Another Week of GW News, March 2, 2008

By illconsidered on March 3, 2008.

Sipping from the internet firehose...

This weekly posting is brought to you courtesy of H.E.Taylor. Happy reading, I hope you enjoy this week's Global Warming news roundup

(skip to bottom)

Top Stories:Connaughton's Deke, Svalbard, Wheat Panik,
Arctic, Antarctica, Fergus' Survey, Aerial Bacteria, La Nina Winter
Hurricanes, GHGs, Glaciers, THC
Impacts, US Dust, Forests, Corals, Wacky Weather
Floods & Droughts, Food vs. Biofuel, Food Production
Mitigation, Transportation, Buildings, Sequestration
Journals, Misc. Science, Genetic Engineering
Kyoto-2, Carbon Trade, Carbon Tax, Optimal Carbon Reduction Strategy
Politics:International, America, Britain, Europe, Switzerland, Australia, Canada
Ecological Economics, Apocalypso, Media, Books, Courts, Betting
Energy, Texas Brownout, Solar, Coal, Biofuel
Nukes, Peak Oil, Efficiency, Cars, Business, Greenwashing, Insurance
Carbon Lobby, The Usual, Useful Links
Shameless Self Promotion, .sig

Low Key Plug

My first novel Water was published in Canada May, 2007. The American release was in October. An Introductionto the novel is available, along with the Unpublished Forewordand the Launch Talk. An overview of my writing is available here.

-het

P.S. Recent postings can be found in the week archive and the ancient postings can be accessed here, which should open to this.

"In 1776, the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith (1723 - 1790) devoted a chapter of _The Wealth of Nations_ to illustrating the (benificent in his case) unintended social consequences of individual actions, and contemporary economists have developed many more illustrations. In 1963, the ecologist Garrett Hardin proposed a First Law of Ecology: 'We can never do merely one thing.' He intended to suggest that every action has 'at least one unwanted consequence.' For me, 'never' is a strong word, and not every unintended consequence is necessarily unwanted. But it is difficult to do one thing without entailing additional and often unexpected consequences. Even inaction achieves its desired consequences imperfectly, as Neville Chamberlain (1869-1940) discovered on the eve of World War II. I propose a Law of Action: it is difficult to do just what you intended to do." -J.E.Cohen, page 75, _How Many People Can The Earth Support?_

Another Week of GW News, March 2, 2008

Sipping from the internet firehose...

Why is GW humour almost always black humour?

James Connaughton made some unlikely statements on US climate policy, unlikely that is, until one notes the if:

The Svalbard doomsday seed vault was opened this week:

There is more on food & food prices below, but it is worth headlining that an incident of panic buying hit the wheat market this week:

The Arctic melt continues to get attention:

Talk of conflict over Arctic resources is back:

While in the Antarctic:

An unremarkable survey of scientists is unpublishable?

That story on rain causing aerial bacteria caught a wave:

A lot of people are commenting on our La Nina winter:

While the north is warm?

Tamino has a new moniker:

David drops a lump of salt in this soup:

Late comment on ZIFs:

No hurricanes, but lots of recovery:

As for GHGs:

Glaciers are melting:

The THC is back:

More GW impacts are being seen:

There was no fuss about this story, but it seems monumental to me in terms of erosion and particulate effects:

And then there are the world's forests:

Corals are dying:

Yes we have no wacky weather, except:

And speaking of floods & droughts:

The conflict between biofuel and food persists:

And the troubling matter of falling food production is not going away:

Elsewhere on the mitigation front:

Consider transportation & GHG production:

While in the endless quest for sustainable building codes:

As for carbon sequestration:

Meanwhile in the journals:

Before we get into politics, there was some science done:

Genetic engineering to deal with drought?

Rehashed Milankovitch, anyone?

Meanwhile on the Kyoto-2 front:

And on the carbon trading front:

The idea of a carbon tax is still bouncing around:

The debate over the optimal strategy [carbon trading, carbon offsets and/or a carbon tax] to use in reducing GHGs continues:

Meanwhile on the international political front:

And on the American political front:

The House passed a bill to finance renewables & repeal oil tax breaks, again:

People are noting the influence of Big Coal:

EPA released its justification for blocking the California waiver:

One hears a lot about the campaign(s), not much about climate:

While in the UK:

It's heartening to see that London Mayor Ken Livingstone gets it:

GreenPeace & Plane Stupid kicked the Heathrow controversy up a notch this week:

What if they had an Energy Saving Day and nobody noticed?

And in Europe:

An initiative in Switzerland:

Meanwhile in Australia:

In Canada, minority neocon PM Harper, brought in a budget that impressed no one:

Before the budget, Suzuki & Jaccard suggested the Tories try a revenue neutral carbon tax:

That investigation into Friends of Science - Tories linkage is still festering:

Late comment on BC's carbon tax:

Alberta votes next week & Stelmach entered 'what he says versus what he does' territory:

A group has suggested a partial oil-sands moratorium in Alberta:

It will be interesting to see how the US Energy bill impacts Alberta:

The tricky & difficult question of the tar sands looms:

A project to mine methane hydrates in the Arctic:

Al Gore will be giving his seminar in Montreal:

And then there is the miscellaneous Canadiana:

The movement toward a long term ecologically viable economics is glacial:

Apocalypso anyone?

As for how the media handles the science of climatology:

Here is something for your library:

Meanwhile among the 'Sue the Bastards!' contingent:

The betting meme rolls on:

Wrestling over a new energy infrastructure continues unabated:

A brownout in Texas is being (unfairly?) blamed on wind:

Meanwhile among the solar afficionados:

The arithmetic of coal carbon is striking home:

Biofuel bickering abounds:

The nuclear energy controversy continues:

Yes we have a peak oil sighting:

Anybody for abiotic oil?

And then there is the matter of efficiency & conservation:

Automakers & lawyers, engineers & activists argue over the future of the car: