Tuesday, September 19, 2006
Two Takes on Global Warming
I read two things in the news today. One from some schmuck in the Opinion section of the Free Lancaster Star entitled: On fighting global warming--the deception, that is, not the event to which I promptly sent the following reply:
And another from ABCNews entitled: Gore Calls for Action on Global Warming quoted Al Gore highlighting the obfuscation of the global warming issue.
I didn't hear the speech, nor can I speak to its content, but that point rings true. Much of the rhetoric downplaying global warming is carefully crafted spin, citing only the convenient pieces of the truth. The global scientific community has been speaking out not on what's convenient to one argument or another, but on the available evidence - convenient, inconvenient, frightening, etc. Who are you going to believe...?
In reply to "On fighting global warming--the deception, that is, not the event" on 9/19, I have to ask where Mr. Stanley gets his facts? He claims that:
"Unfortunately, pseudo-scientists and hacks have latched onto global warming as a way to gain notoriety and/or political influence. More and more, the true scientific community is realizing that popular journalism and Internet "wisdom" is not science, Kyoto is a farce, and global warming is something to adjust to, not be terrified by."
This is, in fact, the polar opposite of what is happening. The true scientific community, not the handful of lab coats working for Shell or GM, is now more firmly behind global warming as fact than ever before. Those attempting to debunk the reality of global warming and spin it like nothing to worry about are generally those with financial and political ties to the oil and auto industries. It's not hard to spot a financial connection...
Mr. Stanley talks about cyclical periods of cooling and warming, which nobody denies, but he fails to mention the breakneck speed at which this period of warming is happening as compared to the natural cycles. It's this sort of silver-tongued nonsense that's gumming up the issue.
Your readers are smart people, and hopefully smart enough to not be swayed by Mr. Stanley's, admittedly well-crafted, schlock, but I feel I have to reply.
The science is simple. It works the same way a pane of glass in a backyard greenhouse works. The wavelength of visible light passes right through the pane of glass, but the infrared light (heat) is trapped within. A layer of greenhouse gases around the Earth works the same way.
You start producing more and more greenhouse gases, in conjunction with reducing the efficiency of the Earth's natural carbon dioxide scrubbing system (cutting down the rainforests) and you end up with global warming. Schoolchildren get the science, but industry lobbyists are paid big dollars to confuse our politicians. It's both amazing and unfortunate how confusing those campaign contributions can be...
And another from ABCNews entitled: Gore Calls for Action on Global Warming quoted Al Gore highlighting the obfuscation of the global warming issue.
"When we make big mistakes in America, it is usually because the people have not been given an honest accounting of the choices before us," Gore said in an hour-long speech at New York University Law School. "It also is often because too many members of both parties who knew better did not have the courage to do better."
I didn't hear the speech, nor can I speak to its content, but that point rings true. Much of the rhetoric downplaying global warming is carefully crafted spin, citing only the convenient pieces of the truth. The global scientific community has been speaking out not on what's convenient to one argument or another, but on the available evidence - convenient, inconvenient, frightening, etc. Who are you going to believe...?
Monday, September 18, 2006
Obvio ! 828
The Obvio ! 828 is coming to America. Err... North America, that is...
The Obvio is being produced by Brazillian automaker Automotoveiculos S.A. and distributed in the states by ZAP.
Why do I mention it? The Obvio is set up for E100, or 100% ethanol. It'll use any combo of gasoline and ethanol, up to 100% in either direction, but I like the ethanol angle. ZAP also plans to distribute a 100% electric version as well (the 828E).
Brazil is a world leader in ethanol production, and has actually weened itself off of foreign oil as a result. It's only natural for Brazil then to also lead the way in ethanol powered vehicles.
Inspired by the model 828, a successful car designed in 1982 by Anisio Campos, a famous Brasilian car designer, painter and sculptor (and an Obvio ! partner), the Obvio ! 828 is as slick as it is eco friendly. The estimated starting price is just $14K, and with a High Power series topping out at 250 horsepower, this HAS GOT TO BE a fun little ride! That's more than my WRX...
Heck, the Obvio ! 828 is even supposed to come with web connectivity! What more could you ask for?
For some, the answer will be size. The 828 is a three-seater without a ton of cargo space, but it should offer more than enough for the average urbanite - even the average urban couple. Soccer moms may not be able to make due with the 828, but honestly, how many people on the road today really need the massive SUVs they shunt about town in? I can haul as much in my hatchback as most, and still fit five passengers, so I'm skeptical of anyone citing a need for size...
Anyway, there you have it. The Obvio ! 828, a sweet little E100 (100% ethanol) vehicle coming to a dealer near you in late 2007 or early 2008.
Saturday, September 16, 2006
The Big Mac is an Environmental Nightmare!
Welcome to alter-energy, my cool fuel, alternative energy, earth-friendly, green living, down with global warming, eco-blog.
I'm starting this blog because taking care of the environment is something I'm passionate about, and something I think can be easily achieved with minor changes in how we live and consume. The United States, a global leader in many respects, is also the top producer of greenhouse gases. Unless we plan to combat global warming by bombing the hell out of the atmosphere, I think it's time for all of us to do our part.
First step, I urge everyone to urge everyone to urge their reps to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The W administration backed out awaiting more concrete evidence of global warming, greenhouse gases and some relationship therein to something vaguely bad. They claim a lack of evidence, but we all know it's really a lack of profit motive...
Outside of politics, small changes in and around the home are a start. Swapping just one incandescent bulb to energy efficient flourescent can make a difference, but we can easily do more. Our drive-through culture, with highly processed everything, available from the convenience of your front seat, is not helping, and frankly isn't a legacy I care to leave.
Simple steps like preparing meals at home and buying local produce, meat and poultry can drammatically reduce the greenhouse gases YOU produce. Compare the environmental footprint of a Big Mac to a hamburger you make at home with local lettuce, tomatoes, beef, etc and it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about.
For the patty, you either have beef raised in some pasture across the country, butchered, processed, frozen, shipped across country in cold storage to your local golden arches, cooked from frozen and kept under heat lamps until you buy it (or it gets trashed after sitting for more than 5 minutes or so), or beef raised in a rural community outside of your local town, butchered, processed and shipped across town fresh rather than frozen to your local market where you take it home and toss it on the grill.
It may sound stupid and downright obvious, but freezing and shipping frozen food across country and cooking from frozen takes a hell of a lot more energy than shipping fresh, across town and cooking from fresh vs. frozen. Multiply that by all the ingredients of your Big Mac compared to your homemade burger and the difference is staggering. Toss in producing and disposing of all that packageing the arches love to force on you, the bag, the napkins, the burger wrapper, the ketchup packages, etc, and the Big Mac is an environmental nightmare! Ronald McDonald is killing the planet...
I guess that's where I'll start this blog, not with "become a vegan and save the world," but with "local beef is good for the environment." I hope to get into alternative energy and fuel sources, hybrid, biodiesel, ethanol and electric vehicles, wind, solar and micro-hydro power and much more, but for now - stop eating fast food.
I'm starting this blog because taking care of the environment is something I'm passionate about, and something I think can be easily achieved with minor changes in how we live and consume. The United States, a global leader in many respects, is also the top producer of greenhouse gases. Unless we plan to combat global warming by bombing the hell out of the atmosphere, I think it's time for all of us to do our part.
First step, I urge everyone to urge everyone to urge their reps to sign on to the Kyoto Protocol. The W administration backed out awaiting more concrete evidence of global warming, greenhouse gases and some relationship therein to something vaguely bad. They claim a lack of evidence, but we all know it's really a lack of profit motive...
Outside of politics, small changes in and around the home are a start. Swapping just one incandescent bulb to energy efficient flourescent can make a difference, but we can easily do more. Our drive-through culture, with highly processed everything, available from the convenience of your front seat, is not helping, and frankly isn't a legacy I care to leave.
Simple steps like preparing meals at home and buying local produce, meat and poultry can drammatically reduce the greenhouse gases YOU produce. Compare the environmental footprint of a Big Mac to a hamburger you make at home with local lettuce, tomatoes, beef, etc and it's pretty obvious what I'm talking about.
For the patty, you either have beef raised in some pasture across the country, butchered, processed, frozen, shipped across country in cold storage to your local golden arches, cooked from frozen and kept under heat lamps until you buy it (or it gets trashed after sitting for more than 5 minutes or so), or beef raised in a rural community outside of your local town, butchered, processed and shipped across town fresh rather than frozen to your local market where you take it home and toss it on the grill.
It may sound stupid and downright obvious, but freezing and shipping frozen food across country and cooking from frozen takes a hell of a lot more energy than shipping fresh, across town and cooking from fresh vs. frozen. Multiply that by all the ingredients of your Big Mac compared to your homemade burger and the difference is staggering. Toss in producing and disposing of all that packageing the arches love to force on you, the bag, the napkins, the burger wrapper, the ketchup packages, etc, and the Big Mac is an environmental nightmare! Ronald McDonald is killing the planet...
I guess that's where I'll start this blog, not with "become a vegan and save the world," but with "local beef is good for the environment." I hope to get into alternative energy and fuel sources, hybrid, biodiesel, ethanol and electric vehicles, wind, solar and micro-hydro power and much more, but for now - stop eating fast food.