Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Environment. Show all posts

Friday, April 30, 2010

Al Gore, Tipper Gore Snap Up Montecito-area Villa

Like Instapundit says, I'll believe it's a crisis when they believe it's a crisis:
Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

Carbon footprint estimates not available at this time.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Gas Could be the Cavalry in Global Warming Fight

This isn't news to those of us living in Oklahoma - or officing just down the street from Chesapeake Energy's world headquarters - but I'm glad the news if finally hitting the mainstream media:
An unlikely source of energy has emerged to meet international demands that the United States do more to fight global warming: It's cleaner than coal, cheaper than oil and a 90-year supply is under our feet.

It's natural gas, the same fossil fuel that was in such short supply a decade ago that it was deemed unreliable. It's now being uncovered at such a rapid pace that its price is near a seven-year low. Long used to heat half the nation's homes, it's becoming the fuel of choice when building new power plants. Someday, it may win wider acceptance as a replacement for gasoline in our cars and trucks.

Natural gas' abundance and low price come as governments around the world debate how to curtail carbon dioxide and other pollution that contribute to global warming. The likely outcome is a tax on companies that spew excessive greenhouse gases. Utilities and other companies see natural gas as a way to lower emissions — and their costs. Yet politicians aren't stumping for it.

Obama has yet to see the light (heh) about natural gas but with stories like these, maybe the public will take greater notice.

Friday, July 17, 2009

Could We Be Wrong About Global Warming?

When the USA Today starts questioning global warming, you know there might be something to what the skeptics say:
Could the best climate models -- the ones used to predict global warming -- all be wrong?

Maybe so, says a new study published online today in the journal Nature Geoscience. The report found that only about half of the warming that occurred during a natural climate change 55 million years ago can be explained by excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. What caused the remainder of the warming is a mystery.

"In a nutshell, theoretical models cannot explain what we observe in the geological record," says oceanographer Gerald Dickens, study co-author and professor of Earth Science at Rice University in Houston. "There appears to be something fundamentally wrong with the way temperature and carbon are linked in climate models."

Guess we don't know all there is to know.

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

The Man Who Cried Doom

Michael Goldfarb takes down James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and doomsayer:
. . .Hansen has never parroted the company line. As the head of NASA's Weather and Climate Research Program from 1982 to 1994, John Theon was James Hansen's supervisor. Theon says that Hansen's testimony in 1988 was "a huge embarrassment" to NASA, and he remains skeptical of Hansen's predictions. "I don't have much faith in the models," Theon says, pointing to the "huge uncertainty in the role clouds play." Theon describes Hansen as a "nice, likeable fellow," but worries "he's been overcome by his belief--almost religious--that he's going to save the world."

William Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, also describes Hansen's belief in a man-made global-warming catastrophe as "almost religious" and says he "never understood how [Hansen] got such a strong voice" in the debate. Gray's efforts to predict hurricanes also lead him to question Hansen's computer models. "He doesn't have the clouds in right, and he doesn't have the deep ocean circulation," Gray says. "It's a giant scam in my view."

There's still much to be said about climate change, especially if it's man-made and what exactly can be done about it, but it's interesting to see there are more stories coming out that are beginning to cast a skeptical eye on the entire climate change-government complex.

Tuesday, March 31, 2009

In The Dark With Compact Fluorescent Bulbs

I wanted to be a good citizen and go green but, I'm sorry, compact fluorescent bulbs just don't do it for me. Looks like I'm not alone:
It sounds like such a simple thing to do: buy some new light bulbs, screw them in, save the planet.
But a lot of people these days are finding the new compact fluorescent bulbs anything but simple. Consumers who are trying them say they sometimes fail to work, or wear out early. At best, people discover that using the bulbs requires learning a long list of dos and don’ts.

The one's I've bought - GE, I think - burn out just as quickly as regular bulbs. Sometimes faster. Sometimes they'll work in one socket, sometimes they won't, sometimes they'll work in another socket before just giving up. Well, I've given up on 'em if they can't try any harder than that. As they go out, I'm replacing them with good ol' regular bulbs. Cheap and when they burn out, I'm not enraged at the unfairness of the world.

Oh, and our electricity bill isn't noticeably different.

Is the planet warmer as a result? I dunno. We're recycling. That counts, doesn't it?

Monday, March 23, 2009

The Lorax Was Wrong: Skyscrapers Are Green

Living in the city is better for the environment than living in the suburbs? Who knew?
In almost every metropolitan area, we found the central city residents emitted less carbon than the suburban counterparts. In New York and San Francisco, the average urban family emits more than two tons less carbon annually because it drives less. In Nashville, the city-suburb carbon gap due to driving is more than three tons. After all, density is the defining characteristic of cities. All that closeness means that people need to travel shorter distances, and that shows up clearly in the data.

What's to be done?
The policy prescription that follows from this is that environmentalists should be championing the growth of more and taller skyscrapers. Every new crane in New York City means less low-density development. The environmental ideal should be an apartment in downtown San Francisco, not a ranch in Marin County.

Of course, many environmentalists will still prefer to take their cue from Henry David Thoreau, who advocated living alone in the woods. They would do well to remember that Thoreau, in a sloppy chowder-cooking moment, burned down 300 acres of prime Concord woodland. Few Boston merchants did as much environmental harm, which suggests that if you want to take good care of the environment, stay away from it and live in cities.