Naturalpath

By Charles Komanoff

I long ago swore off the Wall Street Journal's editorial page -- the last straw for me was their cruel swipe at departed "dope fiend" Jerry Garcia back in 1995. But on Monday a friend forwarded me a WSJ editorial whaling away at renewable power's production tax credit:

Solar energy is subsidized to the tune of $24.34 per megawatt hour, wind $23.37 and ... nuclear power $1.59. Wind and solar have been on the subsidy take for years ...

Now, the they insinuate, it's time to kick wind and solar out of the nest to fly (or not) on their own, just like Uncle Nuke did, decades ago.

What's up?, my pal asked, knowing that I not only have a thing for wind power but used to be a walking encyclopedia of nuclear power costs. After a quick trip down memory lane, pencil in hand, here's my brief on federal subsidies for windmills and nukes.

• Reactor subsidies, 1950-1990: $154 billion, or $3.75 billion a year.
• Wind power subsidies, 1983-2007: $3.75 billion 25-year total.

Over the past 25 years, the entire federal subsidy for wind power has been no greater than the subsidy bestowed on nukes each year from the fifties through the eighties.

By Kate Sheppard

Ed Norton will go green -- literally -- next month when he hits the big screen as The Incredible Hulk. But on Wednesday he was on the Hill talking up the virtues of going green figuratively, in our building practices.

Norton appeared before the House Select Committee for Energy Independence and Global Warming, along with experts in the green-building field, to talk about why building green is better for the planet and your wallet. Norton is a trustee for the Enterprise Foundation, which works to bring green building practices to low-income housing developments.

"The fastest way to make the most progress most quickly on climate change is by reducing energy waste in buildings," Norton told the committee. "The most cost-effective ways to do that are by retrofitting existing buildings, while the deepest energy and greenhouse-gas reductions can be made in new buildings as they come online. Major gains are achievable by applying what we know today."

By Joseph Romm

Nature has published the first article to "formally link observed global changes in physical and biological systems to human-induced climate change, predominantly from increasing greenhouse gases." See news story here and the article, "Attributing physical and biological impacts to anthropogenic climate change" (subs. req'd, abstract below).

NASA's discussion of the piece here explains, "human-caused climate change has made an impact on a wide range of Earth's natural systems, including permafrost thawing, plants blooming earlier across Europe, and lakes declining in productivity in Africa." The image at right: "Impacts from warming are evident in satellite images showing that lakes in Siberia disappearing as the permafrost thaws and lake water drains deeper into the ground." The lead author explained:

By Kate Sheppard

John McCain hosted a call-in with bloggers today following his address in Columbus, Ohio, in which he outlined his priorities for a first term in office. Grist got in a couple of questions:

By Tom Philpott

Industrial agriculture currently stands as humanity's big plan for "feeding the world" as global population moves toward 10 billion and the earth warms. Increasingly, as oil supplies tighten and prices rise, we're looking to industrial ag to fill our gas tanks, too.

Unhappily, this relatively new form of farming relies utterly on three elements, two mined (potassium and phosphorus) and one synthesized from natural gas (nitrogen).

In other words, unless we quickly move toward other agriculture models, we're likely to see increased geopolitical competition for these resources, outsized power for the entities that control them -- and diminishing efforts to control the ecological effects of extracting them.

I've written before about Mosaic, the world's largest phosphorus supplier, and the devastations of its Florida mining operations. Two-thirds owned by agribusiness conglomerate Cargill, Mosaic has seen its share price rise seven-fold since the fall of 2006 (roughly when corn prices began to jump).

Now let's look at Canada's Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, whose shareholders, like Mosaic's, have enjoyed an ecstatic run of late. The company so dominates potash (potassium) production that one stock analyst has hailed it as "the Saudi Arabia of Fertilizer."

The analyst, Ben Johnson of Morningstar, has this to say about Potash's market position:

By John McGrath

Ali Velshi on CNN, Wednesday morning: "What if you could take a lump of coal and turn that in to your gasoline?"

What if, indeed? A brief (very brief) stroll through the archives...

The following headlines, from a 5-minute search through The New York Times:

"Coal is to give us gasoline and a new fuel" November 28, 1926

"Oil fom Coal -- to meet the nation's need" ("Experimental plants-point the way toward freedom from our dependence on imports.") September 12, 1948

"NO NEED SEEN NOW FOR SYNTHETIC OIL; Production From Coal Feasible but Cost Is Not Warranted at Present" September 2, 1951

"Oil From Shale, Coal May Be Used In the Near Future, Report Says" July 31, 1956

"Gas from coal is held feasible" November 24, 1957

By Sharon Astyk

"How did you get there, Roo?" asked Piglet.

"On Tigger's back!  And Tiggers can't climb downwards, because their tails get in the way, only upwards, and Tigger forgot about that when we started, and he's only just remembered.  So we've got to stay here for ever and ever -- unless we go higher.  What did you say, Tigger?  Oh, Tigger says if we go higher we shan't be able to see Piglet's house so well, so we're going to stop here."

-- A.A. Milne, "The House At Pooh Corner"

My kids were out climbing trees yesterday, supervised by Eric and our visiting friend and my honorary brother, "Uncle" Jesse.  Isaiah really wanted to climb up to a particular spot, but couldn't get there on little four-year-old legs.  Jesse helped him up part of the way, and then told him he had to do it himself or be content with where he could get to.  Jesse observed, "I wanted to give him a boost, but only up to a place he could get back down from himself."

I was struck by what a useful metaphor and perhaps even principle was embodied in that casual statement.  I was also reminded, perhaps because I've now read Winnie the Pooh to my children approximately 1,000 times, of the classic representation of what happens when you climb up and can't climb down. If you can forgive the cuteness, it does seem apt.

By Kate Sheppard

John McCain is in Ohio today, where he gave a speech this morning about what he plans to accomplish by 2013. Progress on climate and energy is part of his vision for a better world at the end of his first term:

The United States is well on the way to independence from foreign sources of oil -- progress that has not only begun to alleviate the environmental threat posed from climate change, but has greatly improved our security as well. A cap-and-trade system has been implemented, spurring great innovation in the development of green technologies and alternative energy sources. Clean-coal technology has advanced considerably with federal assistance. Construction has begun on 20 new nuclear reactors thanks to improved incentives and a streamlined regulatory process.

Note that the only two "alternative energy sources" he mentions -- coal and nuclear -- aren't really "alternative." Nothing said about wind, solar, geothermal, tidal power, biofuels, plug-in hybrids, energy efficiency ...

He's got a new TV ad on the same theme: "2013." At least it features wind turbines. Watch below the fold:

By Kurt Michael Friese

In the New York Times Dining section yesterday, I read this:

Chicagoans can feast on foie gras once more. The Chicago City Council just repealed the ban on its sale that it put in place two years ago.

Now I know that many of my vegan friends will go ballistic on me when I say that this is a good thing, but this is a good thing. The animal rights groups who supported this measure did so because they saw it as a layup -- an easy target. Who would oppose a ban on something only rich, snobby, hoity-toity gourmands consume?

Besides the measure being silly government intervention, it reminded me of the folks who say they won't eat veal because they heard it was cruel ... as they pull up to the KFC drive thru.

Banning foie gras saves a few ducks and geese. Wanna make a difference? Ban CAFOs. You needn't stop eating meat (unless of course you want to, that's entirely up to you), just stop eating feedlot meat. Get your beef, pork, and chicken from the farmer down the road, from the farmers market, from a CSA. Trust the source, and you'll trust the food.

By Joseph Romm

The Department of Interior suffers from a rare form of bipolar disorder called bye-polar disorder. There is one major symptom of this disorder: You list the polar bear as "threatened" because of its melting polar sea ice habitat, but then do nothing to actually protect that polar habitat from its primary threat, greenhouse-gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion.

The disorder is accompanied by an occasional burst of logic, as when the DOI noted:

• The polar bears need sea ice for feeding.
• The sea ice is being destroyed by human-caused emissions, faster than the models had predicted.
• Thus, the polar bear is endangered.

On the other hand, the disorder makes it physically, or at least psychologically, impossible for the patient to take any action based on that burst of logic. The quote in this post's subtitle is from the DOI press release's own subhead. Someone will need to explain how producing fossil fuels -- whose combustion is destroying the polar bear's habitat -- is consistent with preserving an endangered species.

The disorder is also marked by unintentional bursts of irony, as in the use of the phrase "Rule will allow continuation of vital energy production." The word 'vital' means "Necessary to the continuation of life; life-sustaining."

Kempthorne said: