Articles by JMG

A History Channel production on climate is worthwhile

A coworker lent me an amazing piece of work called A Global Warning? It does an excellent job illustrating the chaotic nature of terrestrial climate and explaining the theories behind some of the most dramatic climate transitions. It's not a perfect movie, but if you won't read With Speed and Violence, it's probably the best thing there is. It gets into both ocean clathrates (methane hydrate crystals) and the melting permafrost (more methane).

Best of all, not a single denialist or confusionist in the whole thing. It simply says "most scientists," cites the IPCC (the only appearance by Gore is him picking up the Nobel), and makes a strong case that while climate may undergo some rapid changes without us, we have our collective finger on the trigger on the climate howitzer. No James Hansen, but lots of Lonnie Thompson (Ohio State), whom people will recall from The Weather Makers and other good books on the climate crisis.

Coal and agrofuels win the subsidy sweepstakes

Via the WSJ energy blog, follow the money:

Since 1999, federal energy subsidies have more than doubled-from $8.2 billion to $16.6 billion in 2007. Who gets the most?

'Renewables' landed $4.8 billion last year, but that includes $3.25 billion for ethanol and other biofuels.

Coal and cleaner-burning "refined" coal took home $3.3 billion, while the nuclear power industry got $1.3 billion.

In all, about 40% of the energy subsidy pie went toward electricity production; the rest for things like alternative fuels and energy conservation.

More here.

If biofuels are sustainable, we should be able to show it

A friend recently sent me a one-page press release from an ethanol lobby group that purported to debunk "myths" of biofuels. Our ensuing discussion helped me clarify why even people who once were excited and optimistic about biofuels (like me) are now so opposed to production subsidies (as opposed to R&D).

My friend asked (paraphrasing), "If not biofuels, then what?" and noted that what we're doing now -- "squeezing oil out of rocks" -- is not exactly good for the planet.

For me, the bottom line is simply this:

Ethanol is no more a renewable fuel than hydrogen is.

Rather, ethanol is a way for us to consume natural gas, diesel oil, and coal (not to mention a huge volume of water and vast acreage of cropland) to make motor fuels. All this is on top of serious problems raised by studies about land diversion for carbon emissions and food availability.

It's important to remember that fossil fuels are biofuels (fuels made from once-living matter), so using that term alone isn't helpful.

Lily Tomlin was right

Wags used to joke that Bush and Co. would put a coal-fired power plant in the Grand Canyon if you let them. As Lily Tomlin observed, "It's hard for cynics to keep up these days."