Grasslands as Alternative Energy

Alternative energy can be made from grasslands with yields up to 238% higher than using farmed biofuels (e.g. corn). Grasslands are "carbon negative" meaning that, considering the full cycle of growth and burning, they remove carbon dioxide form the atmosphere. Lastly grasslands can be grown on marginal and degraded lands and thus do not need to displace food production.

clipped from www.sciencemag.org Biofuels derived from low-input high-diversity (LIHD) mixtures of native grassland perennials can provide more usable energy, greater greenhouse gas reductions, and less agrichemical pollution per hectare than can corn grain ethanol or soybean biodiesel. High-diversity grasslands had increasingly higher bioenergy yields that were 238% greater than monoculture yields after a decade. LIHD biofuels are carbon negative because net ecosystem carbon dioxide sequestration (4.4 megagram hectare–1 year–1 of carbon dioxide in soil and roots) exceeds fossil carbon dioxide release during biofuel production (0.32 megagram hectare–1 year–1). Moreover, LIHD biofuels can be produced on agriculturally degraded lands and thus need to neither displace food production nor cause loss of biodiversity via habitat destruction.

Dodging a Warming Bullet

Some positive side effects of the Montreal protocol and the banning of CFCs.

clipped from sciencenow.sciencemag.org Double benefit. Earth has experienced far less radiative forcing, or atmospheric warming, thanks to a ban on CFCs, which so far has prevented the release of far more greenhouse gases (green and blue lines) than have the CO2 reduction targets imposed by the Kyoto Protocol (red line). a 20-year-old ban on ozone-depleting chemicals has been extremely effective at curbing greenhouse gases as well. In fact, it has already had more impact than a fully implemented Kyoto Protocol would have accomplished the class of compounds known as chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) traps 5000 to 14,000 times more heat, pound for pound, than carbon dioxide One group, hydrochlorofluorocarbons or HCFCs, is easier on the ozone layer, but its members are also powerful greenhouse gases. A third category, hydrofluorocarbons, are even worse atmospheric heat collectors than CFCs, but because they don't affect ozone, Sarma says, the Kyoto partners must address them.

Video: Fighting Global Warming...

Here is a link to a video on Washingtonpost.com about how to reduce one's carbon footprint.

clipped from www.washingtonpost.com

'Fighting Global Warming One House at a Time'

March 2, 2007

washingtonpost.com Video by: Chesapeake Climate Action Network

Chesapeake Climate Action Network's Mike Tidwell describes how he and his wife save energy by using solar power and heating their home with a corn stove.

The Bush administration's plan to support alternative energy

My take on the clipped article:
A mandated cut in gasoline consumption is a mistake. What should be policy is implementation of a carbon tax. That way, the more fossil carbon you release the more you pay (pay as you go). The income can be earmarked for research/development/ and subsidy of alternative fuels. The higher cost coupled with the reduced out of pocket cost of the alternatives will limit gasoline consumption on its own.

clipped from www.businessweek.com

Karsner's job is to implement the Advanced Energy Initiative, announced by President Bush in his State of the Union address. The proposal calls for both the mandated cut in gasoline use and a 22% increase in clean-energy research to make clean energies competitive with those from fossil fuels. Karsner says his approach is "the opposite of what the legacy has been." He believes that since the 1970s the government has focused only on research and development, and needs to now shift more resources to commercialization and deployment. "It's time for a mass diffusion of new energy and technology into the American economy," he said in a Feb. 21 speech to alternative energy industry leaders and investors in New York. "Free-enterprise capitalism is the most effective route to bring clean energy into the economy."

Climate Change Denier?

From Global warming: the chilling effect on free speech

Whatever the truth about our warming planet, it is clear there is a tidal wave of intolerance in the debate about climate change which is eroding free speech and melting rational debate. There has been no decree from on high or piece of legislation outlawing climate change denial, and indeed there is no need to criminalise it, as the Australian columnist suggests. Because in recent months it has been turned into a taboo, chased out of polite society by a wink and a nod, letters of complaint, newspaper articles continually comparing climate change denial to Holocaust denial. An attitude of ‘You can’t say that!’ now surrounds debates about climate change, which in many ways is more powerful and pernicious than an outright ban. I am not a scientist or an expert on climate change, but I know what I don’t like - and this demonisation of certain words and ideas is an affront to freedom of speech and open, rational debate.

...

For all the talk of simply preserving the facts against climate change deniers, there is increasingly a pernicious moralism and authoritarianism in the attempts to silence certain individuals and groups. This is clear from the use of the term ‘climate change denier’, which, as Charles Jones argued, is an attempt to assign any ‘doubters’ with ‘the same moral repugnance one associates with Holocaust denial’ ...

I have used the term before. I thought it described the people who would ignore evidence, emphasize outlying evidence and deemphasize more common evidence, play rhetorical word games, etc. in order to be critical of anthropogenic climate change fairly well. There was absolutely no connection in my mind between a climate change "denier" and a Holocaust denier. In fact this seems a dubious connection that is more designed itself to extinguish free speech. If ever you are confronted with someone who is obviously in denial you better not mention that fact or you will be accused of trying to associate them with Holocaust denial. What rubbish.

Having said that though I have come to the conclusion that, in terms of the climate change debate, such a term is not helpful. It just sets up tribalistic camps that are not conducive to open discussion. It may be hard to tell by the news coverage of late but there is still plenty of work to do on understanding climate change and the human role in it (this is not to say we should take no action on it). Open debate is the means by which we in open societies address major issues. Sure there are abusers of this open debate, people who point to it and claim that the debate shows we should not take action, that we don't know enough. But we shouldn't let the abuse of a few miscreants stifle open discussion. Science and open society require open debate in order to function properly and the term "climate change denier", fairly or not, has become weighted toward stifling rather than opening debate. I think it should be dropped.