The Himalayan glaciers are melting, that’s no long being debated, but the rate at which they’re melting is now being called into question. An oft repeated claim by environmentalists (and possibly by this website) that the glaciers could vanish completely by 2035, apparently has no grounding in science and is instead based on a 1999 magazine article in the ‘New Scientist’ which itself was based on a telephone interview with a little-known Indian scientist, Syed Hasnain.

Glaciologists however find the possibility to be far fetched, with Professor Julian Dowdeswell, director of the Scott Polar Research Institute at Cambridge University, saying that the average Himalayan glacier is 300-metres thick and with the current average rate of decline below 1-metre per year, well you can do the math… Keep in mind the rate of decline would rise with global temperatures, but the rate of declining rising to eleven times its current rate isn’t likely.

Embarrassingly this claim managed to make its way into a 2007 report by the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). In defense of its report, the IPCC has said they do not read the New Scientist but instead were quoting from a 2005 WWF report (itself quoting the New Scientist), and that Professor Murari Lai, who oversaw the chapter on glaciers in the report, doesn’t know anything about glaciers. (I’m serious.)

The climate change movement is currently beset by claims of false science, vis-a-vie Climategate, and this is the last thing climate change advocates need. However before we’re quick write off the Himalayan glaciers as a disaster averted, it’s important to remember that there has been a lot of science on the issue not based on decade old magazines and that rising temperatures in the region are an important matter of discussion. The glaciers provide drinking water to over forty-percent of the world’s population and that makes them too important to be placed on the back burner.

Read the rest of this entry »

I feel like it’s time to address the ‘Climategate’ issue that’s been hanging over the head of the climate change movement for the past few weeks. As most of you know by now, ‘Climategate’ refers to the thousands of emails from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia that have been hacked and released into the public domain. [1] The content of these emails have attracted attention from climate change skeptics and have created nothing short of an uproar in conservative circles.

The most controversial of the emails is a 1999 email from the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, and it reads: “I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.” [2]

Climate change skeptics have seized upon the wording of this email to suggest that climate change data is being manipulated by the scientific community. Jones has since resigned his post at the CRU pending an investigation by the university. [3] Admittedly the email doesn’t look good but there is an explanation and this is what RealClimate had to say:

“The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the ‘trick’ is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term “trick” to refer to a “a good way to deal with a problem”, rather than something that is “secret”, and so there is nothing problematic in this at all. As for the ‘decline’, it is well known that Keith Briffa’s maximum latewood tree ring density proxy diverges from the temperature records after 1960 (this is more commonly known as the “divergence problem”–see e.g. the recent discussion in this paper) and has been discussed in the literature since Briffa et al in Nature in 1998 (Nature, 391, 678-682). Those authors have always recommended not using the post-1960 part of their reconstruction, and so while ‘hiding’ is probably a poor choice of words (since it is ‘hidden’ in plain sight), not using the data in the plot is completely appropriate, as is further research to understand why this happens.” [4]

The reason these emails are important is because of the role the University of East Anglia plays in climate change science. The CRU is one of the world’s leading authorities in reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Not exactly helping the university in these trying times is the news last week that the CRU has ‘thrown away’ most of the raw temperature data on which their predictions are based, leaving only the controlled and homogenized data. [5]

There are other centers doing research similar to the CRU’s, namely NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. However NASA (the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) has found itself in a bit of hot water recently as well. The agency is being threatened with litigation by a researcher from the ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’ in an attempt to compel the agency to release data from its Goddard Institute for Space Studies. The researcher, Christopher Horner, has said he suspects the GISS may have ‘manipulated research like East Anglia’s CRU’. The information was requested two years ago under the Freedom Of Information Act and NASA says it’s collecting the information to respond to Horner’s request. [6]

It should be noted that the ‘Competitive Enterprise Institute’ or CEI is a libertarian think-tank dedicated to the principals of a free market economy. Some of the group’s past and present donors include: Exxon Mobil, Pfizer, Ford Motor Company, and Texaco. [7]

Another big player in the climate change data set is NOAA (National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration), so far they have managed to remain unscathed by ‘Climategate’ and the CRU has pointed to their data sets in defence of their own conclusions. [8]

The last major player on the climate change data set scene is Britain’s Met Office. While initially downplaying the ‘Climategate’ incident, the Met Office has since changed its stance saying it will release its temperature data to the public and will go through the last 160 years of data to ensure its accuracy. (The original analysis was done by the CRU.) [9]

The ripples from ‘Climategate’ are being felt far and wide. Mudslinging has broken out on Capitol Hill in the United States where Democratic Representative Ed Markey has stepped up to the defence of environmental legislation saying ‘Climategate shouldn’t stand in the way of the US Congress’ swift enactment of cap and trade’. [10] Markey is the chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. He is also the co-author of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (also known as the Waxman-Markey Bill) which is an energy bill that would establish a cap and trade system for carbon trading in the United States. The bill was approved by the House in a vote in June 2009, and it now sits waiting for approval from the Senate. [11] Moderate Republicans are crucial to the bill’s success and the scandal surrounding ‘Climategate’ has led to some prominent Republican Senators seeking to distance themselves from the bill with Politico reporting that even John McCain has become a vocal critic of the bill. [12]

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has released a statement chastising the hacker/s and assuring the public that the science behind its panel’s conclusions is sound. [13] Elsewhere in the UN, Yvo De Boer the Executive Secretary of the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has shared similar sentiments saying that while the emails do look bad, the underlying research on global warming is solid. [14]

The timing of the hack, in the run up to the Copenhagen Climate Conference, has raised suspicions as to whodunnit and what their motivations might have been. The Metropolitan Police Service or ‘Scotland Yard’ is currently investigating the incident along with local police in Norfolk. [15]

While it’s easy to get carried away into the intrigue that is ‘Climategate’ it’s best to keep a level head and remain objective. We should remember that climate change is a highly researched issue and one where the scientific community has reached a consensus.

The belief that the scientific community has been driving the climate change debate to serve their own interests is ludicrous at best. Skeptics have often made note of the money that stands to be made by climate change science supporters, but this type of logic ignores the world’s industrialists and their monetary motivations for maintaining the status quo. With that in mind, I would love to read the emails of major oil companies’ CEOs from the past ten years so I could select .001% of them and cite them out of context.

Read the rest of this entry »

A study released by Public Citizen, an environmental advocacy group, has concluded that the entire state of Texas’ power generation needs could theoretically be met by solar power. (I would like to stress the theoretical part.) Heat concentrating solar power was found to have a potential capacity of 148,000 MW in Texas alone, and the report says a 30×30 mile field of photovoltaic solar panels could meet the entire state’s needs.

A separate study by the University of Texas at Austin says that the state could create 123,000 jobs in the manufacturing industry if it were to become a global leader on solar panel production. (The study did not address how many jobs would be created if Texas magically became the world’s leader in production of anything else.)

However before we get carried away with the good news, there are some pretty clear obstacles in the path. Namely the water doesn’t exist to make such large scale solar power generation a reality.

Heat concentrating solar power requires large amounts of water. Unlike other power generating methods solar power plants in their need of sun and vast open spaces do not have the luxury of placing themselves next to sufficiently large bodies of water. You can read about the dilemma of solar power generation and water shortages here: http://wwcpd.org/2009/solar-power-or-solar-death-power-you-be-the-judge/

As for the photovoltaic technology it admittedly needs a lot less water, however it still does require a meaningful amount of water to be trucked in to keep the panels clean. As dust will significantly reduce the panels’ efficiency. The panels are also very expensive so it’s quite unrealistic to expect there to ever be a 30×30 mile field of the panels. That’s 900 square miles, which is over three times the size of the nation of Singapore.

Stepping back into the real world for a moment. Texas is the leading state in terms of wind power generation with a capacity of over 4,000 MW, with the Texas Public Utility Commission saying they could possibly deliver 25,000 MW of wind power to urban centers by 2012. Texas is also home to the world’s largest wind farm, producing 735 MW, and consisting of 430 wind turbines spread over 47,000 acres. [1]

Unlike solar power, wind turbines do not need large amounts of water, and with the immense size of Texas the power generation possibilities are endless. The Texas State Legislature has set a goal of 6,000 MW of renewable energy by 2015, about 5% of the state’s demand, and 10,000 MW by 2025. Including 500 MW of renewable energy excluding wind power. [2]

While those figures pale in comparison to California’s pledge for 33% of its power to be renewable by 2020 (California is currently at 22% [3]), it’s still a step in the right direction for Texas. A large number of leading Texan politicians aren’t exactly known for their belief in climate change, as opposed to say California’s, however there is still a lot to be said about the desirability of meeting your power needs in-house.

Read the rest of this entry »

The US Agricultural Secretary Tom Vilsack, former governor of Iowa, spoke recently to press the importance of forest conservation and stressed his agency’s commitment to its future in the United States. His comments sought to point out that forests are crucial in supplying clean water, sheltering wildlife, and mitigating the effects of climate change. He went on to say that the sky might in fact be blue.

Vilsack is perhaps best known for his strong support of biofuels and while serving as governor was a strong supporter of Ethanol additives. I’m still not sure how I feel about biofuels as it seems a little shortsighted to take two things as vital as energy and food and combine them into one item of such importance.

Back to the issue at hand. Key among Vilsack’s policies is reversing former president Bush’s forest planning rule of 2008 and also seeking to reinstate former president Bill Clinton’s ‘Roadless Rule’ which had imposed halts on road construction, among other development, on 58 million acres of national forests.

I firmly believe that deforestation is one of the largest threats facing the world today. And it’s great to see a member of the presidential cabinet taking such a strong stance. Smokey would be proud.

Read the rest of this entry »

Obesity has been in the headlines a lot recently, with health care dominating discussions in Washington most of the focus has been on the health considerations and how it seems to be permeating American culture. There was even some controversy when President Obama named Dr Regina Benjamin, a clinically obese woman, to be the nation’s Surgeon General.

And while the health considerations are important, especially if the US adopts some sort of single-payer health care system, I’m here to talk about the environmental impact of an obese population.

A report out of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (man I wish I had a more prestigious sounding source) claims that a lean population such as that of Vietnam would consume 20% less food and produce fewer greenhouse gases than a country with a 40% rate of obesity. The report went on to say that if taken into account, the lessened energy costs of transporting thin people as opposed to overweight individuals could save 1 gross ton per person in annual carbon emissions.

The news that a heavy person has a larger carbon footprint than a normal person has made a few waves in the media, leaving some to question whether we should really be ‘trying to make them feel even guiltier than they already do’. I will make sure to use that excuse the next time I fire up the G4.

Michael Moore should make a documentary about this. Oh that’s right.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Indian minister of the environment recently rejected scientific claims that the country’s Himalayan glaciers are melting saying things like ’science’ and ‘facts’ couldn’t replace the knowledge gained by local experience. The scientific community however is maintaining its stance asserting that a large number of the glaciers may disappear entirely by the year 2035 [1]. To stress the importance of the issue, in total the Himalayan glaciers feed rivers that supply water to about 40% of the world’s population.

This comes as the developed world continues to push for more action from developing nations to curb emissions. The US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, recently appealed to India to embrace a low carbon future and not repeat the mistakes of the developed world in seeking fast industrialization. India has so far rejected the first world’s overtures, joining Brazil and China in refusing to agree to any cuts or curbs to the growth of future emissions.

Read the rest of this entry »

The U.S. Energy Secretary is currently in China in an attempt to encourage the nation to set 2050 emission standards. The US wants China and other developing nations to join the US and Europe in efforts to significantly decrease emissions by the mid-century mark. China for the most part has rejected these demands on grounds that developing countries started polluting first. Now while that sounds like an air-tight argument, keep in mind, this would also justify slavery and nuclear warfare.

Meanwhile this is all taking place as China seeks to develop the world’s largest green industry, albeit while using some market protectionism. China already lays claim to the world’s largest solar panel industry and is fast on Europe’s tail in the wind turbine market. However when China has authorized renewable energy projects in its own country they have sought to exclude European and American companies from the bidding, either outright or through various technicalities. This has elicited cries of protectionism from the west.

China has countered the claims saying their nation wouldn’t make such a large investment in renewable energies, which are more expensive than coal, if it didn’t also mean significantly building up their own local green industries.

To me it seems as if the west would like China to become a greener country, but if their companies can’t make any money off the transition their enthusiasm quickly dissipates. Personally I’m ok with market protectionism if that’s what China needs to man up and start taking responsibility for its own emissions.

Read the rest of this entry »

The Alaskan town of Newtok has voted to relocate nine miles upstream, uprooting several hundred Eskimos. The town is being displaced due to flooding brought on by climate change and is only the first of possibly dozens of Alaskan towns that could find themselves threatened in the coming years.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has warned that an estimated 150 million people could find themselves displaced by the year 2050 and become ‘climate refugees’. To put that number into perspective, moving Newtok and its 340 residents has been estimated to cost $130 million US Dollars by the US Army Corps of Engineers.

I think it’s safe to say that a ‘wait and see’ approach to climate change could be a dangerous economic approach.

Read the rest of this entry »

I think everyone can agree that those are important topics, however, to get to Iowa the President used 9,000 gallons fuel. I have to seriously question whether the speech was worth such a large carbon footprint and whether it was necessary to put symbolism ahead of the environment?

It’s long been a tradition on Earth Day for presidents to jet off somewhere for a high profile speech, but I think it’s time for a change. Every year, on Earth Day, the president should deliver a webcast from the comforts of the Oval Office. Maybe then I could believe we had a leadership that genuinely understood the asperities of our environmental situation.

Read the rest of this entry »

In recent years there has been growing support for solar power, this support has accelerated recently thanks in large part to the President’s stimulus package. Solar power is often hailed as a clean, environmentally friend energy source. While that is mainly true, it does have its own environmental impact.

Most power generation consumes large amounts of water, and while solar power uses less water than coal or nuclear, it still does use quite a bit of water. Making things more difficult is that solar power plants are almost always located in the desert, where of course, water is harder to come by. There are alternatives to water based cooling, but they are significantly more expensive.

More than 150 applications for solar power plants are currently awaiting approval in the western deserts of the United States. The water to run that many plants simply does not exist, and the National Park service warns that any water drawdowns in the region would adversely affect the endangered electric-blue pupfish.

Read the rest of this entry »