Sheryl Crow Solves Global Warming Problem!!

That's right, folks. Sheryl Crow has come up with a brilliant, two-part plan to curb global warming. The hours of sitting on the "Biodiesel Bus" touring the country to raise awareness have given her plenty of time to come up with a plan.

Not only is it simple in execution, but it's so very easy for each of us to do on our own, with only minimal government intrusion into our personal lives!

The first step of her ingenious plan:

"I have spent the better part of this tour trying to come up with easy ways for us all to become a part of the solution to global warming," she wrote on her Biodiesel Bus Blog.

"Although my ideas are in the earliest stages of development, they are, in my mind, worth investigating.

"I propose a limitation be put on how many squares of toilet paper can be used in any one sitting," she suggested.

"Now, I don't want to rob any law-abiding American of his or her God-given rights, but I think we are an industrious enough people that we can make it work with only one square per restroom visit, except, of course, on those pesky occasions where two to three could be required," she wrote.

That's right, folks. A simple ban on overuse of toilet paper, along with the placement of single-sheet toilet paper dispensers in every public and private restroom in the nation, complete with monitoring to determine whether someone is overwiping, is the first part of Crow's Global Warming Prevention Plan.

Never mind the volume of energy required to construct all those monitoring dispensers and place them in hundreds of millions of bathrooms. Never mind that toilet paper becomes sewage sludge, used as fertilizer. This will curb global warming, by . . . um . . . well, it just WILL!

I suggest we all carry about a plastic scraper, for use prior to the use of our single sheet of toilet paper. Yes, yes, I know. Energy invested in 300 million scrapers . . . perhaps we can share?

Lest you lose faith in Crow, she has the second part of her Plan in place already. In this, she works out her renowned fashion designer chops!

Crow also commented that paper serviettes "represent the height of wastefulness" and that she'd designed a "dining sleeve" that's detachable and can be replaced with another 'dining sleeve' once you've used it to wipe your mouth.

That's right. Banning paper napkins, which do end up in landfills, is the second half of Crow's scheme. Instead, each of us will cart about multiple extra shirtsleeves, and wipe our mouths and clean up spills with our clothing! Then, of course, after a date, we can just toss those extra sleeves into our Sleeve Carrying Bag, and put on new ones.

I believe that this "dining sleeve" falls short, however. We could go so much farther.

I propose we add a "snot sleeve" as well, and ban tissues. Yes, since folks like Crow are accustomed to places which only have paper napkins, and wiping their mouths upon their sleeves, they should be quite happy to do the same with their noses!

In fact, we can trace global warming back to Napoleon, who added buttons to the sleeves of his soldiers' uniforms to stop their nose-wiping. Ever since, waste and global temperatures have increased steadily. See the connection? Obviously, Crow missed this crucial step which will allow her plan to succeed in curbing global warming.

Wait, you say, why do we not just use cloth napkins and handkerchiefs? Well, that would seem an adequate solution, but both of those are already in use. We need something new, and it has to be designed by our new savior, Sheryl Crow.

All she wants to do is have some fun. And save the environment. Would you deny her?

Corn-Based Ethanol - The Ungreen Alternative Fuel

Today's a busy day, so please forgive me for simply cutting and pasting a very well-written article from The Economist which explains in detail why ethanol made from corn is neither a cheap fuel nor a green fuel. I've added some bold here and there to call attention to particular points, and just a few comments following the story.

Corn-based ethanol not cheap, not green

THE ECONOMIST

It is not often that this newspaper agrees with Fidel Castro, Cuba's tottering Communist dictator. But when he roused himself from his sickbed last week to write an article criticizing George W. Bush's unhealthy enthusiasm for ethanol, he had a point.

Along with other critics of the United States' ethanol drive, Castro warned against the "sinister idea of converting food into fuel." The United States' use of corn to make ethanol biofuel, which can then be blended with gasoline to reduce the country's dependence on foreign oil, has already driven up the price of corn.

As more land is used to grow corn rather than other food crops, such as soy, their prices also rise. And since corn is used as animal feed, the price of meat goes up, too. The food supply is being diverted to feed the United States' hungry cars.

Ethanol is not much used in Europe, but it is a fuel additive in the U.S., and a growing number of cars can use either gasoline or ethanol. It accounted for only around 3.5 percent of U.S. fuel consumption last year, but production is growing by 25 percent a year because the government subsidizes domestic production and penalizes imports. As a result, refineries are popping up like mushrooms all over the Midwest, which sees itself as the Texas of green fuel.

Why is the government so generous? Because ethanol is just about the only alternative-energy initiative that has broad political support. Farmers love it because it provides a new source of subsidy. Hawks love it because it offers the possibility that the U.S. may wean itself off Middle Eastern oil.

The automotive industry loves it, because switching to a green fuel will take the global-warming heat off cars. The oil industry loves it because ethanol as a fuel additive means it is business as usual for the time being.

Taxpayers seem not to have noticed they are footing the bill.

But corn-based ethanol is neither cheap nor green. It requires almost as much energy to produce (more, say some studies) as it releases when it is burned. And the subsidies on it cost taxpayers, according to the International Institute for Sustainable Development, somewhere between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion a year.

Ethanol made from sugar cane, by contrast, is good. It produces far more energy than is needed to grow it, and Brazil, the main producer, has plenty of land available on which to grow sugar without necessarily reducing food production or encroaching on rain forests.

Other developing countries with tropical climates could prosper by producing sugar ethanol and selling it to rich Americans to fuel their cars.

There is a brighter prospect still out there: cellulosic ethanol. It is made from feedstocks rich in cellulose, such as wood, various grasses and shrubs, and agricultural wastes. Turning it into ethanol requires expensive enzymes, but much research is under way to make the process cheaper.

That is still some way off. In the meantime, the U.S. should trash its silly policy. If it stopped taxing good ethanol and subsidizing bad ethanol, the former would flourish, the latter would wither, the world would be greener and the U.S. taxpayer would be richer.

Ethanol is not going to solve the world's energy problems on its own. But its proponents do not claim that it would. Ethanol is just one of a portfolio of new energy technologies that will be needed over the coming years. Good ethanol, that is -- not the bad stuff the U.S. is so keen on.

Copyright 2007 Economist Newspaper Ltd. Distributed by The New York Times
Syndicate

So there it is. As more farmland is diverted to fuel production, the cost of food increases. Meanwhile, we taxpayers crank out subsidies of more than $7 Billion annually to produce a fuel product that costs us in hidden ways: First in our taxes, and then again in our food purchases. Eventually, it may also cost us when we need to choose between growing fuel and growing food.

What can we do? Write a letter to the editor, or to your Senator or Representative, promoting sensible alternative energy . . . not more subsidies to large-scale corporate agribusiness in our supposedly "capitalist" society!

You may also log on to The Economist's site and view the article here: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_RJGDQTN&CFID=110855567&CFTOKEN=d7690f-c020e84b-64aa-4dde-a2f2-23db0af23931

The MPG Hacks Heat Up

Over at Treehugger.com, I read about this little doozy. Yes, someone has tweaked out a Hummer to get 40 mpg!

OK, not really. "The equivalent of" 40 mpg. That actually seems to mean 22-24 mpg. How exactly 40 is the equivalent of 22, I'm not sure. Perhaps the Law of Fives has something to do with it, or some of that "Fuzzy Math" Bush II was once so fond of mentioning.

The full story at ZDNet tells us the same thing. "Equivalent of 40 mpg", but only lists 22-24 mpg as an actual achievement. My best guess is that it gets the equivalent distance in emissions as a 40 mpg vehicle if you use biodiesel. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong.

Anyway, it's a lot better than 10 mpg. Right? Let's consider.

It requires the complete replacement of the engine and transmission. This isn't a little tweak. This isn't a home conversion kit you buy off the 'net.

There's no mention of the expense involved in this little "adjustment", but I'd wager it runs several thousand dollars. Probably not worth the expense of the fuel savings. But now it will get 650 horsepower, wheeee! (I bet that figures into that magical 22 = 40 thing. An unmodified Hummer gets 325 hp.)

Then there's the additional invested energy in making a replacement for a brand-new engine. How much energy will be wasted in that? Will anyone make use of the old engine?

In my view, this "greening" of Hummers is all about stroking the egos and soothing the consciences of the owners. It's expensive and wasteful, and serves only to keep these mammoth fuel-wasters on the road and make them appear more socially acceptable.

Want to get 27 mpg in a truck for only $5,000? Do what I did.

Buy a used mid-sized or compact pickup.

Want more luxury? Buy something that's more efficient than a Hummer!

Skyfarming: Skyscrapers to Replace Flat Farms?

New York Magazine offers a look at "vertical farms", an energy-saving, land-saving food production strategy.


Columbia University's Dr. Dickson Despommier (www.verticalfarm.com) has been working on the vertical farm concept since 2001, and is now beginning to attract the attention of both scientists and investors.


Essentially, vertical farms propose 30-story buildings, each floor stacked to grow two to ten different crops.

Once operational, nothing would be wasted:

• Treated wastewater from the adjacent city is retreated for safety and used for irrigation.
• Pure water transpired by plants is condensed, collected, and either sold as drinking water or reused in irrigation.
• Solar collectors or windturbines collect environmental energy.
• Solar power feeds a "pellet power" production facility, recycling biowastes like corn husks and cobs, along with restaurant waste, into pellets. Pellets are then burned to operate a steam-driven electric plant.

Not limited to plants, such urban farms can also raise fish and poultry.


A few benefits of such structures:

• Can be built today, using current technology
• Each building removes thousands of acres of farmland from production
• Efficiently uses resources
• Virtually eliminates transportation expense for food
• Organic farming more feasible
• No weeds, insects, or plant viruses, so no need for GMO plants or pesticides

Using these vertical farms, thousands of acres of farmland could be returned to forest growth, supplying timber and helping reduce global warming.

Drawbacks? They won't be cheap to build -- approximately $200 million in current dollars -- and won't be cost-effective up front. Placing them where they're best sited, in urbanized areas, means relocating or redirecting urban development.

The first such tower may be built in Dubai, the oil-rich emirate in the Middle East which recently constructed an indoor ski resort and is presently constructing islands approximating the shape of all the countries of the world. Dubai has little to no arable land, little water (they're fed by desalinization plants), and plenty of money.

If you ask me, it's about time they put some of their cash toward something useful.

Further designs and information may be found on Despommier's website, www.verticalfarm.com.

CIGS are good for you? When it's solar technology, sure!

That's right, there's yet another solar power technology under development, and this one is poised to hit the market in 2009. It's called CIGS, an abbreviation for CuInGaSe2, which is an abbreviation for copper, inidium, gallium, selenide 2, a semiconductor compound which, embedded in a sheet of polymer, can release electrons while absorbing sunlight. It's been around since the 1990s, but relatively low cost of silicon (until now - processing is extremely energy-intensive) and the extremely low cost of carbon fuels (until now) have hampered the need for development.

Like the dye-based cells mentioned yesterday, these cells can work on cloudy days.

Also like the dye-based cells mentioned yesterday, they will have a lower production rate per square foot of cell, compared to traditional, silicon-based cells. However, it is expected by US firm Allied Materials that a product which produces power at a cost of $1 per watt (competitive with current carbon-based power generation) will be ready by 2009. Swiss company Flisom is working on a similar product and timeline.

The bad news? Even the boosters aren't enthusiastic about solar wresting production capacity away from carbon:

"We think solar power can provide 20pc of all the incremental energy needed worldwide by 2040," [says Mike Staple, of Allied Materials]

The full article is available here.

IPCC to World: We're Screwed, and It's Our Fault

Last night, we had good news about cheap solar cells. Woohoo! Technology to the rescue!

Today, we have the IPCC's latest report, "Fourth Assessment of Working Group II". You can read the summary for policymakers here. (23 pages)

It was good while it lasted.

The Third Assessment, released in 2001, became baseline for the Fourth Assessment. New data, with measurements from scientists all across the globe, has resulted in improved forecast models.

A brief overview:

Within the past six years, observations include:

• Earlier spring thaws and increased discharge from snowpacks and glacial melt
• Melting of permafrost
• Increased glacial lakes, in number and size
• Altered behavior in migratory animals (birds and fish)
• Relocation of temperature-sensitive species to higher altitudes or higher latitudes (this includes malaria-carrying mosquitoes . . .)

The IPCC concludes, with 80-90% certainty, that global temperature increases are induced by human activity. They call this "anthropogenic warming".

Predictions "by mid-century" include:

• A 10-40% increase in river flows and water availability in high latitudes and wet tropical areas.
• A 10-30% decline in water availability in drier, mid-latitude regions and dry tropical areas.
• A significant (undetermined) decline in glacial and snowpack water storage, the melt from which supplies one in six currently-living people.
• Widespread ecosystem failures, as drought, combined with its companions wildfire and insect infestation, destroy forests; ocean acidification kills off marine life (shells and coral reefs will dissolve); and damage/disturbance from flooding.
• Extinction of 20-30% of the world's plant and animal species.
• Failure of ecosystems to continue carbon uptake by mid-century, accelerating warming.

Is there any good news?

• Disruption of the Meridional Overturning Circulation (the ocean currents which moves warm water to the north and colder water south, explained nicely at Wikipedia) is "very unlikely" (slowing of the MOC is "very likely" (> 90% probability). You can learn about how it's monitored here.
• "Sustainable development" (undefined in the report) can "reduce vulnerability to climate change".
• If we can stabilize emissions at 2000 levels, the global mean temperature will continue to rise another 0.6 degrees Celsius, but should then stabilize.

The message I'm taking from this? Hold onto your hats, boys. It's gonna be a bumpy century.


A good overview from an insurance perspective is here.

Interactive Mapping - How Wet Will You Get?

A clever blogger at firetree.net has put together an interactive mapping project which works with Google Maps, to show you the effect of a rise in sea level of 1 to 14 meters (roughly, 3 to 42 feet). There might be some surprises . . .

For example, Portland, Oregon is quite a few miles from the ocean -- over an hour's drive. But its average elevation? 50 feet above sea level, at the confluence of the Willamette and Columbia Rivers. (That'd be why it was once, and will likely be again, a port city.)



Here's a map showing Portland with that 14m rise in sea level. You'll note, if you follow the link and knock it back to 7m, or other levels, that most of the same areas get flooded, though it appears to become intermittent.

At only 7 meters, some significant chunks of Seattle get pretty moist, too. A mere 3-meter rise will take out much of Sacramento. Might not be the best place for a capital city, after all?

San Francisco, you ask? That hilly city by the Bay? It will hold up fairly well . . . but most of the surrounding areas get nailed with as little as 3m. Here's 14m for comparison. Most of SF is fine, but inland areas like Stockton are completely obliterated. Modesto gains a bay of its own.

Have a look at the map, and check out your area. It helps put that pesky global warming thing into perspective!

How are you situated?