scienceSAYS

President Bush held a press conference today to announce a broad new initiative intended to combat global warming. Aside from a few inexplicable sidetracks, like:

Right way - reduce carbon emissions

Wrong way - abandon coal industry and “nucular power”

in which he seemingly forgot that coal IS carbon (which when burned, becomes smoke, which…typically gets emitted…) it was the most scientifically-accepting, forward-thinking program we’ve seen from the Bush government.

In the meantime, it almost sounds like President Bush has got his head on straight. I also like his talk about international responsibility, though I can see it becoming a scapegoat to use that “binding international agreement” to hold them to a lower standard than ourselves.

He also seems to have his head on straight about realistic ways to make this happen. It makes my heart warm to hear that the government is aware that these technologies are pricey and that their convoluted incentives program is really just stifling green technology and rewarding the same old fat cats. Hopefully revamping that system will put the money into the right, able hands to innovate and make green technology more effective and affordable.

Additionally, I’m pleased to see the concern for bringing these technologies into the developing world, although I suspect it may have been a dig at China, whose emissions dwarf our own and continue to grow every year. While I’m sure the President is interested in helping American businesses get ahead of the game in marketing these technologies to the rest of the world and setting the foundation for another American export industry, I’m happy to hear some recognition of the pricing challenges that would entail. The talk about encouraging the specific development of products for those markets and the need to “eliminate trade barriers for clean energies and technologies” makes me think that something might actually get done.

If nothing else, at least the President is (finally) acknowledging that there IS some sort of global climate change and that we need an “environmentally effective, economically stable” solution. I’m also glad

Also, he almost slipped and referred to our “feller nations,” which would have made me chuckle with glee.

Photo by willie2808

The New York Times reported today that, in addition to the convenient portable solar-panels I wrote about last, personal wind-turbines are not far over the horizon.

They report:

Wind turbines, once used primarily for farms and rural houses far from electrical service, are becoming more common in heavily populated residential areas as homeowners are attracted to ease of use, financial incentives and low environmental effects.

I don’t know how comfortable I’d be owning and operating my own wind-turbine in the backyard, but it’s pretty cool to see a renewed emphasis on self-sufficient home elctricity. Even if it’s not your dream to work over the internet from a remote, desert island, I’m sure that current gas prices and rolling blackouts have illustrated to everyone the value of energy independence, even if it’s a luxury for now.

What’s cool is that this article, and the product I detailed yesterday, are beginning to show a big change in the industry, and hopefully in the public’s percetptions of it. The article detailed:

“Back in the early days, off-grid electrical generation was pursued mostly by hippies and rednecks, usually in isolated, rural areas,” said Joe Schwartz, editor of Home Power magazine. “Now, it’s a lot more mainstream.”

Indeed. However, even if I was a hippie and/or redneck, I would appreciate the convenience and efficiency that are being built into these new machines.

Do I think that the power companies will willingly cede their control of the grid (and, therefore, livelihood) to a bunch of independent techno-geeks? No, but then again, I hope I can count myself among a lucky generation that gets to have a choice. Even if home solar-panels or wind-turbins aren’t for everybody, having them cheap, easy-to-use and readily-available will change the energy market in this country as we know it.

When cable television was first conceived, it was laughed at by those in the media elite. That’s because the media elite were based and broadcast in large cities like New York and Los Angeles where there was no difficulty transmitting a strong, high-quality signal to the masses. However, cable opened up the airwaves to the common American, living in the “flyover states” between the coasts. Just ask HBO, MTV, USA and the other cable juggernats if they ever would have had such monumental success by just appealing to the small sector of the public living in urban America.

The real significance with this portable power, as with cable TV back in The Day, is that by appealing to those people who live furthest from the sources of power, these innovations will not only offer them an affordable alternative, but in many places a degree of quality and convenience that they have never known. Transmitting electricity over long distances is certainly easier than television signals, but that doesn’t change the simple economics, or factor in those states’ penchant for independent living anyhow.

These new-power manufacturers must be banking that the silent majority living in the middle of the country will make their voice heard again, not with their masses, but with their wallets.

I don’t think it would surprise anyone who knows me to find out that I’ve often dreamed of living on a quiet little island.

That said, I think this blog is just further evidence of a deepening internet addiction (I’m trying to quit, I swear) and that means a certain degree of energy dependency.

As a result, I’ve kept a keen eye on things like satellite internet access and off-the-grid electronic solutions. Maybe my time would be better spent learning to get along better with people, but c’est la vie.

That’s why I think this new solar-panel device is so cool: the Power Cube purports to be a portable, self-contained, made-for-market solar power solution. Solar panels for the masses! Most importantly, for my little pipe-dream, it’s sealed in a watertight container. I don’t suppose that would help if I’d already fallen asleep in my hammock when the rain began, but that’s something I’ll have to figure out later.

I’ve never seen or tested one of these, and the technical specifications provided by the company don’t interest me that much either (if it’s from the company, it’s ALL promotional material). What does interest me is that it’s a consumer-oriented solar product, and much like the electric car push, a big part of creating viable alternative energy sources will be products like these that aim to make it simple and easy for the public.

In the meantime, it has me daydreaming of ways I could blog from off the grid, and all the cool places that could take me. Actually, setting up and maintaining an off-the-grid net set-up would need a whole new for itself.

If you could live and work anywhere, where would you go?

This news was just too good to pass up:

Coloradans looking to help the environment may soon be able to showcase their efforts through a new license plate.

A bill to create the “Colorado Carbon Fund” special plate is expected to pass the House Transportation Committee later Thursday afternoon. Senate Bill 186 has already passed out of the State Senate.

[digg=http://digg.com/environment/Colorado_introduces_carbon_offsetting_license_plates]

Great. An effort to scale down carbon emissions is cool. The plans for carbon emissions? Mostly ineffectual - they dodge the real problem, which is that the modern American (and Western) automobile lifestyle is choking out the planet. Carbon offsetting offers a bit of preservationism, but when the land for trees runs out, it’s just out - the scarcity of free land will drive the price up to a degree that makes these buy-back programs completely ineffectual.

What they do accomplish, very effectively, is that they offer a bit of moral soothing to the more conscientious consumer. The real damage, though, and in fact the way in which carbon off-setting increases the damage, is that they allow those people who may have looked into alternate ways of living and inventive means of minimizing their carbon footprint to continue living in excess without that sense of responsibility.

The requirements are pretty lax:

To qualify for the plates, drivers will need to make a donation to the Colorado Carbon Fund, which is a voluntary carbon offset program being created by the Governor’s Energy Office. They will also need to pay $55.36 for the plate. The Carbon Fund will be up and running later this spring to direct money toward Colorado-based projects designed to promote clean energy and climate mitigation projects. Vehicles over 16,000 pounds will not be eligible to a Colorado Carbon Fund license plate.

I hate beating up on people that are trying o help, but this one’s just so silly - $55.36 cents isn’t even a full tank of gas for some of the trucks that qualify. What this bill really does is let SUV owners in Colorado keep rolling around in their fancy trucks and not feel bad.

Colorado’s doing a lot of good things for the environment, but this isn’t one of them. Give the article a read - it details a lot of the better plans they’ve got.

SOURCE: http://www.9news.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=89709

Photo by AnaBonita

Hi guys- Just a quick post, but moreso a question to our readers: (especially any with a legal background) [digg=http://digg.com/environment/How_can_California_make_those_car_laws]

California passed their controversial auto-emissions bill this week, but with admittedly reduced standards.

Initially, California was demanding that a large number of all-electric or fuel-cell vehicles be made available to the market by the major auto-manufacturers by 2012. The federal government was not pleased by what they saw as a disproportionate restriction to manufacturing and trade, but California filed suit to force the Environmental Protection Agency to rule on the proposal, a move that could have allowed California an exemption waiver from federal energy laws. I don’t think it’s common for the federal government to decide that a state cannot impose further restrictions on their population (it’s typically when the states try to allow freedoms not extended under federal law, another California favorite, that the feds take a vested interest)

However, in this case, the implications of California’s attempted law would be far-reaching within the auto industry. As has been widely publicized, the state of California is one of the largest economies in the world, rivaling many international powers and beating out very many countries. As such, the introduction of a law in Califonia on a nationally or internationally manufactured product would be tantamount to a regulation on the industry as a whole, and to my knowledge, this is the first time that California has wielded that considerable influence to enact its population’s will on the rest of the country.

Then again, can you really blame them? The size or implication of a California law can’t really be considered in deciding whether it is constitutional or not. (and I suspect you’d find that it would be, especially if the restrictions were on the kind of new cars allowed to be bought in California, as opposed to those that could be sold, so that the burden is not directly on the car companies, but instead the citizen)

Still, California has apparently decided that it would be easier to come to some sort of conciliation, instead of beginning a protracted legal battle against the federal legislature. The state legislature has cut the number of zero-emissions vehicles required in the next few years by 70%, but has instead placed greater pressure on the introduction of hybrid vehicles.

I applaud California’s efforts, and I’m proud of the state, but I have to wonder - is any of this evil legal? What exactly can a given  state require of manufacturers, and how can they consciously lobby that influence without running afoul of some sort of business laws? I love what California’s trying to do, and I think that as a result of their pressure, the auto industry will finally begin to change (you know they know how - but why spend the money until they have to, right? Ugh) but I just don’t know how these restrictions will hold up - some higher-ups in the major auto companies are already laughing at Cali’s gall.

Still, I think the California Air Resources Board made a good strategic move by striking hard, then backing off, but still instituting the toughest restrictions in the country: they limited their demands to a goal that could reasonably be met, without compromising their principles. There’s a degree to which Detroit (and other American industries as well) are dragging their feet to stick to the traditional business model instead of leaping ahead, unsure, into the future. While this might protect their bottom line, it can’t really go on any longer, especially among the major polluters. However, it’s very wise of the California legislators to set goals that will be hard, but which no company can deny is possible.

If someone could fill me in, though, on how this is legal in the first place, I would love to know. Thanks. - Jeff

My unfortunate schedule this week has kept me from commenting on this before, but at 8pm tonight, wherever you are, please consider turning your lights off for Earth Hour.

This Australia-organized event is intended to draw attention to the massive amount of fossil fuels we consume to maintain our electric lifestyle, and how much of it we just leave on and running unintentionally. Many cities in Australia are on board, and major landmarks and cities across the US and Europe (Chicago, London City Hall, Canterbury Cathedral).

Even if your town or city isn’t officially participating, you can still play a part and make a difference, even just by turning off your lights for an hour and telling a friend. Organize your neighborhood, or maybe get your office together.

Throw a block-party lit exclusively by candals or torches (with bio-fuel, of course) or just light a candle with a loved-one and share some time together away from the TV.

I’m not asking you to give up your lights or throw away your television, but it’s always good to take a step back and get a little perspective on how you live your life. I’m probably the worst power-consumer I know, but hopefully I’ll do better this year! Just remembering to turn off what you’re not using could make a big difference for all of us.

Photo by MumbleyJoe

[digg=http://digg.com/travel_places/It_s_not_the_tiger_s_fault]

“The tiger was acting as a normal tiger does.”

I’ve waited a long time to post on this until more of the details had come out. However, as CNN.com reported this morning, Kulbir and Amritpal “Paul” Dhaliwal have begun the legal process to sue the city of San Francisco over the Christmas-day tiger attacks at the San Francisco zoo.

Citing “serious physical and emotional injuries,” the boys are seeking monetary compensation from the xity that owns and operates the zoo. The whole situation is a terrible tragedy, but I don’t much sympathy for these boys or their lawsuit: in fact, I feel worse for the tiger.

Before we start the name-calling or any accusations of “bleeding-heart” this and that, please let me highlight a couple of points about this case:

• The Siberian tiger, Tatiana, was captive, and we can only assume was being held against her will

• The boys had been drinking vodka, smoking marijuana, and cursed at and refused to identify themselves to the police who ulimately saved their lives

• They had been harassing the tiger (to what degree is unclear)

 

• They crossed the protective barrier of the enclosure (a footprint on the railing and witness corroborate this - whether they were hanging their feet over the ledge is also unclear

• One of the boys apologized profusely to the father of the deceased, Carlos Sousa Jr., for his role in Carlos’ death

Now, before we continue, I’d like to clarify that I don’t fault the police and emergency authorities who shot the tiger upon their entrance to the park.

However, I am furious about the chain of events that caused this endangered animal to be killed, and those responsible for it.

I hope the zoo does not settle with the Dhaliwals - from the outside, this looks to me to represent the worst of America’s lawsuit culture, in which an individual can individually fault the law, then sue whoever failed to stop him or likewise protect him from the consequences.

Immediately, the boys choice of counsel is intriguing - Mark Geragos, who is admittedly a super-star attorney, has built his career on just this sort of unscrupulous character and the spotlight afforded to him by his involvement in scandal. Former clients include

• Michael Jackson, on charges of child-molestation
• Scott Peterson, for killing his wife and unborn baby
• Winona Ryder, who was subsequently found guilty of shoplifting
• Members of the Whitewater scheme that nearly ruined the Clinton’s in the 1990’s
• Barry Bonds’ personal-trainer

There are a couple of things we can discern from this client list: Mark Gergaos is addicted to controversy, and loves defending the guilty and famous. Despite the acquittals of Michael Jackson and Susan McDougal, there can be no question that, at the very least, they were flouting both the law and the standards that we accept as a society.

Why, then, was he first in line to lobby for the Dhaliwals? And what does his retainer indicate about their case? Call me crazy, but it strikes me as odd that someone who’s become famous through his role in high-profile defense cases is instead helping two young-boys of questionable repute to sue the city of San Francisco. In fact, it indicates to me that the boys initially believed that they needed a defense attorney and retained Mark Geragos for such a purpose.

Now that it’s become clear that the city would rather put this incident behind them as quickly as possible, rather than pursue a judgment against the instigators in the tragedy that claimed their friend’s life, it seems to this author that the boys or their lawyer have decided to milk the situation for all they can get.

As I said before, I hope the city takes them to court. I think that it might take a legal decision to sort this whole mess out, in a situation where the truth as reported appears to be very different from the public perception.

The public is considered about the boy who was killed; I’m concerned about the tiger. In any event, there were two needless deaths on December 25th in San Francisco, and both appear to have been the result of the Dhaliwal’s gross negligence and disdain for authority, or even common sense. I’m afraid that this sort of recklessness and rampant individualism are the prevailing winds in modern American culture, and that we need a drastic change of course.

After all - isn’t the dangerous, menacing nature of a tiger that which draws us to it in the first place? Isn’t its menace part-and-parcel of its majesty? William Blake wrote:

Indeed, we love tigers because they are something bigger than ourselves, something truly awe-some in a world where it appears the human species has unbounded potential. We love and fear tigers because we know that in a time before society, and in a dark forest on a continent far away, the tiger ruled supreme over man, and would still should we cross her path in the wild.

Why, then, do we sympathize with those who would provoke her? Why would we worry ourselves for their mistakes? I said about sharks that, if you put your hand in its mouth, you cannot complain about being bit. “If he hollers, let him go,” right? In my mind, if you mess with a tiger, you have to won the consequences.

In fact, their recklessness, bad judgment, and worse behavior got her needlessly killed. That’s not the zoo’s fault, nor the city’s, and it’s certainly not the tiger’s. After all, as the zoo’s old director said, she was “acting as a normal tiger does.”

The author has now left the building.

Sorry for the totally off-topic post here, but it can’t hurt to chime in with some personal news once in a while - especially when it affects the state of the site!

My senior thesis is finally, begrudgingly submitted - that little bugger just didn’t want to go! In all seriousness, though, it’s a huge weight off my shoulders and things should be getting back to normal around here very soon.

I have a feeling that looking back on this paper in the coming weeks, there will be a few things I’ll want to change. However, once I’m satisfied that it’s sufficiently polished, I’ll put it up for any curious eyes to see.

For those who don’t know, I’ve spent the last few months researching the recent wave of biologists who published books and articles in support of atheism. My research took me back through the Creationism debates of the 80’s and 90’s, through a whole pile of theology while I tried to determine just what these guys were getting at, and ultimately found a real diamond amidst a surprising amount of rough.

You can look forward to that, as well as individual book reviews of the major texts I examined (one part of the importance of this project was the reliance on the popular press as an arena for disseminating their theories) I hope to make book reviews a feature on the site in the future, and I’ll be posting reviews on scientifically and environmentally-minded books as I get through them.

I’ve got a couple of other things planned for the site as well:

• I’ll immediately be trying to meet a higher post-per-week quota, working up to a 5-day post-week.

• I’ve also been working on moving the site to a dedicated server where I can have a little more control over the format and such, which should be an exciting launch…I’ll have to do something special for that one.

If you’ve kept checking in through my frequent absences lately, thank you. I’ve fled the continent for a little R&R, but will be checking in soon with lots of updates.

On deck: a multi-part piece looking at the recent salmon problems taking hold around the world, and a special piece on the delicate balance of fisheries.

Stay tuned!

The following is a guest post from Rob Myles, member of the Matsunami Board of Education and a contributor at Cracked.com

A long time ago, as these stories often begin, man cut his moorings with the earth and travelled the skies. Some time later, those fortunate few were chosen to pioneer the vastness that lay outside our small world, to plumb the depths of space as only science fiction novelists had done before. Now, the final frontier is opening up to the wider world, and civilian corporations are taking an interest in “space tourism”.

Of these, perhaps the best publicized is Virgin Galactic. To the potential consumer the buzz surrounding this project, the X-Prize and SpaceShipOne leading to the suitably futuristic looking SpaceShipTwo project, has turned a lot of heads, filling them with hope of a childhood dream come true in the process.

This is an easy project to believe in the feasibility of. It’s a combination of mediums, granted, but both are suitably large departures from the ancestral heritage to make them the logical next step in technological development, enabling us to take that one step further.

Richard Branson is also keen to point the environmental impact of his civilian space project will be drastically reduced from the rockets of the soviet days or the shuttle launches we’re all familiar with, a small craft strapped to a titanic fuel tank some twice the length of the craft itself. A lightweight craft, using a shorter rocket burn, with far less volatile fuels, it seems consumerism has forced human creativity to overcome the obstacles government institutions overcame with simple force.

Which is why it is disappointing to see some of the competition have been somewhat less inspired in their attempts to reach space. EADS Astrium has entered the new space race with a design that doesn’t quite inspire the same confidence.

In case this looks familiar, it’s probably because at a visit to the airport or while watching a Hollywood film, you’ve seen a Learjet 45 in your lifetime.

The only apparent addition EADS Astrium intends to use to make this spaceworthy is a giant rocket exhaust on the hind quarter. It’s almost as if EADS Astrium have taken a page from L. Ron Hubbards book, or at least South Park’s interpretation of it, in which alien spacecraft are described as “DC3’s with rockets attached to them”. Forgive our scepticism here, but it seems almost like a backward step from the smooth, artful optimisation and creativity of the X-Prize winning design to simply make a Jetsons-esque photoshop of an existing craft that will suffer from all the difficulties of the original space launches- launching from the ground, heated re-entry, mass/fuel distribution, and so on. It also proposes to carry only four passengers to the SS2’s six, doubtless increasing the price-per-person on each flight.

With the SS2 ticket prices being ballparked at around $200,000, creating a less efficient, more expensive version seems fruitless, both for EADS Astrium and the corporate competition that forces these ventures to excel. While EADS Astrium claims it will match the $200,000 ticket, it’s scheduled to debut in 2012, 3 years later than the SS2 begins doing business, by which time it will have recouped most of its losses. While an exciting new prospect, it is important to urge caution in cases such as this. Perhaps the most compelling evidence we can provide is the difference between promotional videos. Advertising is how the company sells its product to the consumer…

We like Pixar Animation as much as the next, but when it comes to believing in the feasibility of civilian space tourism, EADS Astrium has left us with nothing but a lacklustre arched eyebrow, and a Learjet with a rocket attached:

  [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DFx0O9AtyY&hl=en]

$200,000 then, is the price for your flight into space. If Green Living is important to you, ride a bike to work and forego buying yourself and the wife the $100,000 Tesla Roadsters you were planning on, and celebrate your next anniversary with a trip into space.

Of course, there are other alternatives. For instance, Unicef claims, “$1 protects a child from measles for life. Measles is lethally infectious. It is still responsible for 750,000 child deaths annually.” Four SS2 passengers could wipe out measles related deaths worldwide for a year. And so, we ask again. Civilian Space Travel- But At What Price?

Links: http://www.astrium.eads.net/families/space-tourism and http://www.virgingalactic.com

“A Florida official said the woman died when she hit her head on the boat deck.”

Dear CNN,

I told you so.

- Science Says

From CNN.com:

The accident happened off the coast of Marathon Key, in the Florida Keys about an hour’s drive south of Miami. The woman, who was with her husband and children, was taken to the Mariner Hospital in Tavernier, where she was pronounced dead.

Pino said he had seen rays leap into the air, but added, “it’s very rare for them to collide with objects.”

The spotted-eagle ray weighed about 75 to 80 pounds and had a six-foot wingspan, said Pino.

The Monroe County Sherriff’s Office has full photos of the boat and ray up online here