Cowboy in a Straitjacket

The thing about binding agreements is that...well, they're binding. In this case, an international protocol was deemed "unfair" by George Bush because it excluded developing nations. That's kind of like complaining that your neighbor's Fiat emits more pollution than your John Deere...yet you have three SUVs in the garage and heat your house by burning coal. Once again Mr. Bush fails to see the bigger picture here. Maybe that explains why he feels like a cowboy in a straitjacket when dealing with global warming?

Today, Harlan Watson , the Chief Climate Negotiator for the U.S. in Montreal (talk about a dubious title), ruled out making pledges to fight global warming beyond 2012 which happens to be precisely when the Kyoto Protocol runs out. You just have to be skeptical of a guy who was recommended by Exxon-Mobil to be the U.S. Chief Climate Negotiator. Here's my favorite part:

Up to 10,000 delegates are meeting in Montreal, Canada, from November 28-December 9 to discuss new ways to fight a build-up of gases released mainly from burning fossil fuels in factories, power plants and cars.

"The United States is opposed to any such discussions," Watson told a news conference of Canadian proposals to launch talks under the U.N.'s climate convention about new actions to combat global warming beyond 2012.

I gotta ask: Harlan, if you have no interest in these discussions why are you up in Montreal freezing your cheeks off? I can't figure out if you're wasting our time or your own. While Harlan shuffles his feet the rest of country is taking steps forward. While U.S. CO2 emissions were lower than the EU's between 2000-2003, what they aren't telling you is that the U.S. was almost %14 higher in '03 than in 1990 while the EU was a mere %1.4 higher for the same period.

Back at COP10 our friends at Greenpeace showed the weak argument Harlan and other Bush science whizzes were making. Either way the defense the WH puts up continues to get more and more lame. Aren't leaders supposed to step up in times like this?

New York Steps Up

When California decided to set its own air quality standards back in 1970 it had no idea what impact that action would take years down the line. Now, states like Vermont and New York are jumping aboard the clean air bandwagon and snubbing federal EPA standards, establishing their own stricter, safer and more demanding emission regulations. The rules, laid out by California, are expected to be followed by as many as 10 other states including New York in the coming year.

Automakers continue to complain (and sue) that these new regulations will limit the availability of many of our favorite trucks, SUVs and larger sedans as well as force them to curb sales of more powerful engine vehicles in the state. If these 10 states (including California) succeed in passing these new regulations they'll be an amazingly powerful regulatory bloc that automakers will have to contend with. Even more important, these markets will account for over a third of the nation's auto sales.

AAM (which has a virtually identical slogan to Ford Motors) says the California legislation will hurt SUV, truck and large car owners the most:

"The California legislation would hurt the most the people that rely on large cars, pickups, S.U.V.'s and minivans," Ms. Bergquist said.

Environmental groups say the rules can be met with technology already on the shelf.

"They said that seat belts would put them out of business; they said that air bags would put them out of business; they said fuel economy and emissions regulations would all put them out of business," said David Friedman, a senior analyst at the Union of Concerned Scientists.

"It turns out it's their unwillingness to innovate that's putting them out of business right now," he added, referring to the current struggles of General Motors and Ford Motor Company.

It seems like America's best automanufacturers are ignoring innovation not adopting it. If anything, American auto companies are busy working to paint every vehicle they produce as a green one.

The push for states to inact their own emission regs will only continue. California, Vermont and New York are on the list...keep your eyes on the others (RI, ME, NJ, MA, OR, WA, CT, PA).

*Point of Irony: the ads on the page linked to above on the NY Times website? Ford's innovation campaign. Can't say that ad space is doing much good.

Montreal Conference on Climate Change

I may be heading up to Montreal this week to analog the festivities going on around the world's most wonkified conference concerning climate change. It also happens to be THE most important meeting of the parties (i.e. those that signed the Kyoto Protocol) ever. Why? Because this is the meeting where everyone sits down to discuss how they're (I use "they" because the U.S. never signed it---but thank god for Russia) going to implement the rules and regulations agreed upon. More importantly, they're going to layout a plan for post-Kyoto which runs out in 2012.

This is fairly significant and over 10,000 dignataries and representatives from over 150 countries will be flying in to take part. Of course, the U.S. will have a delegation that's chief job will be to monitor the actions of our allies (and enemies) to see what type of trade regulations may be impacted as a result various restrictions that come out of the conference.

And while the wonks and dignataries sit inside discussion numbers and objectives, thousands of activists from all over the world will be gathered (actually, they've been there for weeks already) weighing in on the public conversation taking place. Hundreds of side events around the conference will be open to the public and anyone who wants to hear the stories behind global warming and climate change.

Lastly, if you can't go there in person, why not watch from the web? Energy Action and Rainforest Action Network established a hub where everyone and their mother will be working to post updates on whats going on from the ground in Montreal both inside and outside the conference. Should be interesting...do we think Nelly will endorse this?

Carbon Footprints and BP Oil

As more and more people begin to see how oil is no longer a viable resource they will begin to seek out companies that offer alternatives. One of the few oil companies that is beginning to shift in an acceptable direction for research and implementation of alternative energy sources is British Petroleum (BP). BP is the largest investor of all the major oil companies in solar, wind and geo-thermal industries. However, they are also heavily behind clean coal like their competitor Chevron and have been ridiculed for recent environmental "dodgings" in Alaska's Prudhoe Bay involving oil spills. Plus, parts of their "Renewables" section of their website doesn't work and investors and users can't really find out anything about where BP stands on solar and renewable energy. Not a good start.

Yet, there was one piece of the website that I thought was interesting: the Carbon Footprint indicator. Its a online tool that assigns values to certain activities/items in your household like taking a bath vs. taking a shower or how many cars you have and their mileage, all to show a user what their carbon footprint is on the earth. It also includes plane travel which is something often forgotten in a world focused on the vehicle.

Most of what these oil companies are marketing in their P.R. efforts is a type of greenwashing. It's telling citizens that they are working hard to focus on renewable energy resources and growing them when in reality they're still focused on age-old practices of ploughing and plundering land and sea-bed for hidden oil reserves (which is why oil and gas careers are booming right now). While showing people their carbon footprint is a fun and educational way of communicating the effects of an oil economy, remaining unchanged in company practices and treatment of the natural environment brings to light a larger issue based on integrity within that corporation. Yes we know progress is slow, but progress is also taking a step forward and not trying to cover up or lead astray your investors, clients and customers.

Fox For the Environment?

Looks like Fox News is starting to see the light. Tonight Fox National is running a special on global warming and its surrounding effects. While it seems to be a dramatic step for a media conglomerate dedicated to conservative issues and ideals, it is, it does seem to be scraping just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues around climate change. However, FOX's look into the culture behind the "disbelievers" is key. The fact that the title of the piece is the same as one of the most prolific books on the subject doesn't seem to be a coincidence either.

Also on TV tonight of note, a 60 minutes piece on eco-terrorism.

Happy viewing.

Role Reversal

The folks over at Amazon are doing some pretty incredible things of late. Artificial intelligence (AI) has long intrigued humanity as a way to subsitute flesh and blood humans with machines capable of making decisions and completing tasks that might otherwise be boring, overwhelming or just plain dangerous. Well, now we have Artificial Artificial Intelligence. Amazon's Mechanical Turk does exactly the opposite by creating AAI in computer software that enables them to make requests of humans. Why and how is this useful? Think about all the tasks that we have to have do in a typical business day that computers can't. Everything from information requests to judging the best photo for a marketing firm's campaign are jobs that people like you and me can do without too much trouble. What Mechanical Turk does is bring the needs of business to the solutions of millions of virtual workers who can work from anywhere there is an internet connection.

Michael Silberman over at EchoDitto makes some great points on why this is big:

This investment is a Big Deal because it speaks volumes about the company's appreciation for (a) the online multiplier effect, where many small, individual actions add up to a larger whole, and (b) the proven nature of distributed and decentralized processing via the 'net.

Basically, Amazon has created a tool that enables you to export your simpler (but more challenging) tasks to an army of willing workers online. Using this new API you can submit requests and tasks to the Amazon Turk website, approve completed tasks, and then incorporate those solutions into your own software. On the other end, humans can select HITs (Human Intelligence Tasks) to complete. You get paid once the person who listed the HIT approves your solution or work. So in a sense this is what happens when open-source idealogy mixes into the online job market.

For businesses and entrepreneurs who want tasks completed, the Amazon Mechanical Turk web service solves the problem of getting work done in a cost-effective manner by people who have the skill to do the work. It does this by ccessing a vast network of human intelligence with the efficiencies and cost- ffectiveness of computers. Oftentimes people do not move forward with certain projects because the cost to establish a network of skilled people to do the work outweighs the value of completing it. By turning the fixed costs into variable costs that scale with their needs, the Amazon Mechanical Turk web service eliminates this barrier and allows projects to be completed that before were not economical...For people who want to earn money in their spare time, the Amazon Mechanical Turk website solves the problem of finding work that they can do wherever and whenever they want.

But don't get too excited. At the moment you'd be hard pressed to find a gig for more a few bucks. You'd still have to file for unemployment if you took this on full time.

House Rules

Just when you thought drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was money in the bank...those moderate republicans do us all a favor. Today, the House of Representatives decided to remove the drilling measure from the now tabled budget bill that cuts over $54 billion from federal benefit programs. Over 12 moderate GoOPers played a key role in helping to keep the bill off the floor after expressing concern over cutting extensive social programs that would hurt the elderly and poor. This means is that when the Senate and House meet next week to reconcile their differences on the proposed budget bills there's going to be a battle. Drilling in ANWR has been a major piece of the Bush Energy Plan and as Scott McClellan says, "We continue to urge passage of that initiative."

It's too bad that Bush and fellow republicans are appealing to America's lowest common denominator on this. Undoubtedly, we as a nation when facing challenges in the past relied on American ingenuity to bail us out. We are a nation that responds well to challenges and the current energy problem is one that drilling in another undeveloped pristine landscape will not solve. Conservation is certainly not the only answer. But forcing automakers (especially American automakers) to create cars and trucks that get 45 mpg while swapping our coal power plants for solar techonology and redesigning our cities and suburbs are all easy first steps that when combined with conservation will save us 10 times as much oil (and money) then ANWR would.

So when does AI (American Ingenuity) have a negative effect on national progress? See our esteemed former EPA Chief Gale Norton for a scary look on why AI is keeping people from believing in an energy crisis.

We're glad to see that some moderate republicans helped keep ANWR out of the House budget bill, but their motives for tabling the bill were much different than NRDC's or Sierra Club's. In the end though, its one more roadblock for the Bush Energy Policy. Bush is keeping America from paving the way to a sustainable energy program, one that would lead the world into the new eco-centric future. Instead, he wants us to keep sucking down the oil by drilling in a land untouched by development for enough black gold to last us all of two years.

Oh, and an interesting tidbit regarding our national leaders and ANWR. Checkout where Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) gets most of his money from.

You Can Run...

I'm glad to see the White House Press Corps has begun to find it's backbone. Helen Thomas can breathe a little easier as journalists have rallied to continue putting pressure on President Bush and the questions swirling around his administration's indictments and the CIA leak case. Karl Rove is in the sights of special counsel Patrick Fitzgerald and as the press fires questions to our fearless leader about his senior advisor, the President seems content with aloof replies like, "This is a serious investigation and I have a job to do, an agenda to stick to." Yes, Mr. President, it is a serious investigation, one that involves national security, which is why we're asking you to comment on it.

As Bush travels to Argentina this week for the Fourth Summit of the Americas he's been given anything but a respite from attacks and questions about his job as leader of the free world. Populist Venezulean President Hugo Chavez rallied 25,000 protestors in the region's largest soccer stadium declaring the free trade accord being proposed by Bush as "dead" and accused the Pentagon of having a secret plan to invade his oil-rich country. Well, the first one is probably true, but the second claim...yeah I wouldn't put it past us. If it did happen it would be under the guise of "saving Venezuela" for their own national security.

Polls show Mr. Bush to be the most unpopular American president ever among Latin Americans, and thousands of demonstrators, led by the soccer idol Diego Maradona, are flocking to the Argentine beach resort of Mar del Plata to protest his presence at a summit meeting of Western Hemisphere leaders. The greeting from his fellow heads of state, who have been complaining of his administration's neglect of and indifference to the region for five years, does not promise to be especially warm, either. "He doesn't have any money to offer, so the president doesn't really have any cards to play," said Riordan Roett, director of the Latin American studies program at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "Nobody among the crop of fiscally conservative but socially progressive presidents that we now have around the region is going to go to his defense."

Yikes. Diego Maradona, in case folks didn't know, is a rather large popular figure to this region of the world. That'd be like...oh I don't know...Michael Jordan coming out publicly against President Bush. Add to the mix today's 1,200 protestors marching only blocks from where the President met with Argentinian leader Nestor Kirchener and we've got quite a little riot party going on in South America. Somehow I think the President is going to have to really push to sell his new FTAA (Free Trade Area of the Americas) proposal, espeically if all of South America is questioning it. Mr. President, you can run from all the questions left unanswered by and your cronies...but you can't hide from them.

Gettin' Your Sprawl On

Via kottke, a picture of suburban sprawl in San Ramon, CA. I really hope we're not STILL doing urban planning like we did in 1950. Talk about a step backwards....

Vermont Leads Fuel Efficiency Charge

Finally, the northeast is getting its act together around tougher policies for vehicle emissions. Wednesday the State Legislature approved a rule stating that all 2009 car models sold in Vermont will be subject to strict new state emissions rules. What are those rules? Well, details to come later. Apparently the ruling is looking to target CO2 and make a real dent in the overall pollution that cars and trucks put out. Do we think that long-time Vermont progressives Ben and Jerry played a roll in this? Possibly, but regardless they make great ice cream.

Why is this big? Well, just ask any automaker. The possibility of not being allowed to sell their F-150s and Tundras isn't exactly going over well in the boardrooms of Detroit. The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers ("Driving Innovation" is hardly a fair motto here) sued the state of California a few years ago charging that the "new rules" are unfair to consumers as it will increase the cost of the car, on average, about $3,000. California has been leading the charge and blazing a trail for other states to sign up. Vermont is one of the first to follow in the steps of the Golden State and New York, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Maine and the rest of the liberal nor'easters are close behind (oh wait...except for New Hampshire--you gotta question the intelligence of a state who places liquor stores the size of Wal-Mart on all their major highways to avoid paying high taxes...talk about a "sin tax"). Whats interesting is that the two different sets of rules allowed by the federal clean air act for governing emissions on cars are the California standard and the less-strict, industry-loving federal standard. So goes California, so goes the nation? Maybe...

As a Vermonter I'm slightly proud of my state for leading the country to follow in California's wake, especially with a moderate Republican Governor at the helm. So now, to go along with no billboards on highways, we're working on getting the CO2 out as well. Well done Green Mountain State.

Fuzzy Math 101

Tax breaks are more than just money back in the pocket of a possible "do-gooder" or White House "Friend of the Family." They're about the message. What message is the federal government sending when it gives more credit and higher standard deductions to heavier SUV models than to hybrid passenger cars? A pretty clear one: you can have your cake and eat it too.

The recently enacted Energy Policy Act does exactly this with the help of some ancient mathematical tomfoolery (Bush perfers to call it "magic") that gives more money to those who purchase certain SUV hybrids than to those who purchase passenger vehicles like the Prius and Honda Insight. Albeit, I get the general idea here: save more gallons of gas from being burned and we save less from hitting the atmosphere. From Wired...

The odd math is an artifact of a two-tiered tax credit that's based in part on how fuel efficient the car is compared to the average consumption of vehicles of similar weight, according to Jim Kliesch, a vehicle analyst with ACEEE. For this reason, the Honda Insight receives less credit than the similar performing but heavier Toyota Prius. The fuel savings component is based on the total fuel saved during the expected lifetime of a vehicle, which enables slight improvements to gas-guzzling vehicles to equal that of big improvements in fuel-efficient vehicles. For example, increasing the gas mileage of an SUV from 14 to 16 miles per gallon saves the same amount of gasoline (134 gallons) in a year as boosting the fuel efficiency of a passenger car from 35 to 51 miles per gallon, according to Kliesch.

So, where is the green incentive? We're rewarding people more for buying a less efficient vehicle. If I come home with my . I understand the overall economic reasoning (kind of..even that seems like a stretch) but take a step back and look at why the general tax incentive was created and suddenly this seems like a real failure of being too involved in details. Ballentine's quote is the key to this question: "If the goal is saving oil, then it's not nonsensical."

We want to reward people who buy the most fuel efficient vehicles, not those who simply have the most fuel left in their tank at the end of the day. Afterall, if my tank is bigger than yours (which is the case with SUV gas tanks compared to passenger hybrids) I'll probably save more gas over the life of the vehicle than you ever could with your Prius.

Now, throw into the mix the fact that the tax incentive is manufacturer-specific (yikes...the federal gov't penalizing people for not purchasing from "recommended" brands?) and you've got yourself a thoroughly confusing rebate program, one which I don't have one to sit down to figure out and neither do most Americans.

The amount of the tax credit also depends on when you buy, and from which company, further complicating consumers' purchasing decisions. The tax credit is cut in half for each manufacturer three months after the company sells a total of 60,000 hybrids. For example, if Toyota sells 60,000 Highlander and Prius hybrids by March of 2006, then in July the tax credit is cut in half, and goes down to 25 percent in January of 2007 before ending in June. Capping the tax credit based on volume is biased against Japanese companies Toyota and Honda that were first-to-market, according to ACEEE's Kliesch. "This formula penalizes the companies that have been pursuing (hybrids) most aggressively and allows the laggards (such as Ford and General Motors) to take advantage of it for longer time," he said.

So, not only will the government encourage people to buy less efficient vehicles with a tax incentive program that was designed to reward those who purchase the most efficient vehicles, but it's allowing itself to pick the businesses and corporations for the very people it governs. Can't say I agree with how this falls inline with the classic conservative mantra, "government out of the private sector."

Don't Move to the Gulf Coast

SF Chronicle has a good piece on where we are in the hurricane debate, whether its global warming or just nature kicking our ass every few decades. The good news? If you're on either side of this debate you win. The bad news? No conclusive evidence points to either. However, we do have some rather strident climatologists who would love to give you their opinion, which is what we pay them to do. So listen up, especially if you're planning on taking residence along the Gulf Coast (if you do can I suggest All-State and Geico for everything from your Cheerios to your Chevy, 'cause it'll all be gone when the next Katrina comes blowin' through.)

Right now two theories are coming out of the science community. Scientists that believe the last 15 years of intense hurricane activity is due to annual ocillations within a larger hurricane cycle occupy one side of the ring. On the other, we have those that firmly believe that global warming continues to play a role in "supercharging" these storms into tropical cyclones on steroids. And of course we have those in the middle who refuse to sign on to either theory entirely and are comfortable sitting on the fence with their own data to back them up. One thing everyone seems to agree on? That hurricanes have been slamming the eastern coast of the U.S. for the past 15 years in an unusual display of ferocity, frequency and power.

Here's a key fact that I thought backed up the global warming theory:

"Atlantic waters have been in a warm phase since 1995, and "we can expect to be
in a warm phase for the next 10 to 20 years," said Ryan Boyles, another
hurricane expert at North Carolina State University. "Therefore, we can expect
an above-average number of storms in the next 10 to 20 years."

Well, thats not good news. So it seems everyone also agrees that we'll have more Katrina's and Rita's (and Stans) in the next 2 decades? This cycle, for those that believe this is a natural cycle, one that we've weathered before, will be much longer than previous hurricane cycles or at least ones that were measureable. And if the ocean continues to warm (all theories point to yes thus far) we'll be getting more and more intense storms as well.

Plug it In, Plug it In

When a former CIA director and hawk speaks out on our country's oil addiction and endorses plug-in hybrid vehicles, I tend to sit up and listen. James Woosley, CIA director from 1992-'94, has quite a resume. In 1963 he received his undergraduate degree from Stanford University (With Great Distinction, Phi Beta Kappa) an M.A. from Oxford University where he was a Rhodes Scholar from 1963-'65, and an LL.B from Yale Law School where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal. So...we've established the guy is bright. He's "wicked smaat."

So what's he got to do with plug-in hybrid vehicles? Woosley endorses the PHEVs as "a here-and-now technology to answer the nation's needs." The CS Monitor points to a growing group of diverse individuals, corporations, public utilities, energy companies, non-profit organizations, environmentalists and local governments who are doing more than talking about what to do with the sudden energy crisis: they're pluggin' in.

Hybrids, after going through a quick modification (includes more batteries, a circuit board, a charger and a power cord) are plugged in at night which taps the cheap off-peak energy from power plants and allows the cars to be driven around 50-60 miles without using a drop of gasoline. At that rate, you wouldn't need to fill up but 3 times a year. Hows that for cheap gas?

Some concern from enviros say that using energy from coal power plants to power efficient vehicles is dangerous. I agree. The ultimate setup will be with individuals who have solar panels on their roofs and will be drawing from completely efficient energy source. Granted if you needed to drive 125 miles you'd have to gas up...but how often are we all driving 125 miles at a time?

James Woosley may be enocouraging this move for different reasons (getting us off foreign oil which he argues is what funds terrorism). But isn't that what makes this coming together of diverse groups and individuals that much more exciting? We're arriving at a common agreement of what the end result needs to look like, regardless of "why?" Kudos to Mr. Woosley and his guts in standing up for something not many would in his cadre of suits and shiny cufflinks.

Coffee and a....keyboard?

The Minnesota Daily (U of M's university paper) highlighted a rather unknown topic concerning newspaper production and its effects on forests worldwide. Now, I grew up in a household where The Boston Globe and New York Times were on the table at 6 a.m. (among other daily papers)and there still is that hard-to-explain feeling of holding a crisp daily paper full of today's news in your hands first thing in the morning. However, what if what's in today's news questions the whole idea of where we get that very paper?

Frank Erickson puts forth some startling data of how huge the newspaper production impact is on forests worldwide. America reads over 61 million papers every morning from a variety of 1,580 daily papers. Throw in the beastly Sunday morning dictionary that arrives at doorsteps and storefronts once a week and we're talking staggering amounts of paper; like 300 pounds per person per year. Whats even more shocking is....

Newsprint, which is what newspapers are made of, runs between 70 percent and 100 percent virgin forests. Though more than 60 percent of newsprint is recycled, not much of it again becomes newsprint. Virgin newsprint is much cheaper. A lot of recycled newsprint in the United States goes to China, recycled newsprint is one of the largest exported products in America. Even though we are recycling more, overall we are using more, much more.

Basically, the newsprint we read every day is pretty much from a tree, not from a recycled NY Times from 10 years ago. And, instead of reusing them we send them to China (along with the rest of our economy). So, are we addicted to a newspaper culture? Maybe, because as I was raised, its a key part of so many people's morning. With the advent of online journalism (and its FREE!) why do we continue to strip forested lands for our daily news? We've been reading on paper since the Egyptians discovered papyrus...maybe it's time we figure out a more sustainable format.

It's a Five

Hurricane Rita is officially a category 5. Washington Post reports that over a million people have been evacuated along the Gulf Coast region after 165 mph sustained winds were clocked inside the storm. Forecasters are already saying that Rita could be the most intense storm ever to hit the Texas coastline. And how is our leadership responding? Checkout this gem from Homeland Security Director Chertoff:

"You can't play around with this storm," Chertoff said on ABC's "Good Morning America." He added: "The lesson is that when the storm hits, the best place to be is to be out of the path of the storm."

You don't say. Glad to see leadership is stepping up with such a precise warning. We've already had one Cat-4 storm hit New Orleans and two weeks later a cat-5 storm is bearing down on Texas and all you can say is, "get out of the way?" How about explaining what the hell we're doing to be sure we don't have a second Katrina fallout? Checking out the satellite imagery, you can't say anything but "Wow." The intensity of this hurricane is astounding. Rita could be only the fourth Cat-5 storm ever to make landfall along U.S. coastlines, joining the Florida Keys storm ('35),Camille ('69) and Andrew ('92) in an exclusive but deadly club.

Rita is moving at approximately 5 mph across the Gulf of Mexico. Why does it matter? The warm waters of the Gulf are like steroids for 'canes. The longer time it spends hovering over the warm water the more powerful it becomes. The good news is that wind speed cannot exceed 190 mph. The bad news is, if they do, it would be the strongest storm ever to hit the United States coastline and will have the strength to slam cities hundreds of miles inland as well. The other bad news? Warmer oceans make for incredibly ferocious storms. Why are oceans warming? Climate change and escalation of global warming.

Also, see the loop that Unisys has setup showing the evolution of the storm. If you look carefully, you can already see another tropical depression forming about 500 miles east of the Dominican Republic. 'Tis the season....

UPDATE: And wouldn't you know, crude oil is on the up and up.

Intense Hurricanes and Global Warming? Duh.

The AP is reporting on research to be published Friday stating that the intensity of worldwide hurricanes has increased significantly over the past decade. Scientists at Georgia Institute of Technology say that the number of powerful hurricanes (cat 4 and 5) "rose to an average of 18 per year worldwide since 1990, up from 11 in the 1970s." The report will be published in tomorrow's Science magazine.

Some scientists over at the NOAA question the data saying that measurements taken in the 1970s were not accurate due to a technological difference between today's instruments and those that were used over 25 years ago. Personally, I don't think I need a anemometer to tell me that storm intensity is on the up and up; just look at how fast New Orleans washed out to sea. I've never heard of such destruction from a hurricane, and to think that the 6 of the 10 costliest (in $ not lives lost) hurricanes have occurred in the past 10 years definitely drives the point home: its only getting more intense and if you're living along the Gulf Coast, it might time to trade in your swimsuits for snowsuits and see what Michigan has to offer.

However, if you compare the top 10 strongest hurricanes on record between 1900 and 2004, only 2 (including Katrina) manage to make the list. It seems the most destructive hurricanes in U.S. history aren't necessarily the most intense but are causing the most damage, which begs the question: are we just lucky? What happens when more cat 5 hurricanes acutally stomp all over Miami, Tampa Bay, Orlando, the summer cottages of Hilton Head or Gavelston, TX? The financial damage at that point will be incomprehensible.

So, maybe the data of the past 75 years is not worth considering, since, as Chris Landsea of NOAA says, there just aren't sound results coming from anything pre-1985, due to inaccurate wind measurements and old-school equipment. But that puts us back to focusing on what we do have good data for, the past 15 years. That data isn't any friendlier. Since 1990, the U.S. has dealt with 4 different category 4 and 5 storms. Thats alot of big storms in just a 15 year period. In fact, outside of hurricanes Andrew and Hugo ('92 and '89) the last category 4 or 5 storm was in 1969.

Is the answer in building stronger, more expensive levees? Rebuilding the natural barrier islands that oil and gas companies have decimated could be a great addition to NO hurricane strategy. Checkout the CS Monitor's article on where this rebuilding should start.

Governing Like Billy Joel Drives

I'm not a huge Bill Maher fan but this was probably one of the funnier open letters to the President in the wake of Katrina that I've read yet. Enjoy...

America must recall the president. That's what this country needs. A good, old-fashioned, California-style recall election! Complete with Gary Coleman, porno actresses and action film stars. And just like Schwarzenegger's predecessor here in California, George Bush is now so unpopular, he must defend his jog against...Russell Crowe. Because at this point, I want a leader who will throw a phone at somebody. In fact, let's have only phone throwers. Naomi Campbell can be the vice-president!

Now, I kid, but seriously, Mr. President, this job can't be fun for you anymore. There's no more money to spend. You used up all of that. You can't start another war because you also used up the army. And now, darn the luck, the rest of your term has become the Bush family nightmare: helping poor people.

Yeah, listen to your mom. The cupboard's bare, the credit card's maxed out, and no one is speaking to you: mission accomplished! Now it's time to do what you've always done best: lose interest and walk away. Like you did with your military service. And the oil company. And the baseball team. It's time. Time to move on and try the next fantasy job. How about cowboy or spaceman?!

Now, I know what you're saying. You're saying that there's so many other things that you, as president, could involve yourself in...Please don't. I know, I know, there's a lot left to do. There's a war with Venezuela, and eliminating the sales tax on yachts. Turning the space program over to the church. And Social Security to Fannie Mae. Giving embryos the vote. But, sir, none of that is going to happen now. Why? Because you govern like Billy Joel drives. You've performed so poorly I'm surprised you haven't given yourself a medal. You're a catastrophe that walks like a man.

Herbert Hoover was a shitty president, but even he never conceded an entire metropolis to rising water and snakes.

On your watch, we've lost almost all of our allies, the surplus, four airliners, two Trade Centers, a piece of the Pentagon and the City of New Orleans...Maybe you're just not lucky!

I'm not saying you don't love this country. I'm just wondering how much worse it could be if you were on the other side. So, yes, God does speak to you, and what he's saying is, "Take a hint."

Yeah. I'm not sure anyone could say it better than that. Granted the vehicle of the commentary is comedy but there are some valid points he makes underneath it all.

Deflation Tactics

It seems SUVs are beginning to spread their love all the way to the most romantic city in all the world: Paris. SUV and light-truck sales are sky-rocketing among European Union countries, more than doubling over the past year. Even in countries that normally pay $6.60 per gallon for petrol (prices have hit $7 after Katrina), the idea of driving a H2 Hummer down the Champs Elysees is somehow catching on. Here's the kicker: in France, to fill up your new Humbug it'll only cost you a mere $210. Yeah, you thought your wallet felt a little lighter, imagine what a night out driving around Paris will cost 'ol Pierre. Whats interesting in all this is what this spike in SUV sales is driving European activists to do.

A group called Les Degonfles ("the deflated") has taken to the streets to send a gentle (but firm) message to SUV owners: stop driving your damned gas guzzlers. The method to this madness is rather ingenius. Using a bike pump Les Degonfles are able to deflate the tires of parked SUVs without damaging anything while piling the winshield with fliers, pamphlets and reading material. Apparently, its not (really) breaking any laws.

Meanwhile, as Eurpeans choose to deflate SUVs, over here in the U.S. the nation's most famous environmental group, the Sierra Club, is busy endorsing SUVs. The Mercury Mariner, Ford Motor Company's newest wanna-be hybrid (23 mpg city, 29 hwy) is ready to grace the red, er, green carpet this fall and the Sierra Club is already tipping it's hat. For the record, I find it humorous (maybe sad) that a member-based group like the Sierra Club formally known for being rooted in activism that pushed the cultural and political envelope is suddenly endorsing the worst car company on earth when it comes to overall vehicle emissions. Even GM is better.

I'm glad Ford made a hybrid. Like I said earlier, I'm all for baby-steps. But shouldn't we be aiming to put zero-emission vehicles on the road? We're capable of it, and if consumers weigh in hard enough it can happen. However, often consumers don't weigh-in until it's too late.

The Kayne West Re-Mix

Off the cuff comments tend to hang around and similar to the "Dean Scream" during the Democratic Primaries last year, Kanye West's comments about President Bush on MSNBC's Benefit for New Orleans last week have evolved into a heckuva remix. The remix takes Kanye's words and adds the anger and desperation that many people feel while still trapped in New Orleans and still questioning why it took SO long to get emergency personnel to help one of the poorer communities of America. Some of the best lines:

Hurricane came through f--ked us up, round 'ere,
Government actin' like its bad luck down here,
All I know is that you better bring some trucks round 'ere,
Wonder why I got my middle finger up round here,
People lives on the line you [GWB] decline in their help
Since you takin so much time we survive in ourselves
Just me and my pets, and my kids and my spouse
Trapped in our own house looking for a way out.

Take a listen.

It's also interesting to see how the hip-hop community responded to Kanye's comments. If the hip-hop community starts a wave of activism to remove Bush from office expect it to start with someonen like Kanye saying something like this.

Why is no one throwing around the "I" word? Sleeping around in the White House warrants impeachment, but lying to the American public about the most costly war since Vietnam and failing to deal with a national disaster like Karina doesn't? Something in this country is screwed up. We're too busy straining at gnats while swallowing camels.

Chris Mooney Speaks...

Went to hear Chris Mooney speak last night at Cody's Books in Berkeley. Obviously, a ton of folks turned out to hear his comments on his first book, The Republican War on Science. He's got a full ammo belt with this expose documenting what happens when politics and industry decide to selectively choose what results they want, versus what results are actually true. Give it a read...it'll change the way you listen to political policy when it intersects the world of science.