November 2007
Monthly Archive
November 27, 2007
One way to cut our carbon emissions is by harvesting free energy. That, of course, is the idea behind solar and geothermal energy and the dream of tidal power. But there’s another source of free energy we’ve overlooked, even though it’s staring us right in the face, day in/day out.
Here’s a clue. It goes up in smoke. It’s the enormous, untapped heat plumes that come out of industrial smokestacks. Look at a picture of any coal-fired electricity plant. We focus on the smoke pouring out of the chimneys but fail to see the energy that’s being lost along with it.
One company in the US has developed an energy scavenging system for smokestacks. It’s really little more than a conventional boiler. The emerging gases heat water pipes that produce steam that propel generators that produce electricity. Put another way, it’s a no-brainer.
It’s estimated that by using power scavenging devices on the largest smokestacks it would be possible to generate about 14% of America’s electricity requirements. The best part is that, by putting them on coal-fired generator plants, you recover energy that won’t have to be produced by burning more coal. Neat, eh?
Look at Big Oil. There are a lot of smokestacks at refineries. There are also plenty of gas flares, in the refineries and in the oil fields, that burn off unwanted gas. Gas + fire = heat energy, ja? Maybe there’s some good reason why they don’t use those flares to generate electricity but I’ve been pondering this for a long time and haven’t found any explanation yet.
November 27, 2007
People who live in drought afflicted areas always point to desalination as the answer to all their problems.
Desalination may solve their problems but only by creating additional problems elsewhere. We don’t have a lot of experience with desalination plants in Canada because we usually have enough rain and groundwater. Parts of the US, however, aren’t so blessed. Now, with large tracts of the American south facing drought and water depletion, the clamour for desalination is getting louder and more strident.
Desalination – the production of freshwater by removing salts and other ingredients in sea water – sounds like the perfect solution. It’s not. Desalination plants create enormous environmental problems. They’re expensive to build and expensive to run. They use an awful lot of energy, typically fossil fuel, and generate a lot of greenhouse gases. The pipes tend to leak and saltwater causes immense problems once it gets into groundwater supplies (remember how the Romans took revenge on Carthage?)). The worst part, however, is the brine effluent that’s left over.
The standard approach is to simply pump the brine, along with all the other chemical residue from the desalination process, right back into the coastal sea. There it plays utter havoc with the marine environment ranging from turbidity, salinity imbalances, destruction of fish habitats and stocks and algae blooms.
In North America, our coastal waters already face enough challenges. We don’t need to add the consequences of desalination to the mix.
November 26, 2007
George w. Bush might not get global warming, just yet, but he will when his beloved ranch in Crawford, Texas, turns into a sand dune.
I’ve been following the southeastern US drought for a while but didn’t pay an awful lot of attention to the greater picture, at least not beyond the California wild fires. It didn’t take much looking, however, to learn of a climate change that’s already happened, the permanent drought in the US southwest.
Down that way it’s become accepted that megadrought has arrived. It’s been going on for 11-years already in Arizona and most other parts of the region aren’t any better off.
“Being in the desert is unnatural,” said senior researcher and geophysicist Richard Seager of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Institute at Columbia University. “The whole Southwest is dependent on massive works of engineering, all of which were built assuming there would be more water available than there really is. How is that whole system going to stand up to this kind of stress? Who gets the water?”
Five of America’s ten fastest growing states are in the drought area: Arizona, Utah, New Mexico, Nevada and Texas.
The region is just beginning to see the start of water wars, in this case mainly non-violent disputes over who gets how much water for what. How much for the urban dwellers, how much for cattle, how much for cotton? The debate can get pretty furious.
Traditional reservoirs, such as Lake Powell (above) and Lake Mead (below) are already down by half and expected to empty before long.
Some of the region’s cotton farmers are planning to give up on their crops and get rich selling their water quotas to city dwellers. Developers in some states are trying to access aquifers in neighbouring states. Naturally, folks are getting tempermental.
So, what’s the answer? There’s talk about desalination plants on the California coast but that’s expected to take upwards of three decades to come online. In the meantime? That’s unknown right now but, if you’re looking for that retirement condo in Phoenix, you might want to wait a few years before diving into the pool.
November 26, 2007
The thing about global warming is that we’re told the real consequences won’t arrive for several decades at least, possibly even centuries. Whew! I’ll be long gone by then. Don’t worry, be happy – unless you live in one of the many spots around the world that have fallen strangely dry, and arid.
You see, long before the polar ice caps melt into the seas, maybe even before you get you start decorating next year’s Easter Eggs, you’ll be hearing a lot about what I like to call Global Drying. It’s a craze that’s positively sweeping the American south and it’s the hottest thing in the eastern Mediterranean, southern Europe, Australia, big hunks of Africa, parts of Mexico and all sorts of other places.
Drought is here, and it’s there, and over there too. But, until this year, it was often out of sight/out of mind. That, friends, is coming to an end.
Atlanta, Georgia is a booming metropolis of more than four million people and it’s currently beset by drought. Take a look at the map above. See if you can locate Atlanta. What colour is that anyway?
Now that map shows you how the droughts affecting the US are expected to develop into February of next year. February is going to be a key month for the good folks of Atlanta – it’s the month in which that city is expected to run out of water.
Interesting question – what do you do with more than four million people who find themselves without water? If you’re Governor Sonny Perdue, the answer is obvious – you get down on bended knee and pray to Jesus for help. And that, sad as it may be, is about the best idea Sonny has come up with.
Now I’m sure there are answers to Atlanta’s problems but, like most of these things, implementing them takes time and Atlanta appears to be as short on time as it is on water. For FEMA, Atlanta may make Katrina look like child’s play. Atlanta isn’t an isolated case. The drought spreads (as the map shows) across an entire, densely populated region and there’s another one much like it now besetting the southwest and a developing drought along the states in between.
Scientists are now beginning to whisper the word “megadrought.” Until very recently, most drought studies barely went back more than a century or two. However that’s changing and we’re now looking back, 1200-years and more. Can you say “oopsie”?
We’ve all heard of the Dirty Thirties and the seven-year drought that afflicted the prairie grasslands. What you probably haven’t heard about are the 60-year droughts or the one that ran in North America from AD 900-1300, a full 400-years.
It’s been less than 200-years since we really began filling up the US and Canada and less than a century since we created the “hydraulic society” that allowed the southwest to be populated thanks to massive government water projects. What we didn’t understand at the time was that those regions, the Great Plains included, were enjoying an unusually wet period. We assumed there would be a reliable source of adequate amounts of precipitation that we could harness to let people live in deserts, complete with manicured lawns, artificial lakes and golf courses.
Even at our most optimistic moment, the illusion was never sustainable. We managed to empty the High Plains aquifer by more than a hundred feet. The once mighty Colorado River no longer flows into Mexico. We’ve sucked these things almost dry – just in time for the arrival of what might be a severe, multi-year drought.
So, keep an eye on the ice packs and the polar bears and the vanishing glaciers. These things are important. But, if your relatives from Atlanta call to tell you they’re coming for a visit, they might just be staying for a while.
November 26, 2007
Here are a few timely facts that should help you evaluate our furious leader’s position(s) on global warming.
Let’s begin with the OECD, the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development. The OECD represents the wealthiest nations on the planet, no need to sully yourself with those impoverished sub-Saharans. This the the club of the “Haves.”
So, compared to the Have Nations, how does Canada stack up on greenhouse gas emissions? Not so good.
On a per capita basis, Joe Canuck comes in 27th out of 29. But, hey, we’re a huge country with a small population. Most of those other OECD countries have a lot more people, so, in the overall scheme of things, we’re small potatoes, right?
Wrong. In total CO2 emissions, Canada came 25th out of 29. Only the US, Germany, Japan and the UK put out more. Not so neat, eh?
Canada puts out in excess of half a trillion tonnes of GHGs every year and we’re still trending upward, fast.
November 26, 2007
When it comes to global warming, trust Stephen Harper to say whatever suits him at the moment. Even with Canada’s worst polluters, his beloved Tar Sands, he won’t tolerate any talk about hard caps on emissions. There, the formula is “intensity based” targets. That’s a scam. What he means is cleaning up bitumen extraction and processing – a little bit – while increasing overall extraction and processing – quadrupling or even quintupling operations. The net result – an enormous jump in GHG emissions from Big Oil at the Tar Sands.
When it comes to global warming and Stephen Harper – that’s what you’re dealing with. Fighting climate change will not come at the expense of Tar Sands expansion and that’s the bottom line.
In order to make any sense out of what Harper says elsewhere, you need to keep his Tar Sands perspective in mind.
On the weekend, Harpo made Canada the pariah of the Commonwealth (alright, alright – we’re still not up there with Zimbabwe or Pakistan, but… ) by scuttling a resolution calling for binding caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
Harper, being the sleazeball he is, wasn’t candid enough to admit that he would not tolerate emissions caps because that would screw up his Tar Sands. Steve knows that sort of honesty could cost him big at home. Instead he resorted to the tried and true tactic of all swindlers – distraction.
Steve looked for another way out and found it – in India. He said the rest of the Commonwealth is flat out wrong in wanting developed nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions first. Harpo smugly described his knuckledragging as “the only right position.”
“If we are all to believe that climate change is a major problem caused by greenhouse gas emissions then we have to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the only way we can do that is if all major emitters reduce their emissions. It’s that simple, so we are not going to settle for anything less.” – Harper
It is indeed “that simple” to a real con man. What’s simple about it is that it tells it tells the emerging economies that, henceforth, we intend to preserve our per capita emissions differential. That means that every citizen of Canada is going to be entitled, indefinitely, to generate greenhouse gas emissions five or six times that of every citizen of India. Why? Because we’re Canadians, civilized, still mainly white folks – and they’re not. Why? Because we’re already accustomed to monster SUVs and 4,000 square foot houses with three car garages – and they’re not.
Then again, remember, this is a con – a distraction. Stephen Harper is not prepared to tolerate hard caps in any case. It’s all about “intensity based” targets for him, so all this business about China signing on to this or India signing on to that is just smoke and mirrors.
That, my friends, is what Stephen Harper is all about – and he’s laid it right out at your feet. He wants a return to the British Raj. That’s what this is all about – White Man’s Burden.
November 26, 2007
Mike at Rational Reasons is currently in India on business. We hear a lot about India from our imperial leader, Stephano Harpo. He says we can’t consider tough action on global warming until we get emerging economic powers, like India, onside. Absolutely pointless for Canada to waste its breath on curbing greenhouse gas emissions until offenders such as India get on board.
Mike left the following comment to one of my earlier posts. It’s a comment that deserves a proper post of its own, so here it is:
“OK, lets put to rest this nonsense about needing China and India and the US, because a lot of simpletons like to repeat that meme but no one seems to actually know the facts.
I am in India right now and I have seen first hand what they are doing:
1. Most vehicles in India are motor bikes and scooters. Very good on gas. They have an all electric model on the market now too, meaning no gas and no emissions.
2. Every car in India -EVERY car – must have a sticker on its driver’s side (right) headlight indicating it is a low emission vehicle, or the vehicle can’t be sold or driven.
3. Most of the cars are less than 5 years old. It is rare to see an older one, with the exception of a original Indian model, which was made back in the 60’s. It is a diesel, meaning it is already getting better milage than most gasoline cars AND can run on bio-diesel or unmodified vegetable oil if needed.
4. In India almost everything that is thrown away is recycled. In Mumbai, you can actually sell your garbage to people who will take it to recycling depots – there is a market for it. Old electronic components are stripped for there metals and usable parts – hell almost anything is stripped this way.
5. Being Environmentally Friendly is a huge advantage that Indian companies are using to lure more business. It is bad business for this grow, red hot economy to NOT be environmentally friendly.
6. Most gas in India is high grade, low emission fuel or diesel.
7. India is still emitting a small fraction of the GHG that we do. Companies here are actively investing and trying to create low emission alternatives because it is good for business.
In other words, India is doing stuff to lower emissions and meet Kyoto without even signing it. They are doing FAR more than Canada, and we signed it.So conservative whiners can sure stop using India as an excuse for in action. They are already working at the problem.
And a big thanks to you, Mike.
November 25, 2007
Mr. Smug, obviously pleased with himself, after scuttling the Commonwealth resolution calling for binding targets to fight global warming (toronto star photo).
What Stephen Harper truly “gets” about climate change is how to sabotage any serious effort to tackle it. He must make his bosses – Bush/Cheney and Big Oil – pleased, especially given that their other dinosaur, Australia’s Howard, just went down the toilet.
Harper, on the world scene, says he won’t commit to any binding targets agreement until the US, China and India also sign on. However that’s just empty rhetoric, fodder for the weak-minded among his supporters. He’s lying. Harper has already made clear that he cannot accept carbon caps. He won’t go past “intensity based” emission controls. That makes discussion of any meaningful plan – regardless of India, China and the US – a farce.
Our prime ministerial grease ball is focused on one thing – undermining the growing campaign to tackle global warming.
November 25, 2007
When 5,000 US troops leave Iraq this week, it will mark the beginning of the end of the US military’s surge. These troops won’t be replaced and, over the next six or seven months, the rest of the 30,000 soldiers will be pulled out.
So, what has the surge accomplished? Not what it was instituted to achieve.
On the plus side, the surge has seen a decline in both sectarian violence and attacks on US soldiers. Sunni resistance fighters turned on al-Qaeda terrorists – Sunni versus Sunni. The much larger problem, the Shia militias went to ground or, at the direction of Maliki, were integrated into Iraq’s military and police services (that’s not good by the way).
The upshot is that there’s no way to know whether the surge actually caused the decline in killings, much less whether that will continue.
Then there’s the downside. The surge was supposed to give the Baghdad government a bit of stability to allow it to put in place laws and measures designed to further reconciliation amoung the country’s three main groups – Arab Sunni, Arab Shia and Kurds. Progress was to be measured by a series of “benchmarks” prescribed by the Bush administration.
In late summer the Democrats in Congress went on the warpath, furious that the al-Maliki government had achieved virtually none of these benchmarks. That’s when America’s commander in Iraq, David Petraeus, turned up and made the Dems back down. Petraeus noted that the surge had only begun and it would take until October to assess how it succeeded or failed.
By the standards of last summer and the standards of October, the surge has been a dismal failure. The benchmarks, Bush’s benchmarks, remain largely ignored by the Maliki government. Reconciliation isn’t at hand. The key oil law (the one to hand the oil fields to US companies) gathers dust. And now the troops have begun to leave.
So what’s a failed president to do in these circumstances? Why, simple, move the Baghdad goal posts. Throwing the “benchmarks” to the winds, US Ambassador Ryan Crocker said, “It is going to be one thing at a time, maybe two things at a time, we hope with increasing momentum. It is a long-term process.”
From The New York Times:
There have been signs that American influence over Iraqi politics is dwindling after the recent improvements in security — which remain incomplete, as shown by a deadly bombing Friday in Baghdad. While Bush officials once said they aimed to secure “reconciliation” among Iraq’s deeply divided religious, ethnic and sectarian groups, some officials now refer to their goal as “accommodation.”
This is about the point where George w. Bush seems to lose interest in his adventures. When the going gets tough, he seems to be drawn to the next shiny object. Remember the grandiose “Road Map” to solve the Israeli/Palestinian problem. That was all you heard about, until one day you didn’t hear it any more. Remember Osama bin Laden? Don’t hear much about him any more either. How about GWOT, the Global War on Terror, war without end? That’s been shunted aside too.
November 25, 2007
To listen to Peter MacKay and some Canadian generals, we’re making solid progress in Afghanistan. That’s the problem with listening to Peter MacKay and his generals. They can’t afford to tell you how miserably “the mission” is faltering.
But, when it comes to tall tales you can expect the tallest to come from the Americans. So, what’s their take on Afghanistan? According to the Washington Post, it’s not nearly as rosey as the line coming out of Ottawa:
…the latest assessment [of the National Security Council] concluded that only “the kinetic piece” — individual battles against Taliban fighters — has shown substantial progress, while improvements in the other areas continue to lag, a senior administration official said.
This judgment reflects sharp differences between US military and intelligence officials on where the Afghan war is headed. Intelligence analysts acknowledge the battlefield victories, but they highlight the Taliban’s unchallenged expansion into new territory, an increase in opium poppy cultivation and the weakness of the government of President Hamid Karzai as signs that the war effort is deteriorating.
The contrasting views echo repeated internal disagreements over the Iraq war: While the military finds success in a virtually unbroken line of tactical achievements, intelligence officials worry about a looming strategic failure.
But one senior intelligence official, who like others interviewed was not authorized to discuss Afghanistan on the record, said such gains are fleeting. “One can point to a lot of indicators that are positive . . . where we go out there and achieve our objectives and kill bad guys,” the official said. But the extremists, he added, seem to have little trouble finding replacements.
Although growing numbers of foreigners — primarily Pakistanis — are joining the Taliban ranks, several officials said the primary source of new recruits remains disaffected Afghans fearful of opposing the Taliban and increasingly disillusioned with their own government. Overall, “there doesn’t seem to be a lot of progress being made. . . . I would think that from [the Taliban] standpoint, things are looking decent,” the intelligence official said.
Senior White House officials privately express pessimism about Afghanistan.
At the moment, several officials said, their concern is focused far more on the domestic situation in Afghanistan, where increasing numbers are losing faith in Karzai’s government in Kabul. According to a survey released last month by the Asia Foundation, 79 percent of Afghans felt that the government does not care what they think, while 69 percent felt that it is not acceptable to publicly criticize the government.
Gee, does anyone remember another conflict not all that long ago where America won every battle but finished up losing the war?
« Previous Page — Next Page »
The Mound of Sound 