What can we do about Climate Change?

[Grat3fulh3ad]

DANBURY, Conn., Aug 17, 2010 (GlobeNewswire via COMTEX) -- FuelCell Energy, Inc. (FCEL 1.21, +0.02, +1.68%) , a leading manufacturer of high efficiency ultra-clean power plants using renewable and other fuels for commercial, industrial, government, and utility customers, today announced the sale of a 1.4 megawatt (MW) DFC1500 fuel cell power plant to G3 Power Systems, Inc. (G3). The power plant will be installed at Olivera Egg Ranch, LLC, a poultry ranch located in French Camp, California. It will utilize renewable biogas for fuel, converting what is currently a waste problem for Olivera Egg Ranch into clean electricity that is generated at the point of use. FuelCell Energy will service the power plant under a five year service agreement. The sale of this power plant represents the first order by G3 under an agreement with FuelCell Energy, Inc. that provides non-exclusive distribution rights for fuel cell power plants.

The waste stream from the poultry operation emits ammonia, methane and other gases, resulting in both environmental and economic disposal challenges. Olivera Egg Ranch presently uses a solid waste lagoon for waste disposal. An anaerobic digester will be installed and the waste stream will be directed into this structure where heat and microorganisms will reduce the volume of waste and create methane gas as a byproduct. The fuel cell power plant will utilize 100 percent of this methane waste byproduct as fuel to generate renewable electricity. The power plant emits virtually zero harmful pollutants such as NOx, SOx and particulate matter due to the lack of combustion in the fuel cell electrical generation process.

"This pioneering fuel cell power plant project demonstrates my commitment to the environment, enabling me to convert the waste stream from my poultry operations into biogas, which in turn is processed into clean, green power," said Ed Olivera, Owner of Olivera Egg Ranch, LLC. "My waste disposal costs will decrease as will my power bill as the poultry operation will continually generate the fuel needed to create electricity, reducing the amount of electricity needed from the electrical grid."

The power generated by the fuel cell power plant will be adequate to meet approximately all of the power needs of the Olivera Egg Ranch facilities. The byproduct heat from the fuel cell energy conversion process will be directed to the anaerobic digester, avoiding the need for a combustion-based boiler to provide the necessary heat for the anaerobic digester process and increasing the overall efficiency of the fuel cell power plant while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The power plant is expected to be operational by mid 2011.

Olivera Egg Ranch is a third generation family farm producing approximately 14 million cartons of eggs per year for stores and restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area. Founded in 1949, the operation has three locations producing and distributing chicken, duck, quail and goose eggs.

"We evaluated all of the power generation options available in the marketplace today and identified fuel cell power plants as the best commercial technology available to meet baseload power needs in an efficient and environmentally friendly manner," said Ray Brewer, President, G3 Power Systems, Inc. "We have identified a number of opportunities in agriculture along with other commercial opportunities that are well suited for fuel cell applications and look forward to developing our relationship with FuelCell Energy to grow the market for fuel cells in California and other western states."

G3 provides complete turn key fuel cell installations along with engineering and construction services and power purchase agreements. G3 has completed 14 energy projects including fuel cells, solar and biomass applications, and is currently under contract to design three different fuel cell projects, each of multiple megawatts. The firm is located in Novato, CA and was founded in 2009. FuelCell Energy, Inc. entered into an agreement with G3 in March, 2010 that provides non-exclusive distribution rights for fuel cell power plants.

"Renewable biogas applications, such as this project for Olivera Egg Ranch, demonstrate how a fuel cell can help food processing and agricultural operations manage their waste streams, improve their economics and generate clean electricity," said Chip Bottone, Senior Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer of FuelCell Energy, Inc. "Converting agricultural waste into renewable biogas and then into clean power is a large market for fuel cells."

About FuelCell Energy

DFC(R) fuel cells are generating power at over 50 locations worldwide. The Company's power plants have generated over 500 million kWh of power using a variety of fuels including renewable wastewater gas, biogas from beer and food processing, as well as natural gas and other hydrocarbon fuels. FuelCell Energy has partnerships with major power plant developers and power companies around the world. The Company also receives funding from the U.S. Department of Energy and other government agencies for the development of leading edge technologies such as fuel cells. For more information please visit our website at www.fuelcellenergy.com

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Green tech company A123 on Monday launched a spinoff, 24M, which will commercialize next-generation energy storage systems based on its technology.

24M has received funding from the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense, as well as venture capitalists.

The company will work with MIT and Rutgers University to commercialize A123's technology.


Chipping Away at 24M's Mystery

Both 24M and A123 revealed little information about the "breakthrough technology" that would be commercialized, apart from saying that it combines attributes of rechargeable batteries, fuel cells, and flow batteries to enable scalable, cost-effective, high-energy storage systems for emerging markets, including transportation and the electric grid.

"24M is not going to say anything about the technology beyond what is in the release," Meg O'Leary, who works at the company's public relations firm, InkHouse, told TechNewsWorld.

"The technology will be available within five years," O'Leary added. They are not discussing target markets at this point, she added.

"The company's pretty non-specific in its release, so it's hard to know whether or not its claims are overstated," Carl Howe, director, anywhere consumer research at the Yankee Group, told TechNewsWorld.

However, it's possible to make an educated guess about 24M's technology. The company's initiative seems to be related to some work done at MIT using flow batteries, Howe pointed out.

Flow batteries pump liquid electrolyte, which is often stored in external tanks, through an electrochemical cell to produce electricity, Howe said. The liquid electrolyte can be stored externally, so the power capacity of the battery isn't restricted to its physical size but instead to how much electrolyte can be stored close by, he explained.

"The liquid electrolyte provides opportunities for energy storage, making it useful for technologies like wind and solar power, where power sources may not be available at all times," Howe said. "So think more about power plants and less about electric cars for the initial applications of this technology, although you could clearly put small versions in a car."

24M has said that its work builds on earlier development done at MIT.

About A123's Technology

A123 develops and manufactures advanced "nanophosphate" lithium ion batteries and systems based on nanoscale materials initially developed at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

These offer low cost-per-watt and have higher voltages than other long-life battery systems, A123 says.

In 2007, A123 signed an agreement with General Motors (NYSE: GM) to codevelop batteries for the automaker's E-Flex electric drive system.

"A123 is fairly well-known in the Boston area as one of our up-and-coming green companies," the Yankee Group's Howe said. "They hold the patents on that nanophosphate technology, and they primary develop lithium-ion batteries for transportation."

Money Talks

Perhaps the strongest indication that 24M's technology is likely to be viable is who's backing it.

The company scored US$10 million in Series A financing from venture capitalists Charles River Ventures and North Bridge Venture Partners.

North Bridge has previously backed Yet-Ming Chiang, the lead inventor of the technology, stated Jeffrey McCarthy, general partner at the VC. Chiang is also a cofounder of A123.

24M has also received funds from the Department of Energy under the ARPA-E program to develop its technology. Its partners on the project, MIT and Rutgers, had received funding from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA)

ARPA-E, the Advanced Research Projects Agency -- Energy, was set up within the Department of Energy in 2007 to spur innovation in energy research. It received $400 million in funding in April 2009 through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. ARPA-E is modeled after DARPA, which developed the Internet and other innovations such as stealth technology for U.S. fighter planes.

"The DARPA funding alone suggests the technology will work," Rob Enderle, principal analyst at the Enderle Group, told TechNewsWorld. "This is still very early in the development cycle, but the technology has pulled impressive levels of funding from organizations that are competent, capable and have a history of doing deep analysis before funding."

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/02/bloom-energy-box-revealed-on-cbs-60.html

 

[THC123]

I am bitter because of the existence of stupid fucks in our Nation, such as yourself.

I am not from your nation ho- osierdaddy

 

[hoosierdaddy]

But our Nation is chock full of like stupid fucks.

 

[THC123]

But our Nation is chock full of like stupid fucks.

i know

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Culling many of these stupid fucks, who have been unfortunately placed in positions of power, will begin in short order.
America is far to exceptional to allow such shit to go on for too long. And it has had about enough of these people's shit.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

Culling many of these stupid fucks, who have been unfortunately placed in positions of power, will begin in short order.
America is far to exceptional to allow such shit to go on for too long. And it has had about enough of these people's shit.

It's went on far too long.

Thank God, that's about to change

 

[THC123]

Thank God, that's about to change

what's gonna change then?

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Alternative energy is a growing market, and though many states offer tax credits, rebates, and other incentives to promote clean energy, it can still prove to be an expensive proposition.

It generally also requires plugging your energy source into the grid so you’re not left in the dark when the wind calms or the sun lingers behind clouds.

Here is a roundup of solutions that can help power a home.

Solar

Solar is, in some ways, the easiest solution, or at least one of the most accessible. Plugging into the sun requires photovoltaic solar panels, an inverter, and batteries that can store a bit of any excess energy for a rainy day.

Performance varies regionally, of course, with states in the southern and southwestern regions enjoying the most days of sun per year.

Solar panels require little maintenance once installed and can provide large amounts of electricity in fair weather. It can be expensive, however, even with incentives, and even when hooked up to batteries, it doesn’t do much good when there’s no sun for stretches at a time.

Resources

GetSolar has a database for finding a solar installer in your area. It’s wise to compare quotes from several companies. Some installers prefer to install panels sold by their companies, while others will install any panels you purchase.

It’s also possible to rent solar panels. One of the largest renters is Citizenrē REnU, which offers 1, 5 or 25-year contracts that include installation.

Wind

Wind energy is often associated with mammoth wind farms, but smaller sized turbines are also produced for backyard energy production.

The speed of the wind is the determining factor in whether wind power is the right solution for your home. Weather services can tell you what the average wind speed in your region is, but it can vary within a region.

Not surprisingly, bigger turbines can produce larger amounts of energy. A 10-kilowatt turbine can usually provide enough energy for a house and is usually around 100 feet tall with a 23-foot turbine.

As with solar, wind energy is climate-dependent so when the turbine’s not turning, you might need a different energy source. Unlike solar, wind turbines have the added con of being built of out of moving parts that need regular maintenance.

Resources

A turbine large enough to power a home often requires a permit. The American Wind Energy Association offers a useful guide for going through the necessary steps to install your own turbine, as well as a list of wind gear providers.

If you’re low on space or looking for a plug-and-play solution, try a personal wind turbine like Southwest Windpower’s Air-X. It can produce up to 400 watts, enough to offset some lighting and appliance usage, and can be installed on top of a roof.

Alternatively, try Clarian’s Jellyfish When it hits the market next year, i will be able to provide the same potential wattage and also feature the ability to power your home by plugging into any standard wall outlet.

If you’re a do-it-yourselfer, find an old treadmill and take a stab at making your own as in this video:


Geothermal

Most geothermal energy is produced large scale, so single-home geothermal is usually limited to heating and cooling solutions. Still, considering how much energy indoor climate control can consume, geothermal heat pumps can significantly reduce your energy needs.

Geothermal heat pumps tap into the earth’s stable temperature to regulate that in your home. The pump moves heat from the earth to your home in winter and pulls the heat inside your house outside in summer.

Most pumps are built simply so they require little, if any maintenance, and can be equipped with a household water heater as well.

Geothermal heat pumps are not a full-service solution, even for heating and cooling. Some models have been shown to reduce energy bills by up to 40%, which means you can’t say goodbye to your utility company and be completely comfortable indoors.

Cost is another concern. A heat pump with enough capacity to keep a home cozy averages just shy of $8,000, but the drilling required to install it can be upwards of $30,000.

Resources

Because of the amount and depth of drilling involved, geothermal heat pumps are not typically a do-it-yourself project. To find a reliable contractor, check the International Ground Source Heat Pump Association‘s directory of accredited installers to find one in your area.

Micro hydro electricity

This one only works if you live near moving water, but it can be very effective. Installation requires running a pipe from a high area where water is flowing to a lower piece of ground. Energy is produced as water moves downhill and turns a turbine at the end of the pipe.

Some micro hydro systems have been capable of producing ten or even 100 times more power than wind or solar. Unlike wind and solar, it can run non-stop and overnight, so long as the water continues to flow. An inverter and batteries can be connected to store extra energy if needed.

As with wind, the turbine requires maintenance and has the potential to break. Also, the size and pressure of the stream affects its energy production, so a very small stream might not be enough to power an entire house. Small streams also carry the risk of drying up in summer or freezing in cold weather.

Resources

You’ll probably need a contractor to install a micro hydro system. Many cities and states require anyone installing alternative energy sources to be a licensed electrician, especially if it connects to the grid. Although there isn’t a national licensing organization for micro hydro installers in the U.S., a local search should or call to your utility company should point you in the right direction.

Or, if you know what you’re doing and are as handy and patient as this guy, you can build your own micro hydro system.

Kössler, a joint venture between Siemens and Voith, makes several turbines designed for small power stations.

Energy Systems & Design also produces micro hydro equipment that can be used for a single home.

Fuel cells

Fuel cells use fuel and an oxidizing agent, typically hydrogen and oxygen, to produce heat and electricity. Inside the cell, he hydrogen’s ions and electrons are separated. An electrolyte substance inside the cell lets ions pass through but blocks electrons, which travel through a wire instead, in the form of electricity. The remaining ions turn into water or carbon dioxide when they meet with oxygen.

Resources

Bloom Energy‘s relatively new Bloom Box, which we reported on earlier this year, might be one of the most talked about home fuel cell solutions, though with its current price tag of $700,000-$800,000, it’s not exactly cheap.

Acumentrics manufactures fuel cells primarily for military use, but can also supply you with one for your home.

Most fuel cell companies don’t sell directly to the public, so you’ll have to search for an installer. FuelCellToday‘s directory can help you find one in your area.

The Department of Energy is working on developing best practices for safe hydrogen handling.

Biomass

Biomass for the home usually comes in the form of a stove used either for general home heating, or to heat water. Stoves are usually fueled by plants, including crops, trees, wood waste or grass. Biomass stoves do pollute the air, but many still consider them green because they contribute less pollution with fewer harmful chemicals than fossil fuels.

Resources

Those looking to buy a biofuel stove might try Bixby‘s MaxFire, which can be fueled with dry-shelled corn or wood pellets.

Bixby claims the stove can reduce heating costs by up to 50% and keep a typical home warm for about $1.50 per day. The stove ignites immediately with the push of a button and has eight heat level settings. When fuel is burned, the stove automatically pushes ash into a drawer that can be emptied without too much of a mess.

None of these solutions provide a fail-safe way to meet all your energy needs, but with blackouts from overburdened grids and severe weather conditions, neither do utility companies. It can be argued that some of these solutions are not entirely green, but even if they can’t completely alleviate the need for fossil fuels, they can help reduce the amount we need.

Most states offer incentives for alternative energy investments, and the Department of Energy suggests additional ways to lower usage and costs and lists products that are currently eligible for federal tax credits.

Despite state incentives, installing alternative energy is still an expensive proposition for most, but it can pay off in the long run.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Clean Energy Investment Pulls Out of US, Moves Money Elsewhere
By: David Dayen Tuesday August 17, 2010 11:33 am

Here’s another installment in my wages of dysfunction series today. As a result of Congressional intransigence on a cap and trade program or meaningful standards for clean energy production, investors have grown tired with waiting and are turning their attentions abroad:

Alternative energy investment prospects have shriveled in the United States after the U.S. Senate was unable to break a deadlock over tackling global warming, a Deutsche Bank official said.

“You just throw your hands up and say … we’re going to take our money elsewhere,” said Kevin Parker in an interview with Reuters.

Parker, who is global head of the Frankfurt-based bank’s Deutsche Asset Management Division, oversees nearly $700 billion in funds that devote $6 billion to $7 billion to climate change products.

Amid so much political uncertainty in the United States, Parker said Deutsche Bank will focus its “green” investment dollars more and more on opportunities in China and Western Europe, where it sees governments providing a more positive environment.

“They’re asleep at the wheel on climate change, asleep at the wheel on job growth, asleep at the wheel on this industrial revolution taking place in the energy industry,” Parker said of Washington’s inability to seal a climate-change program and other alternative energy incentives into place.

This is a real depressing scenario for the US, the country which invented many of the technologies prevalent in alternative energy production. Now, instead of profiting off of that R&D, we are seeing investment in that production move offshore to Western Europe and China. All because legacy industries like oil and coal own our Congress. Deutsche Bank only has $45 million dollars of investments in green energy in the US, compared to $7 billion worldwide. That’s embarrassing.

Even in unrelated bills, the lack of attention to clean energy investment predominates. The state fiscal aid bill included an offset that slashed $1.5 billion in clean energy loan guarantees. That robs the country of its economic future.

And just to put the icing on this cake, the AP examined the rise of dirty coal plants – old-style dirty coal plants – right here in America.

An Associated Press examination of U.S. Department of Energy records and information provided by utilities and trade groups shows that more than 30 traditional coal plants have been built since 2008 or are under construction.

The construction wave stretches from Arizona to Illinois and South Carolina to Washington, and comes despite growing public wariness over the high environmental and social costs of fossil fuels, demonstrated by tragic mine disasters in West Virginia, the Gulf oil spill and wars in the Middle East.

The expansion, the industry’s largest in two decades, represents an acknowledgment that highly touted “clean coal” technology is still a long ways from becoming a reality and underscores a renewed confidence among utilities that proposals to regulate carbon emissions will fail. The Senate last month scrapped the leading bill to curb carbon emissions following opposition from Republicans and coal-state Democrats.

“Building a coal-fired power plant today is betting that we are not going to put a serious financial cost on emitting carbon dioxide,” said Severin Borenstein, director of the Energy Institute at the University of California-Berkeley. “That may be true, but unless most of the scientists are way off the mark, that’s pretty bad public policy.”

But coal polluters can make it through the gatekeepers, while legitimate steps to reduce carbon emissions cannot. So we see a boom in the dirty energy space while clean energy investment dollars move to Europe and China.

The President did say at a fundraiser in LA last night (my invitation must have gotten lost in the mail) that the United State must “have a strategy that starts to limit carbon, because we want those clean energy jobs here in the United States. Not in China. Not in Germany.” But this came at a private event, to a friendly audience. Efforts to limit carbon have hit a brick wall in Washington, and we’re paying the price for this unforced error, one which may be felt for decades as we decline economically relative to the rest of the world.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Who will win the AFL Grand Final in September?

No one knows, of course.

Human endeavours such as sports, markets, and marriages are notoriously difficult to predict.

Why, then, can climate scientists project global warming to the year 2100?

Part of the answer is that climate, unlike football, is a physical process. And physical processes can be predicted, sometimes with incredible accuracy. For example, the next total solar eclipse visible from Perth will be on the 31st of May 2068, and it will peak at 26.7 seconds past 11:54 local time. You can set your watch by that if you are still around in 58 years; the prediction is that accurate.

But if climate is a physical process that we can forecast, why can’t we now predict the weather during the Grand Final?

The answer is fascinating because it shows that short-term uncertainty can co-exist with long-term certainty. Suppose you visit the Burswood tonight and place a bet at roulette. Can anyone tell you what number is going to come up next?

No.

Do you know what would happen if you kept betting for the next 10 years?

Yes.

You’d lose a lot and the casino would win a lot. That’s why casino owners can sleep at night despite not being able to predict the next number at roulette—they can confidently expect to turn a handsome profit at the end of the year, which for the folks who own the Burswood was $280 million in 2009.

In much the same way we can be confident that the climate will be considerably warmer by 2100: That long-term virtual certainty is not affected by uncertainty about the weather during the Grand Final, in the same way that the Burswood’s profit is not affected by what happens during the next spin at the roulette table.

In confirmation, climate scientist Wally Broecker published a paper in 1975 that predicted the temperature rise by the end of the 20th century to within 1/10th of a degree. A quarter-century forecast that came within 1/10th of a degree! Today’s computer models are far more sophisticated and one would be ill-advised to ignore their forecasts for considerably more warming by the end of the century.

So is there no uncertainty about climate change?

There is uncertainty, but only in the way that there is uncertainty about what happens when you drive into a brick wall at 80 km/h. You might just get away with a few bruises and a concussion, but it is far more likely that you would break a leg or worse.

No one in their right mind would drive into a brick wall because the outcome is “uncertain.”

And no one in their right mind should delay action on climate change because we don’t know exactly how bad it is going to be. Whether it’ll be just bad or really bad or unbearably bad, we know that the climate is changing and that humans are causing it, with potentially serious consequences for us all.

So anyone who says that we shouldn’t act on climate change because of uncertainty is really inviting you to ride towards a brick wall at 80 km/h because it might not hurt. Are you feeling lucky? Or shouldn’t we better cut emissions in light of the uncertainty?




Guest post by Stephan Lewandowsky

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Plant Growth Declining in Warming World, Despite Predictions

Plant Growth Declining in Warming World, Despite Predictions

New data has implications for food security on a more crowded, hotter planet
by Matthew Berger - Aug 19th, 2010

When Steve Running co-authored a 2003 paper that found warmer temperatures had led to increased plant growth over the preceding two decades, he expected that terrestrial net plant productivity – "which is really just plant growth" – would continue to rise with temperatures.

The warmer temperatures did continue, making 2000 to 2009 the warmest decade on record, but plant growth actually declined.
This is the finding of a new study out in this week's issue of the journal Science, co-authored by Running, the director of Numerical Terradynamic Simulation Group at the University of Montana, and his colleague Maosheng Zhao.

The study picks up where the 2003 one left off. Put together, they form a cohesive picture of climate change's effects on terrestrial plant life. The story is fairly straightforward: for 20 years the amount of carbon-storing plant matter on the Earth's land surface had continued to increase as warmer temperatures led to a longer growing season, but somewhere around the start of the last decade, it began to decline.

Drought appears to be one of the main culprits.
“Global plant growth is now overall declining and this is because, while some areas are still benefiting from an increased growing season, other areas are starting to be retarded by drought and water deficits,” Running told SolveClimate News in a phone interview.

Net primary productivity, or NPP, is an indicator based on satellite images that is used to track vegetation cover. It refers to the amount of carbon from the air or water that plants "fix" and turn into compounds used by other organisms. As carbon dioxide levels have increased, so has NPP, but only to a point.

Plants and carbon: a give-and-take relationship
Other recent studies have pointed to similar correlations between an increase in carbon in the atmosphere eventually leading to a decreasing ability of plants to store and use all that carbon. A paper in the peer-reviewed online journal PLoS ONE in July challenged the idea of "carbon fertilization" whereby more atmospheric carbon yields more plant growth, including greater agricultural yields.
In that study, researchers from the University of Guelph said that trees in temperate and boreal forests have been both storing less carbon dioxide than expected and growing more slowly over the past century. Like Running and Zhao, they found this was largely related to stress caused by the need to use water more efficiently.
While some carbon fertilization effect exists, “the effect is really pretty small compared to climate variables, so it is not the main driver that is controlling the rate of plant growth,” said Running.
Those climate variables include higher temperatures and water-related stress – like large-scale droughts – which cause more plant respiration, which in turn actually returns carbon to the atmosphere rather than allowing it to be absorbed by the vegetation.
Not only is decreased NPP a symptom of climate change, it might also make warming worse.

“Right now the terrestrial biosphere absorbs about a quarter of the fossil fuel emissions produced by mankind," explained Running, "so that’s CO2 that stays out of the atmosphere because of the biosphere. If the biosphere starts absorbing less of that CO2 that means that atmospheric CO2 rises even faster."

His paper's findings also concur with the PLuS ONE's contention that plant growth is being affected differently in different regions. The Science study finds the warmer temperatures of the past decade have led to greater plant growth at higher latitudes and elevations and, significantly, in the rainforests. But a "drying trend" in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased growth there, thus negating the increase in Northern Hemisphere regions and making for a negative global rate of plant growth.

To determine the effect of climate variability on NPP in recent years, Running and Zhao analyzed 10 years of data acquired by NASA's Terra satellite alongside data on the global climate.


Finite potential for plant growth
The main question now is whether this slower plant growth is just a cyclical phase or a trend that we should expect to continue.
“The easy answer is to say we don't know and we better keep monitoring it," said Running. "The somewhat more detailed answer is we know on an overall basis that the global climate is warming and what we’re seeing is that the warming is now starting to impede plant growth unless additional rainfall comes with the warmer temperatures,"

"In some parts of the world [additional rainfall] is occurring and in some parts it’s not, so our best estimate right now is that a trend like this is likely to continue as an overall global average with a lot of variation from one region to the next,” he said.

If the trend does continue, it is likely to have serious implications for food security. This is because the planet has what Running calls a "finite plant growth potential." Decreasing NPP would set a stricter bound on that potential, meaning society will have to make hard decisions on how to use a given potential for plant growth.
Adding biofuels into the equation only further complicates that debate.

“We don't imagine that global food production will immediately fall short – I wouldn't want to claim that there's going to be widespread starvation anytime soon – but what this does do is suggest a trend that if it plays out over decades as the population continues to grow we may be at a point where food production becomes tighter," Running said.

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/62396/title/Worldwide_slowdown_in_plant__carbon_uptake

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

George Shultz challenges California to lead

Voters should defeat Proposition 23 and fight global warming, the former secretary of State says.

ByGeorge Skelton Capitol Journal

August 2, 2010


Reporting from Sacramento
Former U.S. secretary of State George P. Shultz believes it's crucial to fight global warming to protect national security.

Global warming is created by burning fossil fuel, he says, and payments for foreign oil sometimes wind up financing terrorism.

And Shultz, who's also a former Treasury secretary, thinks the nation suffers an "economic vulnerability" because of its oil addiction.

"While we have benefited from low-priced energy," he says, "we've also suffered from periodic spikes in the price of oil. Usually recessions go along with it."

Moreover, continues the man who set up the Environmental Protection Agency four decades ago, "There's a climate problem connected with the burning of fossil fuels.... The basic facts are pretty clear."

"So we have a three-pronged set of problems" created by greenhouse gases, he says. "Security, economic and environmental."

Shultz, 89, has been there, done a lot and thought through much — from the time he was President Nixon's first budget director to when he was President Reagan's chief strategist for ending the Cold War. In between, he became president of Bechtel, the engineering giant.

He's now with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.

And he's co-chairman of the campaign against Proposition 23 on the November ballot.

Prop. 23, largely bankrolled by two Texas oil companies ( Valero and Tesoro) that operate refineries in California, would significantly hamper this state's efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The goal is to pare back emissions to the 1990 level by 2020 — a cut of about 30% from what would be emitted if the state did nothing.

Prop. 23 would suspend AB 32 — the 2006 anti-global warming act championed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger — until the unemployment rate in California fell to at least 5.5% for a full year. Unemployment now exceeds 12%.

The act probably would be suspended for "many years," says the nonpartisan legislative analyst.

Prop. 23 advocates contend that with the economy struggling to recover, it's no time to experiment with feel-good global warming fights. It would drive up energy costs, spur a business migration out of state and kill jobs, they argue.

"No other state in the union imposes these kinds of regulatory framework," says Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., referring generally to the state's extensive thicket of business regulations. "They are, quite frankly, deterring business development in California and driving out a significant portion."

Not all of California's efforts to control greenhouse gases would be halted. There would still be new vehicle emission standards, a solar-installation program for homes and energy efficiency requirements.

But some ambitious programs would be shelved: a cap-and-trade plan that would permit businesses to buy or sell diminishing allowances for emissions, a "low-carbon fuel standard" for gasoline and a requirement that utilities obtain 33% of their electricity from renewable sources by 2020.

The ballot measure is a major issue in the gubernatorial campaign — at least, in Democrat Jerry Brown's view. He calls the global-warming fight a defining distinction between him and Republican Meg Whitman. Brown strongly opposes Prop. 23. Whitman is neutral but favors at least a one-year moratorium on AB 32.

Shultz also is a co-chairman of Whitman's campaign. But he disagrees with her on global warming. Suspending AB 32, he says, "would be a catastrophe."

But California can't combat global warming by itself — can't even make a dent. It's a worldwide issue, a point the Prop. 23 backers repeatedly make.

"For California to go it alone is suicide," says Assemblyman Dan Logue (R- Marysville), the ballot measure's original sponsor. "The economy of California will never recover."

AB 32 "will have virtually no impact on global warming," asserts Jack Stewart, president of the California Manufacturers and Technology Assn. "Why do you want to jeopardize California's economy for virtually no impact?"

Shultz addressed the "go it alone" argument before I could even ask him about it:

"As in a great many issues, a lot of the action and constructive activity, particularly in the United States, comes from the ground up, not from the top down. It comes from creative individuals, creative companies, universities and states that do things that then get emulated and spread.

"Obviously California can't take these issues on by itself. But it can lead the way. And it can be contagious. And we've seen that many times."

And, Shultz emphasizes, "national security is threatened:"

" President Eisenhower — a guy whose credentials on national security you had to respect — said that if we imported more than 20% of the oil we used, we were asking for trouble in national security terms. Now we're over 60%....

"The flow of funds from … oil producers in many cases goes to states that are antithetical to us and are trying to do us damage. And some of the money leaks out into terrorists' hands."

Shultz continues:

"People are saying, well, [AB 32] is a job killer. Undoubtedly there will be changes. That's the idea — to shift away from things that emphasize their dependence on oil....

"Sooner or later, somehow or other, there's going to be a price put on carbon. So everybody running companies … take a deep breath … better start adjusting to it.

"We're going to make energy created by the burning of fossil fuels more expensive. That's the idea. So people will use less of it.

"Those who are creating ways of producing energy with less of a carbon footprint will benefit."

A clash of the old and new economies.

Shultz is 89 but thinking like a post-grad student with his future still ahead.

 

[ambition]

Sociopath alert, warning:

Does anybody else not care about the future of our planet, at all? I just don't see it as something worth worrying about. I don't have kids because I think the world is a mostly evil, treacherous place (and not just the humans. I think all of this is absurd, and the pain outweighs pleasure for most living things). I just don't care about the survival of future generations, nor of human advancement.

I'm as awe-struck by the beauty of our planet as anyone, but I think of the cosmos as an effect more than a "meaning" or a purpose. The Earth is mine to rape, in my opinion.

 

[THC123]

The Earth is mine to rape, in my opinion.

yes and 95% thinks like this, thats why this place is a shithole

 

[SuperSizeMe]

Everyone has an agenda, to think otherwise would be naive.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

not every agenda is nefarious... to think otherwise is delusionally paranoid.


climate scientists' agenda is to gain the most accurate possible understanding of global climate and the factors affecting global climate, and to make that information available to the public and the policy makers who have been elected to make good policy.

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Drought is the main culprit, yet increased global temps should increase precipitation on a global scale? I'm sure that will be explained to me in depth.

The policy makers be damned. They do what we tell them to do...or at least that is the way it is supposed to be.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Drought is the main culprit, yet increased global temps should increase precipitation on a global scale? I'm sure that will be explained to me in depth.

The policy makers be damned. They do what we tell them to do...or at least that is the way it is supposed to be.

indicative how little attention you pay....
I've posted in depth explanations of why it would happen months before it happened...

increased global temperatures would not increase precipitation on a global scale, that was never the prediction of climate scientisis... the warming was predicted to make wet areas wetter and dry areas drier with weather extremes becoming more common(exactly what is happening, btw). I've only posted that a dozen times or so now, over the course of the last three fourths of a year...

educate yourself before you make preposterous assertions, and you'll be able to curtail that keyboard diarrhea.

obstructionists and liars be damned. policy should be based on reality... the founding fathers chose to avoid pure democracy, and appointed educated representatives for the ignorant yokels for a very good reason... policy should be logical and reality based not subject to the whims of the ignorant.