution to global warming." In practice nothing, but by further examining the mechanisms by which a technology became so intertwined into our social and economic lives could help unravel some clues to future advances within the movement for the conservation of Earth's resources.

Just imagine what people would have told you in 1957 if you claimed to be able to take a picture on your phone and instantly share it with every friend you've added into your address book (In 1995 you wouldn't have fared much better and it was a 38 year old technology!). I'm sure they would've written you off as a crazy but here I am in 2008 snapping a picture of Page as I type (good girl Page) and sending it to my Mom. Remember this was two years before The Mercury Project attempted to send a man into space.

So here we sit in 2008 and everytime I tell someone that solar, hydrothermal, insert other non-oil based energy source is going to save the Earth I get laughed at. "But solar is so inefficient," "Wind energy is a money sink," "Nuclear isn't safe (whole different can of worms that I'll cover another time)." I hear these excuses all the time but if I was in 1992 and tried to convince everyone that a website designed purely to let people upload videos would make a fortune there would have been nobody running to back me financially. I would have been told that the internet wasn't capable of those speeds and that it would take 20 years for it to be a useful technology (it would've only taken 13 years, as youtube.com appeared in 2005). But the truth is I would've been one of those few people pushing to make it happen, and putting their effort into a product for the future. Its no mystery why big business financed the early infrastructure of the internet, because they saw profits in its abilities. And they've seen the internet pushed past the capabilities they thought possible.

Scientists are begging now for money into the development of renewable resource research. A quick scan of publications shows hits such as the need for public policy and science to align to fight global warming. And just now you can see the burgeoning of the technologies that will help navigate us towards a lower impact lifestyle, such as hydrogen generated by solar power, or carbon capture for emission free cars. These are such new technologies at the birth of their existence, just like the two computers who first linked together to send a small packet of information a short distance.

Given time and incubation, just like any other challenge man has faced, innovation and perserverance can drive solutions from which there only seemed to be obstacles. These two forces can tackle this challenge we now face to our home planet. Already nations like Iceland have leveraged their politics and industry to prepare for renewable energy sources. In 2001 Iceland was producing 70% of its primary energy supply by renewable means (pdf warning). And now the country has announced that by 2050 it will completely cease the use of fossil fuels by converting transport to hydrogen (another pdf warning). And Iceland is further trying to embarrass those of us stuck in the fossil age (the stone age doesn't seem so stupid now) further by spreading their green mantra to Europe so those damn atheist socialistas can breathe easy. But this is a very small example displaying broad ranging progressive policies in the scope of Earth's immensely large population.

So what can we do in the US? Well first of all our government needs to get on the ball and spend some money on renewable energy sources. Our love affair with the oil magnates has got to come to an end. I will acknowledge that the backbone of our nation was built around oil, but at times sacrifices to the old regime must be made in order that a new regime can improve the stagnation. If you wanna be extreme this guy got freakin' 72 mpg with a Euro version Honda Civic! And he didn't change a thing to the car!

ScienceDebate2008 (blogged on stifledmind here and here) is a public initiative started by one man and a blog that has gotten endorsed by over 100 universities and science foundations that has invited the candidates to come speak publicly about their policy on the environment but also health care and technology. This is important as the last 8 years have been stifling for the progress of renewable energy sources as money is few and far between and keeps getting cut to finance an ever growing occupation in an oil rich country. The point is that there are a lot of random things you can do to start this grassroots movement, but a more important note is that the money for research is controlled by our government so we must demand action from those we elect.

Look at these energy stat projections provided by the National Academy of Sciences and realize this is a serious problem. We have affected almost every inch of our oceans save a toeprint around the poles, and once that buffer system is destroyed we will have a lot of questions to answer. Remember the next time someone tells you that a renewable technology is useless or won't ever be efficient that not so long ago me sitting here and typing to this whole audience was impossible (My Mom loves the pic of Page by the way).

Get out, get loud, and demand action! I agree that we can't abandon oil right now, to do so would be economic and political suicide. But think about the future for a minute and consider the sweeping consequences the likes of which man has never held the power to sway. With that power comes great responsibility and the charge to wield such strength towards a fair resolve. We really can impact our immediate futures either for the better or for the worse, and I think no matter who you support you should always ask that your leader exact his power toward the better.

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Human Toll on the Oceans

Today in Boston the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) began their annual meeting and a presentation highlighting the effect humans are having on the worlds oceans may cause a lot distress with policy makers.

Although the research hasn't been published yet it is led by a large group of 20 scientists who built a complex model based on 17 human threats. The picture is pretty bleak with only the area around the poles being close to pristine. The sample size was 1 km sq so the study is rather exhaustive in terms of area covered and precise location of a sample. I am looking forward to this paper being published to read over the data and find out exactly how this study was done and the authors conclusions.

Image: BBC news

More After the Fold...

Summary only...

Google leads the Renewable Energy push.

Google has now spent more than $20MM in seed and startup endeavors relating to renewable energy. It is rumored that they will invest $100MM in the coming years toward the goal of creating a renewable energy source which can power a city the size of San Fransisco, or about 1 gigawatt. This is what Larry Page had to say about the 1GW milestone:

"There has been tremendous work already on renewable energy. Technologies have been developed that can mature into industries capable of providing electricity cheaper than coal. Solar thermal technology, for example, provides a very plausible path to providing renewable energy cheaper than coal. We are also very interested in further developing other technologies that have potential to be cost-competitive and green. We are aware of several promising technologies, and believe there are many more out there. With talented technologists, great partners and significant investments, we hope to rapidly push forward. Our goal is to produce one gigawatt of renewable energy capacity that is cheaper than coal. We are optimistic this can be done in years, not decades."


Google currently is working with two companies which appear to have scalable technologies.

eSolar Inc., a Pasadena, CA-based company specializing in solar thermal power which replaces the fuel in a traditional power plant with heat produced from solar energy. eSolar's technology has great potential to produce utility-scale power cheaper than coal. For more information, you can visit here.

Makani Power Inc., an Alameda, CA-based company developing high-altitude wind energy extraction technologies aimed at harnessing the most powerful wind resources. High-altitude wind energy has the potential to satisfy a significant portion of current global electricity needs. Check this out more information on Makani Power.

For more information on Google's commitment to a clean energy future, see http://www.google.com/renewable-energy

More After the Fold...

Summary only...