Something to be really thankful for: That we do not get what we deserve

Fossil Fuel Carbon Dioxide Emissions Up by 29 Percent Since 2000

ScienceDaily (Nov. 17, 2009) — The strongest evidence yet that the rise in atmospheric CO₂ emissions continues to outstrip the ability of the world's natural 'sinks' to absorb carbon is published November 17 in the journal Nature Geoscience.

---

Reference

• Consensus of scientists regarding global warming
• Fossil fuel
• Automobile emissions control
• Ocean acidification

An international team of researchers under the umbrella of the Global Carbon Project reports that over the last 50 years the average fraction of global CO₂ emissions that remained in the atmosphere each year was around 43 per cent -- the rest was absorbed by the Earth's carbon sinks on land and in the oceans. During this time this fraction has likely increased from 40 per cent to 45 per cent, suggesting a decrease in the efficiency of the natural sinks. The team brings evidence that the sinks are responding to climate change and variability.

The scientists report a 29 per cent increase in global CO₂ emissions from fossil fuel between 2000 and 2008 (the latest year for which figures are available), and that in spite of the global economic downturn emissions increased by 2 per cent during 2008. The use of coal as a fuel has now surpassed oil and developing countries now emit more greenhouse gases than developed countries -- with a quarter of their growth in emissions accounted for by increased trade with the West. . . .

No comment

Humble became part of Exxon as the Standard Oil octopus reassembled itself, like the blown apart pieces of the Terminator. (h/t to The Oil Drum)

Global Forecast: Mass suffering, thanks to Salem's own M. Lee Pelton and the rest of the PGE board

This is Oregon's biggest polluter and biggest contributor to a hellish future for billions of people. Image via Wikipedia

GLOBAL TEMPS SET TO RISE OVER TEN DEGREES BY 2100

Independent, UK - The world is now firmly on course for the worst-case scenario in terms of climate change, with average global temperatures rising by up to 6C (10.8F) by the end of the century, leading scientists said yesterday. Such a rise - which would be much higher nearer the poles - would have cataclysmic and irreversible consequences for the Earth, making large parts of the planet uninhabitable and threatening the basis of human civilization.

We are headed for it, the scientists said, because the carbon dioxide emissions from industry, transport and deforestation which are responsible for warming the atmosphere have increased dramatically since 2002, in a way which no one anticipated, and are now running at treble the annual rate of the 1990s.

Although the 6C rise and its potential disastrous effects have been speculated upon before, this is the first time that scientists have said that society is now on a path to meet it.

Here are the names of the people who would rather that billions suffer than PGE's profits be reduced by so much as a dollar:

Board of Directors PGE's Board of Directors includes executives in utilities, management, finance and accounting.

Corbin A. McNeill Jr. Chairman of the Board of Directors, Portland General Electric John W. Ballantine Retired executive vice president, First Chicago NBD Corp. Rodney L. Brown Jr. Managing Partner, Cascadia Law Group PLLC David A. Dietzler Retired Pacific Northwest partner-in-charge of audit practice, KPMG LLP Kirby A. Dyess Principal, Austin Capital Management LLC Peggy Y. Fowler Retired CEO and president, Portland General Electric Mark B. Ganz President and CEO, The Regence Group Neil J. Nelson President and CEO, Siltronic Corp. M. Lee Pelton President, Willamette University Jim Piro President and CEO, Portland General Electric Robert T.F. Reid Corporate Director

Another hopeful sign

It is absolutely depressing these days, and not just because the days are getting shorter and shorter. When the very best that politics offers falls far, far short of even a shadow of a reflection of what sustainability requires of us (and the heads of esteemed universities are climate criminals) it is frightening.

So every now and then, it's good to stumble on signs that there is still a lot of creativity out there working on developing practical approaches to things.

The Solution to Boardman Pollution is Conversion, Not Diversion

(h/t to Sightline Institute for the snap.)

Under the "Be Careful What You Wish For" heading comes the ill-conceived plan to stick scrubbers and other emissions reduction devices on the tail end of the Boardman coal-pollution generators (if you look at Boardman realistically, pollution is the main product -- electricity is the much smaller byproduct). The principal issue is that there is no form of CO2 scrubber . . . the carbon starts out as coal, and that's the perfect storage medium for it. But once you burn it, there's no capturing it, and it stays in the atmosphere for up to 1,000 years, destablizing the climate and acidifying the oceans.

Stories like this focus on the direct health effects of all the other nasties emitted along with the CO2 -- but every story fails to mention that these scrubbers and emission controls would cause the plant to produce even more CO2 for every kilowatt. And this is for a plant that's only about 33% efficient to start with (in other words, two-thirds of the energy in the coal is wasted and sent out to heat the atmosphere and only one-third transforms into electricity, which then suffers 8-10% line losses before reaching electric loads -- that's why the plant is really a pollution plant with a small electric byproduct).

The only sane solution is to close the coal burning portion of Boardman ASAP, and replace it with one or two combined-cycle natural gas turbines with heat recovery systems. Such plants can approach 80% efficiency, meriting the name power plants rather than pollution plants, and there is far less CO2 and none of the other nasties (radioactive materials, mercury, sulfer oxides . . . ) emitted either.

From the story: Coal-fired power plants still provide about 40 percent of the electricity used in Oregon, about the same amount as comes from hydroelectric dams. Most of the rest comes from natural gas and wind.

But when coal is burned to generate electricity, it releases toxins like sulfur dioxide. Coal plants are also a major source of carbon dioxide, which is the main gas associated with global warming.

Important: Help Salem create an energy strategy

Image via Wikipedia

Long overdue but all the more welcome as a result.

Help Shape a Community Energy Strategy for Salem!

Tuesday, December 1, 2009, 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m. at the Salem Conference Center

9:00 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. Participate in Sessions on: Solar - Wind - Electric Vehicles
Financial incentives and tools to reduce energy, save costs, and generate jobs

1:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m. provide input on draft goals and actions for Salem’s Energy Strategy

Free and Open to the Public.
Lunch attendance requires an RSVP.
RSVP by contacting Annie Gorski at 503.588.6178 or agorski@cityofsalem.net.

Start making your lists

Sustainable Holiday Market.

City of Salem has money to burn, apparently

Image by Smithsonian Institution via Flickr

The other night, the City of Salem signed up to submit a grant that, if it's obtained, will require the city to waste yet more taxpayer money -- $160,000 or so, from the general fund that we keep being told has no money -- as corporate welfare for a private, for-profit business, SkyWest Airlines. This is on top of $8,000 that Salem is pouring down the drain for "market analysis."

Apparently the council is fine with slashing public services like pools and parks and library services to find the money to shovel into well-tailored airline pockets in a doomed attempt to pretend that flying from Salem makes economic sense. (Not to mention that, in the era of $80+ oil, flying is making less sense for anyone, anywhere.)

It seems that Salem's losing scheduled service every time the subsidies run out should tell us something, but the optimists in City Hall have their fingers pressed firmly in their ears, determined not to hear what the market is really saying. After all, who needs public services when you can be chasing the dream of flight?

Advice to young people

It's tempting -- especially for those in the liberal arts -- to imagine that this "Great Recession" is simply a perturbation in the economy, which will eventually return to "normal" (growth). Young people are well advised to use some of that famous youth skepticism on that. Image via Wikipedia

A column at Inside Higher Ed about the problems of "graduating into the Great Recession" ends with this:

The last couple of recessions felt like somebody had hit 'pause.' When they ended, things came back in relatively recognizable forms. This one's different. If an 18 year old asked me what the hot occupation would be in a couple of years, I'd have no idea what to say. It's just not obvious.

Paradoxically enough, that actually becomes a kind of argument for the liberal arts. It's one thing to juxtapose the employable to the abstract. But if nothing's employable anyway, why not go with something that's at least fascinating? Or, if you go the business route, focus on the entrepreneurial side; if the established firms are shrinking, there's not much point in trying to conform your way up. You can't play it safe anymore; there isn't any 'safe.'

I had a rough economic ride in my late twenties, but not like this. My condolences to the latest graduates. I hope you all keep this time in mind the next time you hear someone say that the economy is meritocratic.

I know it's probably a waste of time, but I couldn't resist submitting this comment.

If you haven't been paying attention, there are two dominant forces that will dictate circumstances in the US for the foreseeable future, and they combine to create a third that will seem like an independent force in itself. They are

(1) the end of cheap energy due to the peaking and then inexorable decline of oil production rates (Peak Oil); since virtually everything grown, mined, made, or moved comes to us courtesy only of a huge investment of energy, we've built our society on the assumption that there will always be an affordable abundance of energy -- everything about us points to this implicit assumption.

(2) the urgent need to slash fossil fuel carbon emissions drastically to avoid the worst effects of climate disruption (many serious effects are already "baked in" since there is a lag between emissions and effects of about 30 years, and CO2 remains in the atmosphere for centuries);

(3) As a result of 1 & 2, we are going to be a much, much less wealthy country. We are going to have to do without many of the consumer baubles we've become accustomed to and many of the daily comforts we've taken for granted.

Thus, the advice I give young people today is this: Learn how to grow your own food using as little energy or imported materials as possible or be important to those who do know how to do that. That simple rule unfailingly helps you decide well.

To the extent you can't participate in taking care of your own subsistence needs -- grow your own food successfully -- you will have to get it from others. If you want to be important to people who grow food, you will have to think about what they are likely to need in a much more relocalized world. You don't have to be a farmer -- you can be a doctor, or a nurse, or a PA or an EMT, or a plumber, or an electrician, or a miller, or a cook, or a builder of super-efficient houses, or a good mechanic, or a welder . . . and of course, here in the last throes of empire you can always be in the "protection racket" of the military.

What you will likely not want to be is anything that Toffler would have called a "symbolic analsyst" -- someone who only makes their living writing, speaking, or pushing pixels and only has a career in the context of an expanding economy (with steady tax revenues).

The most important graph there is