I was following a link from Gristmill, the enviro blog, so it didn't occur to me to have my astroturf detectors on, but as several people have pointed out the Electrical Power Research Institute study I mentioned this morning is coming from an industry funded shop and could just be entirely made up. Maybe I was right in the first place, and hybrids really won't help much unless we change our electricity habits. I'm hoping the Gristmill people will revisit this and explain why I should find the utilities trustworthy on this point.
« Feisty! | Main | The War of Ideas »
Hybrids Followup
23 Jul 2007 12:24 pm
Comments (58)
On some level it's a good thing to switch over to plug-in hybrids regardless of the cleanliness of the utilities. The argument to be made here is that it's far easier to bring up new, clean power sources on the grid than it is to overhaul the nation's automotive fleet and fueling infrastructure. Plus, the switch to cleaner power sources on the grid can be done incrementally, while moving the nation's automobiles over probably requires a complete switch-over or critical mass to ensure an acceptable adoption rate.
> is coming from an industry funded shop
> and could just be entirely made up.
EPRI is generally pretty reliable. It was formed in an effort to provide a Bell Labs-type function to utilities that were terminating or never had a basic research (or even applied research) group [1]. While it was [2] not immune to political pressure and knew where its funding was coming from it employed actual scientists, researchers, policy analysts, etc and tried to present a reasonably reality-based picture of the topic. And much of its work is highly detailed and esoteric scientific research that is critical for its members and can't succeed if it is corrupted.
So I would tend to put a fair amount of reliance on this. At a minimum the report should be footnoted and additional volumes with the detailed calculations should be available (not for free to non-members though, and the price will be high).
Cranky
[1] Sorry to disappoint you: slow stodgy electric utilities did a lot a basic research and R&D in the 1880-1975 timeframe.
[2] It has been some years since I have been associated with that industry so I can't speak of personal knowledge today.
I think the conclusion is correct: large power
plants can operate at 40%+ efficiency. Auto engines
are below 20%. And then on top of that you have
transmission losses. A good electric drive system
can offer high torque at low speed and a simpler
transmission.
But you might lose some of that if you have to
lug around a 1000lb battery pack. So I don't know
whether we quite have all the necessary technology
yet.
The other way to go is to improve those auto
engines. There are lots of interesting
technical possibilities now we have cheap computers.
Engines with all-electronic valve control are
starting to arrive - getting rid of the camshaft
saves energy right away, and going electronic
allows optimal valve timing for all operating
conditions. It also raises the possibility of
a compressed-air hybrid which uses the engine
for regenerative braking.
Either way, there's a lot that can be done.
Time and time again, I ask myself why I bother reading this blog. All you had to do was check the credentials of the researchers, Yglesias. Is that really so goddamned hard?
Wow, people are looking for any rationals not to buy hybrids. It's okay you don't like the Prius bubble butt. Buy a fucking Civic!
The difference between the left and right hype machines: The Left Hype machine actually wants to save the world, the Right Hype machine wants to maintain the status quo and keep rapin' Mother Nature up her bloody arse.
Time and time again, I ask myself why I bother reading this blog.
Why do you read the blog? I'm fascinated by how many of my readers claim to think the site is terrible. The overwhelming majority of people, obviously, don't read the site, so why read it if you don't like it?
I believe James Hansen has posited a 10 year window of opportunity before we reach the infamous "tipping point" -- the point at which global feedbacks from CO2 reach a self-sustaining level. If we temporize over the next 10 years, we are going to blow past the tipping point like a sprinter breaking the tape.
Sorry to be a johnny-one-note about this. But I wonder how long do people imagine this kind of debate about hybrids etc is supposed to proceed? If we're actually hoping to accomplish something as difficult as changing the course of global climate -- akin to steering an oil tanker with a paddle -- then at some point we're going to have to accept some uncertainties as the cost of doing business. And go forward with the damnable guesswork that will demand.
I don't think we will either.
"I think the conclusion is correct: large power
plants can operate at 40%+ efficiency. Auto engines are below 20%. And then on top of that you have transmission losses."
Which, almost trivially, electric power plants also have, unless you're recharging your car at Hoover dam. About 7% of the power goes to heating the power lines and transformers. Then there's the fact that batteries aren't 100% efficient, either. More like 60-70%, actually.
Once this is taken into account, I believe most of the energy efficiency advantage of electric cars derives from the fact that battery technology forces those cars to be very stingy indeed in their use of energy. Should battery technology improve substantially, you're going to see electric Hummers and monster trucks, and can kiss that goodbye.
No, the chief advantage of electric is going to be how the power is generated, and Even Still is right: Once we're using electric cars, upgrading the actual source of the energy is going to be a lot more transparent.
You do understand, ponte, that corporate funding does not possess a mystical power to corrupt data, don't you?
Identifying funding from the electric power industry does give us grounds for skepticism, yes, but it's hardly a rebuttal.
at the risk of attracting ponte's wrath to even lowly commenters on this oh-so-unsatisfying blog, i followed the links to the study's authors, and, i'm still totally unsure what to make of the credibility of the report.
they seem, um, smart. and they have ph.ds.
but, this hardly means that it's impossible that they're doing flack-work for industry.
this is one of those issues that non-experts are really at a loss to assess, and, just noting that the authors did indeed go to grad school really doesn't help.
One commenter says that we should believe the study because it's co-sponsored by NRDC. Here in California, among the environmental community NRDC is viewed suspiciously on any issue that has to do with electrical utilities, since one of their co-founders, John Bryson, went on to become the CEO of Southern California Edison. And indeed, NRDC is quite cozy with both SCE and PG&E, the largest utilities in California.
That said, however, my guess is that the study is sound. I've done the relevant math in a back of the envelope sort of way before. Bad coal-fired plants are about as efficient as an internal-combustion engine, newer coal plants a little better, and new gas-fired plants are around 40% efficient compared to 30% for a best-case ICE. True, you have transmission (power line) losses with the electricity, but these are essentially equivalent to the losses that occur in the transmissions (gears) of conventional cars. Obviously, this is far from rigorous, but it shows that the study's conclusions at least make intuitive sense.
Also, the earlier poster makes a very good point that it is much easier to change the country's electricity generating infrastructure than it is to change the auto-fueling infrastructure.
Matt-- Don't be that guy who addresses each critic with that sagging mantra: if you don't like it, lump it. He reads it, he likes it, he just wants you to be more thorough. Chillax, doggy!
And be the fuck more thorough!
Posted by Jeffrey Davis | July 23, 2007 1:20 PM:"I believe James Hansen has posited a 10 year window of opportunity before we reach the infamous "tipping point" -- the point at which global feedbacks from CO2 reach a self-sustaining level. If we temporize over the next 10 years, we are going to blow past the tipping point like a sprinter breaking the tape."
The neat thing about that, of course, is that there is zero chance whatsoever that anyone is going to get anything done within the next ten years. At least not to the extent that would be required to do much about CO2 levels. That would need a 60 percent reduction. That's not Hybrids. That's horses and buggies and whale oil lamps. So if he is right, and there is precisely no reason whatsoever to think he is, we may as well enjoy ourselves.
You see the downside to Green scare stories?
Hi - Anyone have useful links on battery reliability/durability they could post? I'm toying with the idea of an Escape Hybrid & want to know whether it's a decent investment or not.
Stop me before I read your blog again...
Aside from whether EPRI is astroturf, several comments here and in the previous thread point to the challenge of quantifying advantages of plug-ins. There are quite a few other external costs associated with two cars in the garage (leaking underground tanks at gas stations, the ethanol boondoggle, etc etc), plus regulatory practice strategies that make plug-ins a good idea...bringing that idea down to earth will be a job for the marketers as much as the technicians.
Regarding corporations as green players/haters, there's a good piece by Curtis White in the new Harper's on the Idols of Environmentalism.
On some level it's a good thing to switch over to plug-in hybrids regardless of the cleanliness of the utiilities. The argument to be made here is that it's far easier to bring up new, clean power sources on the grid than it is to overhaul the nation's automotive fleet and fueling infrastructure.
It's good on another level too: the local level. In places like LA and Denver where smog is a problem, moving the source out of town helps a bunch.
Matthew Yglesias wrote: Why do you read the blog?
Because other bloggers (Atrios, for example), seem to think that you're worth reading. It's the glib conventional wisdom that isn't worth my time. For instance, the uncritical assertion that Pete Seeger was a "hard-core Stalinist".
josh bivens wrote: they seem, um, smart. and they have ph.ds.
but, this hardly means that it's impossible that they're doing flack-work for industry.
this is one of those issues that non-experts are really at a loss to assess, and, just noting that the authors did indeed go to grad school really doesn't help.
True, their credentials offer no guarantees of their integrity, however, the authors have career backgrounds in the field of mechanical engineering and environmental impacts and their work should be taken seriously. In short, they are experts on the subject in question. Most PR flacks have no such experience. It is certainly possible that the piece is biased, but extremely unlikely that it is "entirely made up".
So if he is right, and there is precisely no reason whatsoever to think he is
Pray that there's no such thing as hell, chum.
While power plants are more efficient and could, in theory, be more easily cleaned up than ICE's, there are two big issues.
1. That will take continued political pressure that may be less likely to occur given the belief that shifting to plug-in hybrids is green in and of itself.
2. The non-carbon externalities of coal-fired power plants (especially mercury and fly ash, but also NOX & SOX) have predominantly local negative impacts. Combine that with the fact that power plants tend to be located in disproportionately poor areas and you exacerbate some severe spatial inequalities between metropolis and countryside.
(Ed's recent post points at these problems, like the 75% increase in asthma among rural residents living near power plants.)
In short, drive less, bike/walk or bus more, buy a hybrid if you can afford to, and gently suggest/ model these lifestyle choices to your friends. And if you're gonna go about 100 down the freeway chokin, ain't no mystery to the weed you smokin, do it in a fucking electric blue Prius ferchrissakes.
These changes aren't smug or self-righteous, they are small adjustments that are already making a big difference, and moreso if they are adopted en masse. Sure it's better if you stay in the house with the lights off and ride a razor scooter to your work at a Birknestock factory, but some of us like (renewable) hookers and (carbon credits) gambling and (wood chip) golf.
Andrew: You forgot acid rain, which tends to have predominately non-local negative impacts.
Posted by Gregorio | July 23, 2007 1:56 PM:"These changes aren't smug or self-righteous, they are small adjustments that are already making a big difference, and moreso if they are adopted en masse. Sure it's better if you stay in the house with the lights off and ride a razor scooter to your work at a Birknestock factory, but some of us like (renewable) hookers and (carbon credits) gambling and (wood chip) golf."
Actually nothing you mention will make the slightest difference whatsoever. Not even if they are adopted en masse. If we have to get emissions down by 60 percent that requires either an entirely nuclear economy or an 18th century one. Your pick. Do the sums.
So if he is right, and there is precisely no reason whatsoever to think he is...
Have you read the paper by Hansen, et al published by the NASA GISS?
Thought not.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html
Dear old HeiGou: reliably wrong about everything...
You do understand, ponte, that corporate funding does not possess a mystical power to corrupt data, don't you?
Amen! Where a study came from, while useful and enlightening, has no bearing on the scientific merits of said study. The data and methodology stand alone, any relevant criticism criticizes solely them.
See: Appeal to Authority
Posted by HeiGou | July 23, 2007 2:04 PM
Actually nothing you mention will make the slightest difference whatsoever. Not even if they are adopted en masse. If we have to get emissions down by 60 percent that requires either an entirely nuclear economy or an 18th century one. Your pick. Do the sums.
At first I thought you were a cyborg sent from the future to annoy us into voting Scwarzenegger 2012, but now I realize you're a cyborg sent from Lyndon LaRouche's Nuclear Utopia Future to show us the way. My eyes, my eyes, I have seen the light! And the ensuing mushroom cloud!
The non-carbon externalities of coal-fired power plants (especially mercury and fly ash, but also NOX & SOX) have predominantly local negative impacts. Combine that with the fact that power plants tend to be located in disproportionately poor areas and you exacerbate some severe spatial inequalities between metropolis and countryside.
Not to be callous, but if polluted air is going to be created, I think it's a net positive to move it into rural areas from urban ones. Even if those rural areas are more predominantly poor, there would still be fewer people in absolute terms being exposed to that air, and probably fewer poor people in absolute terms, as well.
Granted, in an ideal world we'd not pollute the air at all anywhere, rural or urban. I would also like a pony, too. And a space shuttle, as long we're doing some Utopian dreaming.
"new gas-fired plants are around 40% efficient"
Nahh, more like 58% for combined-cycle with the high-temp turbines GE has out there.
On EPRI's credibility: I actually had the reveerse reaction to others, I based my assessment that the study was credible on EPRI's name being on the study, not on the NRDC. EPRI has good technical credibility amongst those who follow this kind of stuff.
cain wrote: The data and methodology stand alone, any relevant criticism criticizes solely them.
Integrity and credibility does matter, however, when results are not easily reproduced, for example, the Johns Hopkins epidemiological study of morbidity in Iraq.
"Integrity and credibility does matter, however, when results are not easily reproduced, for example, the Johns Hopkins epidemiological study of morbidity in Iraq."
Actually, that one is a clear example where it
would be quite easy for anyone to repeat the study
(it only cost $50K). What's really damning is that
so much hot air has been expended on criticizing
the Burnham/Roberts survey without anyone stepping
up to try to produce a better survey.
1. EPRI is a very credible outfit. No, that doesn't mean that the study in question should be taken as gospel. It's possible that the authors got it wrong for various reasons. But AEI-level hackishnes is very unlikely.
2. PEHV's look to be a significant positive step for pollution and greenhouse gas reduction, in part because they tend to be charged at night when power demands are low and electricity is cheap and can be produced with higher carbon efficiency. Conversely, PEHV can be used as temporary power sources for the grid when demand is high and production is less efficient. This peak shifting can be a net carbon benefit.
3. HeiGou: Cite sources, show work, or STFU.
Integrity and credibility does matter, however, when results are not easily reproduced, for example, the Johns Hopkins epidemiological study of morbidity in Iraq.
Well, no. The name Johns Hopkins serves as a shortcut to saying "yes, this probably is a well-designed and factually correct study", but it does not logically follow that just because something is from a revered institution it is automatically true. If a study can't be reproduced independently, it bodes ill for the study, regardless of where it came from.
I'm not familiar with the study you're talking about, but wouldn't reproduction matter less in an epidemiological study, as it's more of a data analysis than an experiment? That is, wouldn't any difference be attributable to which data was used (assuming someone didn't screw up the math or willfully lie)?
Re: I believe James Hansen has posited a 10 year window of opportunity before we reach the infamous "tipping point"
All such predictions are nothing more than guesses, no more reliable than the prognostications of a storefront psychic. We really don't know enough about climate to know if there is a "tipping point". Indeed, more likley from what we do know about complex, non-linear dynamic systems, there are "set points" and the result of global warming will be move the climate from set Point A to Set Point b where it will stabilize again (and we of course will then have to adapt to it.)
Now on the issue at hand, let's at least note that it's always easier to control pollution at a single production source than at hundreds of thousands distributed points and that alone would dictate in favor of this sort of technology.
Richard Cownie wrote: Actually, that one is a clear example where it would be quite easy for anyone to repeat the study (it only cost $50K).
Some of the Iraqi doctors who participated in the Hopkins study vowed that they would never do such a fool-hardy thing again. So no, it would not be "quite easy".
Cain wrote: I'm not familiar with the study you're talking about, but wouldn't reproduction matter less in an epidemiological study, as it's more of a data analysis than an experiment?
No. The Hopkins study actually produced the body of data. There is no Iraqi Census Bureau to do the raw data collection for us. You can read about it here.
JonF wrote: All such predictions are nothing more than guesses, no more reliable than the prognostications of a storefront psychic.
James Hansen is one of the leading climate researchers in the US, and made remarkably accurate predictions about the current climate temperatures twenty years ago. Hansen's climate predictions are based on scientific expertise and rigorous peer review. Comparing them to the ravings of a "storefront psychic" is practically libel.
"I believe James Hansen has posited a 10 year window of opportunity..."
If the world isn't doomed or saved in ten years, will we get another Hansen Unit?
Fred wrote: If the world isn't doomed or saved in ten years, will we get another Hansen Unit?
There will be a lag time of several decades after reaching such a climate tipping point to experiencing its worst effects. This is elementary climatology. So your analogy, while amusing, is inappropriate.
Ponte,
Since you seem to be knowledgeable about climatology, perhaps I can ask you a few of questions that aren't meant to be humorous.
1) Wouldn't more carbon dioxide spur the growth of more plants and trees, which will absorb it and release oxygen?
2) What are these "worst effects" that will result from an increase in average temperatures (if it happens) of one or a few degrees over a century?
3) How likely are these "worst effects" to occur?
The point here is, if there's a tipping point, and we're only a decade from reaching it, it's "Game over!" for global warming, short of geo-engineering projects of the sort Matt likes to mock. Your Prius ain't going to stop China from pushing us past that point. A US full of Priuses isn't going to delay it more than a month or so.
Brett's post above raises other questions. Are the Chinese stupid (most IQ studies suggest otherwise)? If not, why do the Chinese seem to be blissfully unconcerned by global warming? They live on the same planet, after all. Could it be that they think it is politically-motivated fear mongering designed to get them to hobble their economy before they have a chance to catch up with Western living standards?
1) Wouldn't more carbon dioxide spur the growth of more plants and trees, which will absorb it and release oxygen?
no
What are these "worst effects" that will result from an increase in average temperatures (if it happens) of one or a few degrees over a century?
Greater variability of farming conditions. Drought. Flood. Desertification. Increased range of agricultural pests. Rise in sea level.
3) How likely are these "worst effects" to occur?
Many are occurring now. The IPCC pegs the probability of a rise in temps from 1.1-6C at ~95%. A rise beyond 6C is ~2.5% possibility. 6C would be globally catastrophic. We went to war in Iraq on less evidence and with less possibility.
Could it be that they, think being wealthy in a warmer world is better than being poor in this one?
Besides, if their economy stops growing, a revolution in China is all but certain. Their government is riding the tiger.
Fred,
1) Negligible. CO2 is rarely a limiting nutrient for plants in the wild.
2) A. Rising sea levels caused by the melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
B. Changes to regional hydrological cycles (droughts, floods, etc.)
C. Redistribution of flora, fauna, diseases and pests caused by moving climate niches
D. Shutting down of the North Atlantic ocean "conveyor belt"
3) There is a range of probability attached to the scale of each specific impact. All depend on economic and political policies, geography, and time. The only item which appears to me to be unlikely is D. If you want further detailed information, I suggest that you read the latest IPCC report or a decent book on the subject. I'm not going to debate the risks of climate change with you.
Jeffrey Davis wrote: We went to war in Iraq on less evidence and with less possibility.
Not to mention that the War in Iraq cost billions of dollars where renewable energy and efficiency are sound financial investments. Of course, the major petroleum companies hope to see some benefits from the Iraq War soon.
Re: Wouldn't more carbon dioxide spur the growth of more plants and trees, which will absorb it and release oxygen?
no
Umm, why not? And actually most analysys of CO2 increase do point to increased plant growth as on of the consequences although no one suggests that this will remove anything more than a minor fraction of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere.
Also, desertification on any large scale is unlikely (from global warming that is; other huiman activities might create local desertification). Global warming will increase precipitation due to melting of glaciers (more liquid water on the planet) and increased evaporation. Look back to the Pliocene (whose climate is more or less where we're headed) as an examplar: the Sahara did not exist, and forest covered nearly all the Great Plains and much of the Southwest of North America.
JonF wrote: Global warming will increase precipitation due to melting of glaciers (more liquid water on the planet) and increased evaporation.
That would be fine if water in the atmosphere was homogeneously distributed without regard to geography and land cover, but it isn't.
Umm, why not?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/#more-93
Recent experiments and model calculations, however, suggest that this is unlikely to be the case. A set of controlled experiments known as FACE ("Free Air CO2 Enrichment") experiments have been performed in which ambient CO2 levels are elevated in forest stands and changes in various measures of productivity are made over several years. Experiments of this sort that have been done at Duke Forest indicate (in agreement with models), that any elevation of productivity is likely to be short-lived and is unlikely to significantly offset any gradual, long-term increases in co2 due to human activity. This is due in part to the fact that other conditions (e.g. availability of nutrients such as Nitrogen and Phosphorus) appear to quickly become limiting, even when carbon availability is removed as a constraint on plant growth when ambient CO2 concentrations are sufficiently increased.
So:
Rising sea levels, some places will be drier, others will be wetter, etc. I don't see where any of this is catastrophic. Sounds like it might even be nice for some countries (e.g., longer growing seasons in Northern Europe and Canada, perhaps?).
Also, what contribution do 6 billion humans exhaling carbon dioxide every few seconds make to global warming? Should we perhaps stop suppling vaccines to the third world to limit the number of exhaling humans?
"Which, almost trivially, electric power plants also have, unless you're recharging your car at Hoover dam. About 7% of the power goes to heating the power lines and transformers. Then there's the fact that batteries aren't 100% efficient, either. More like 60-70%, actually."
So yeah, electrical power transmission is about
93% efficient. Your car's mechanical transmission
is about 70% efficient. Score a factor of 1.33
in favor of plugin electric vehicles. It probably
gets worse because non-CVT transmissions will
force the engine to run at an inefficient speed
most of the time.
Then you also get the advantage of regenerative
braking, a big win for city driving.
Much of this is fixable: new CVTs offer better
efficiency, an all-electronic valve engine can
run at high efficiency across a wider speed
range. Still, that big gap in power generation
efficiency (sub-20% for auto engine vs over 50%
for modern combined-cycle gas power plants)
strongly favors plugins.
And solar generation - which really *does* fix
the CO2 problem - is making rapid technical
progress: solar cells are down to about $4/peak
watt right now (having dropped from over $25/peak
watt over a few years). I wouldn't be surprised
to see them under $1/peak watt within 5 years,
and then they would be very competitive.
Especially as solar is well-suited to distributed installation on rooftops - eliminating transmission
losses, and matching peak generation to peak
demand (residential/office A/C).
"then there's the fact that batteries aren't 100% efficient, either. More like 60-70%, actually"
Sodium-sulfur batteries can achieve 92% efficiency.
Fred wrote: Rising sea levels, some places will be drier, others will be wetter, etc. I don't see where any of this is catastrophic.
You may not, but the insurance industry does.
Also, what contribution do 6 billion humans exhaling carbon dioxide every few seconds make to global warming?
An insignificant one.
It's gonna be great for Holland and Bangladesh. I wonder which lowlying floodplain will lose more population...
New Orleans: It's Only Just Begun!
Re: Experiments of this sort that have been done at Duke Forest indicate (in agreement with models), that any elevation of productivity is likely to be short-lived and is unlikely to significantly offset any gradual, long-term increases in co2 due to human activity.
I agree that extra plant growth will scavenge no more than a small fraction of the extra CO2, but I rather disagree that there won't be extra growth. Huge areas of the world will see their growing seasons lengthen. Some areas where plant life is very marginal (deserts, high latitude tundra) will become more hospitable in a warmer, wetter world. Moreover, what's not appreciated in these debates is the fact that we are actually near the lower bound of CO2 concentration for the survival of many plants, including most trees. These so-called C3 metabolism plants evolved back in the Mesozoic when CO2 levels were much higher; anything significantly lower than the historical low and they could not exist at all and the C4 plants (primarily grasses) would inherit the Earth. Add extra CO2 and the C3 plants will flourish.
Re: That would be fine if water in the atmosphere was homogeneously distributed without regard to geography and land cover, but it isn't.
Of course it's not. That's why I cited the Pliocene when, geologically speaking, the Earth was not too greatly different from its current profile (with local variations, like a landlocked and highly saline and shrunken Mediterranean Sea). The continents were in their current locations, the principle mountain ranges were more or less there, etc.
Also not appreciated here: the world is already growing wetter, especially at the mid latitudes. Average precipitation has been increasing since the mid 20th century. In fact it is increasing even faster than the models suggest, unlike temperatures which are increasing more slowly than the models predict.
JonF, as for the Pliocene thing, you've forgotten land cover again. Forests, urban areas, deserts, agriculture, etc. have a stronger regional impact on precipitation than global temperatures.
Re: JonF, as for the Pliocene thing, you've forgotten land cover again. Forests, urban areas, deserts, agriculture, etc. have a stronger regional impact on precipitation than global temperatures.
????
You'll have to explain that one. When it comes to weather patterns topography (the lay of the land) means a heckyva of a lot. Stick a huge lake in the middle of a landscape and you'll get lake effect precipitation when the wind blows over the lake and then has to rise up along with the surrounding land. (Visit the Great Lakes in January to see this effect rather spectacularly). A mountain range invites heavy precipitation on its windward side, and dryness on its leeward side. And as far as agriculture goes, a huge area of wheat or corn field is "seen" by air masses as no different than a natural grassland, except that irrigation may increase humidity depending on the details. And even our cities, though they do create "heat islands", are not completely unique. Check out all but the largest core cities sometime from the air in summer. Lots of buildings of course-- but also lots of trees and lesser botanica-- a city is like a forest engulfing a landscape of stone peaks and rock outcroppings.
"
Rising sea levels, some places will be drier, others will be wetter, etc. I don't see where any of this is catastrophic. Sounds like it might even be nice for some countries (e.g., longer growing seasons in Northern Europe and Canada, perhaps?).
"
Hmm, Fred. Are you willing to compensate all those who get screwed by this? Or are you showing the new true face of US Conservatism --- screw all this property rights stuff, compensation for takings etc etc; all that matters in your brave new world is raw power?
Because if you are not willing to compensate the many many many losers from this exercise, don't be too surprised when some Bangladeshi's decide to form their own local chapter of Al Qaeda, this time with a whole lot more popular support than before, and with what they can see before their eyes as rather more aggressive motivation than Bin Laden's abtractions about forming a new Caliphate.
Ponte:
"You may not, but the insurance industry does."
Hmm... what financial incentives might the insurance industry have for overstating the chances of climatic catastrophes?
If I were worried I wouldn't have bought shares in Berkshire Hathaway (the b-shares -- I don't have affluent liberal money yet) a few months ago. The stock has been moving sideways recently. Why? IMO, fears that its insurance operations will take a hit from a super-duper hurricane season this year. I'm betting that these fears (like the global warming fears) are overstated, and when a whole lot of nothing happens -- and Berkshire doesn't have to pony up record insurance payouts -- the stock will gap up.
It's a mistake to think that agriculture can simply move north. Much of Northern Canada has either exposed rock, thin soils over rock, or boggy tundra.
And agriculture thrives where the farmer can count on this year being like last year. A growing season isn't a 'plastic' commodity: it's a crap shoot. If the weather during the growing season isn't appropriate for what he plants, his yields suffer. More energy in the atmosphere means greater variability in weather. There are around 6.5 billion of us now. Our agricultural margins don't need to shrink.
re: And agriculture thrives where the farmer can count on this year being like last year.
There are very few places in the world where this has ever been true. But fortunately there are quite a few crops which will thrive under a variety of climate conditions. Corn (maize) for example grows from the near tropics to the northern temperate zone (and has since pre-Columbian times). Most of our staples are like that since they would not have become staples were they not fairly reliable. All in all, warming is less a threat to agriculture than cooling would be.
Comments closed August 06, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Isn't the study cosponsored by the NRDC? As far as I know that organization is pretty credible on environmental issues.
Posted by Anonymous | July 23, 2007 12:41 PM