Articals of interest to the coal industry.

Wednesday, February 28, 2007

AlGORE preaches but does not do.

Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth: A $2,439 per month energy bill

Sachin Kalbag

WASHINGTON, DC: He preaches; evidently, he does not practise.

On Sunday, former US vice-president Al Gore won the Oscar for An Inconvenient Truth, a hard-hitting documentary on global warming and its catastrophic effects.On Tuesday, a Tennessee-based conservative think-tank revealed that the world’s foremost campaigner against global warming and carbon emissions spends 20 times the US national average on his monthly energy bill. Tennessee Centre for Policy Research (TCPR), based in Gore’s home town of Nashville, published findings on Tuesday that Gore’s monthly energy bill averaged $2,439 (approximately Rs 1.1 lakh) a month in 2006.In fact, the group said, Gore’s house uses up more power in one month than an average American home does in a whole year. The group said the figures were provided by the Nashville Electric Service (NES). In his defence, an Al Gore spokesperson said that though the figures were correct, the former vice-president invests in enough renewable energy to make up for his home’s energy consumption.Kalee Kreider said that Gore purchases enough green power such as solar, wind and methane gas to offset almost all of his electricity costs. “Sometimes when people don’t like the message, in this case that global warming is real, it’s convenient to attack the messenger,” she said.The TCPR report said, “The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 2,21,000 kWh — more than 20 times the national average.Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh — guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.” TCPR President Drew Johnson said, “As the spokesperson of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use.” The group also called Gore a “hypocrite.” According to NES spokesperson Laurie Parker, however, Gore has been purchasing green power for $432 a month since November. Gore purchases 108 such blocks every month at $4 per block, covering 16,200
© 2005-2007 Diligent Media Corporation Ltd. All rights reserved.

Coal Hard Science

Cold, Hard Science

By Tom PurcellFrontPageMagazine.com February 27, 2007


"I knew it! I knew that humans are the cause of global warming!" "Ah, yes, you refer to a summary report recently released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It concludes that human actions are 'very likely' the cause of global warming." "Very likely? The summary says there's a 90 percent probability that greenhouse gases, a byproduct of the fossil fuels we burn, are causing the Earth to warm." "Look, it is a fact that the Earth is warming. But the exact cause of the warming has not yet been proven. That is the unfortunate truth." "You're a Republican, aren't you?" "Politics should have nothing to do with science. Scientists are supposed to follow the scientific method. They come up with a hypothesis, then apply a rigorous, objective, measurable process to either prove or disprove it." "Your point?" "How is it that there's a 90 percent chance humans are causing global warming? Doesn't that mean there's a 10 percent chance we've got nothing to do with it? Shouldn't scientists be more precise – that humans are causing all global warming or none of it or 28.3756 percent of it?" "But the atmosphere is incredibly complex. I think you're asking a lot." "Maybe I am, but let me ask you a question. A plane is designed and built based on scientific facts and principles. Would you board a plane if it only had a 90 percent probability of arriving at its destination?" "Not sober. But isn't there a consensus among the world's scientists? Many believe that human activity is the cause of global warming." "The key word is 'believe.' Scientists aren't supposed to believe. They're supposed to prove or disprove. As for consensus, Michael Crichton had some interesting thoughts. He says consensus the first refuge of scoundrels. He talked about it in a speech he gave in 2003." "Michael Crichton the novelist?" "Yes. He's also medical doctor and scientist. He said consensus is the business of politics, not science. He said that the great scientific discoveries have never come about by consensus, but by bold scientists who have struck off on their own. When a thing is proven to be a scientific truth, there's no need for consensus. You never hear somebody say 'a consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2.'" "So what are you getting at?" "It is possible that humans are causing the Earth to warm. It's also possible that it's a natural cycle – the Earth is always warming and cooling. It's possible that the increase in greenhouse gases has nothing to do with global warming. A lot of things are possible, but we need our scientists to uncover the facts – not beliefs or speculation or opinion." "That sounds like a heck of a difficult task." "It surely is. Meteorologists have trouble predicting what the weather will be like in 24 hours. I can't imagine how hard it will be to prove what the climate will be like in 100 years, but that is their burden." "You're tough." "The truth is, we all need to get back to the basics. Journalists should hold scientists to account. There is a lot of fiction out there masquerading as fact and we need our journalists to get and report the truth and nothing but the truth." "I suppose you'll criticize our politicians, too?" "To be sure. Some are purposely clouding the issue to raise campaign dough and curry favor with some voters. The press must hold them to account, too." "What about the rest of us?" "Even if it is proven that we're not causing the Earth to warm, we should act anyhow. Why don't we demand technology that allows cars to get 60 miles to the gallon? We're pumping billions of dollars into oil-producing nations that only mean us harm." "That's no good." "And why in a country as ingenious as ours haven't we already switched to cheap, clean alternatives to gasoline, coal and natural gas? Why not nuclear power? Why not cars that run on fuel cells or some other technology that hasn't even been invented yet?" "Beats me." "And why haven't we invented a technology fueled by our most abundant resource – one that could cleanly power our plants and cars?" "What resource would that be?" "Hot air. I doubt we'll ever have a shortage of that."
Click Here to support Frontpagemag.com.

Hillary Clinton wants new coal power plants!

Clinton pushing 'clean' power plants

Business First of Buffalo - 1:08 PM EST Monday, February 26, 2007

by David Bertola
Business First
Sen. Hillary Clinton unveiled details of the Strategic Energy Fund legislation she will introduce to expand incentives and build clean coal power plants such as the NRG Energy Inc. Huntley facility in Tonawanda.
Clinton, D-NY, said the new plant represents a future that is more environmentally-friendly, cleaner and more dependent on energy, and the time is now for the federal government to be involved in the process.
Clinton, who is seeking to become president, referred to the steps taken at Huntley as "smart," and hopes the bill will result in $50 billion being earmarked for research, development and deployment of new, clean energy. Rather than providing tax breaks for big oil companies, they should be made part of the solution, she said, and more incentives for renewable energy should be in place. The price tag is expensive for sequestering carbon, she said, and the time is now for the federal government to step up and lend its support.
"What's happening at NRG Huntley needs to be happening across the country," she said, referring to NRG Huntley receiving a conditional award of a contract from the New York Power Authority to build the plant.
The project represents a total project cost of approximately $1.5 billion and is scheduled to go into commercial operation in 2013.

Monday, February 26, 2007

Rep. Boucher wants to see coal to liqiud fuel

Virginia lawmaker wants U.S. to start using liquid fuel from coal

SUE LINDSEYAssociated Press


ROANOKE, Va. - Rep. Rick Boucher believes liquid fuel derived from coal can help the U.S. break its dependence on foreign oil, and as the new chairman of a House Energy subcommittee he hopes to jump-start the process.
Boucher is renewing legislation he first introduced last year that would provide price guarantees to investors to encourage construction of coal-to-liquids conversion plants.
"The greatest challenge that we face in terms of a national energy policy is defining a strategy to move the country away from petroleum as the primary fuel," the southwest Virginia Democrat said in a telephone interview.
An energy policy that reduces dependence on oil is necessary, he said, "both for economic and national security reasons."
Other nations, such as China and South Africa, use motor fuel derived from coal, but so far there are no coal-to-liquids plants in the U.S. More than a dozen are in the planning stages, according to information provided by Michael Karmis, director of the Virginia Center for Coal and Energy Research at Virginia Tech.
Boucher, whose 9th District includes Virginia's coal region, noted that the nation has the largest coal reserves of any in the world.
The technology to convert coal into diesel fuel or gasoline has existed for decades. The Germans used liquefied coal during World War II after the Allies bombed their oil refineries.
Nearly 30 percent of South Africa's fuel today is extracted from coal, but the conversion process is expensive. It can cost up $1 billion to get a coal-to-liquids plant up and running, Karmis said.
Under Boucher's legislation, the price guarantee for coal-to-liquids operations would be tied to the price of oil. Should the oil price fall below a certain level, probably about $40 a barrel, the government would make a payment to the conversion operations. If the price of oil rose above a certain level, probably $75 a barrel, the plant operators would pay the government.
It's likely that neither the government nor coal-to-liquids operations would make payments, Boucher said, but he believes the measure is needed to instill confidence in investors.
"You need some kind of cushioning," Karmis said, "to try to take some of the risk away."
A study last year by the Southern States Energy Board called for coal-to-liquids to supply the greatest share - 29 percent - of alternative fuels needed to erase the nation's dependence on foreign oil by 2030. Alternative fuels would have to supply 60 percent of the fuel that now comes from imported oil.
A greater amount of fuel could be produced from the high-quality coal mined in Virginia, West Virginia and Kentucky than the mineral found in other parts of the country, Karmis said. So far, the only conversion plant planned in the region is in Mingo County, W.Va.

© 2007 AP Wire and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.kentucky.com

TX fearmongers clouding coal debate.

Commentary: Misleading fearmongers clouding Texas coal debate


Web Posted: 02/25/2007 01:23 PM CST
Michael E. Webber


In the overheated debate about how Texas will generate future electricity, too many parties are playing fast and loose with the truth — and, in the process, spooking citizens. We need to see past these scare tactics to take an objective look at Texas' energy future.
The propaganda is knee-deep. As the Austin American-Statesman reported, dueling forces are "masquerading as activists" with names such as the Texas Clean Sky Coalition (opposes coal, supported by gas companies) and the Clean Coal Technology Foundation of Texas (supports coal, backed by coal companies). Both sides produce slick, official-sounding fact books, Web sites and guides about what we should really be afraid of in Texas.
Taking a page from recent political campaigns, the pro- and anti-coal forces appeal to some of our basest fears. But instead of politicians taking jabs, these are big energy companies. And while some of them are addicted to oil, coal and gas, they are not addicted to telling the truth.
TXU tried to influence the debate with a 5-inch thick "Fact Book" sent to every state legislator (the biggest waste of paper since the screenplay to "Waterworld") chock-full of false or misleading claims, such as "97 percent of natural gas is from overseas — largely controlled by governments not aligned with U.S. interests." The truth is we import less than 16 percent of our natural gas from overseas, almost all from Canada, hardly a country hostile to the U.S.
TXU's "Fact Book" further claims that competition has caused retail electricity prices in Texas to decrease substantially in 2006. But a Wall Street Journal article on Oct. 27 pointed out that "many Texans are paying 15 cents to 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, about double the national average of eight cents." And now it's reported that TXU is about to ratchet up the rhetoric with its marketing campaign called "Monsters," where monsters in our closets ravage our kids presumably because they don't have enough power to keep the lights on.
The anti-coal groups aren't any better. They raise the specter of doom with intimations that arsenic, lead or radiation will be sprinkled on our food, friends and family, even though these are not toxins highly associated with coal. They stage rallies to fake a grass-roots bearing. Their gripping photos of smudged children were reportedly shot in a Southern California studio, inviting the obvious conclusion that makeup — not coal dust — was the source of the dour faces.
The way out of this mess is to remember, first, that power plants can last 50 years or more and, second, that conservation can be effective immediately to take the edge off of peak power demand. In a matter of months in 2001, California reduced peak power demand by 5 gigawatts without cramping lifestyle or hurting the economy. Texas can implement a similar program, buying ourselves time and avoiding a bad decision that we might regret for decades to come.
That isn't to say coal is the wrong decision for Texas, just that we need to compare it objectively with all the energy options.
The dirty truth is that every power choice — wind, gas, nuclear or coal — has some negative impact in terms of land, air, water, climate or cost. We need more understanding of those trade-offs, and then we can arrive at the right answer together.
Michael Webber is associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy in the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
webber -->
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA022607.02O.coalcomment0226.90b625.html

TX fearmongers clouding coal debate.

Commentary: Misleading fearmongers clouding Texas coal debate


Web Posted: 02/25/2007 01:23 PM CST
Michael E. Webber


In the overheated debate about how Texas will generate future electricity, too many parties are playing fast and loose with the truth — and, in the process, spooking citizens. We need to see past these scare tactics to take an objective look at Texas' energy future.
The propaganda is knee-deep. As the Austin American-Statesman reported, dueling forces are "masquerading as activists" with names such as the Texas Clean Sky Coalition (opposes coal, supported by gas companies) and the Clean Coal Technology Foundation of Texas (supports coal, backed by coal companies). Both sides produce slick, official-sounding fact books, Web sites and guides about what we should really be afraid of in Texas.
Taking a page from recent political campaigns, the pro- and anti-coal forces appeal to some of our basest fears. But instead of politicians taking jabs, these are big energy companies. And while some of them are addicted to oil, coal and gas, they are not addicted to telling the truth.
TXU tried to influence the debate with a 5-inch thick "Fact Book" sent to every state legislator (the biggest waste of paper since the screenplay to "Waterworld") chock-full of false or misleading claims, such as "97 percent of natural gas is from overseas — largely controlled by governments not aligned with U.S. interests." The truth is we import less than 16 percent of our natural gas from overseas, almost all from Canada, hardly a country hostile to the U.S.
TXU's "Fact Book" further claims that competition has caused retail electricity prices in Texas to decrease substantially in 2006. But a Wall Street Journal article on Oct. 27 pointed out that "many Texans are paying 15 cents to 19 cents per kilowatt-hour, about double the national average of eight cents." And now it's reported that TXU is about to ratchet up the rhetoric with its marketing campaign called "Monsters," where monsters in our closets ravage our kids presumably because they don't have enough power to keep the lights on.
The anti-coal groups aren't any better. They raise the specter of doom with intimations that arsenic, lead or radiation will be sprinkled on our food, friends and family, even though these are not toxins highly associated with coal. They stage rallies to fake a grass-roots bearing. Their gripping photos of smudged children were reportedly shot in a Southern California studio, inviting the obvious conclusion that makeup — not coal dust — was the source of the dour faces.
The way out of this mess is to remember, first, that power plants can last 50 years or more and, second, that conservation can be effective immediately to take the edge off of peak power demand. In a matter of months in 2001, California reduced peak power demand by 5 gigawatts without cramping lifestyle or hurting the economy. Texas can implement a similar program, buying ourselves time and avoiding a bad decision that we might regret for decades to come.
That isn't to say coal is the wrong decision for Texas, just that we need to compare it objectively with all the energy options.
The dirty truth is that every power choice — wind, gas, nuclear or coal — has some negative impact in terms of land, air, water, climate or cost. We need more understanding of those trade-offs, and then we can arrive at the right answer together.
Michael Webber is associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy in the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas at Austin.
webber -->
Online at: http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/stories/MYSA022607.02O.coalcomment0226.90b625.html

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Rolling Black Outs in Southern California by 2009

By LESLIE BERKMANThe Press-Enterprise
A plan to discourage new power plants in Southern California's most polluted communities could lead to rolling blackouts in Riverside, city officials said.
Story continues below

The South Coast Air Quality Management District plans could curtail city plans to build two "peaker" plants that could be used during critical times like summer heat waves when electricity consumption exceeds other available sources.
Without the additional power, "we are going to have rolling blackouts in 2009 or 2010," said David H. Wright, Riverside's public utilities general manager.
The AQMD is considering new rules that could prohibit such plants in the Riverside-San Bernardino area or force utilities and private power developers to pay more to build new ones in the region, under a pollution credit program.
The district, which regulates pollution sources in Los Angeles and Orange counties and parts of Riverside and San Bernardino counties, is struggling to bring the region into compliance with state and federal clean air laws while allowing construction of much-needed power plants in the region.
"We are walking a tightrope," said Chino Mayor Dennis Yates, a member of the air district board and chairman of its stationary source committee. "I don't have the answer, and nobody on our committee has the answer."
In September, the air district agreed to sell pollution-mitigation credits to power plant developers to enable them to build in the four-county region. Pollution credits are created when industries shut down or clean up, resulting in emissions reductions. They can sell those credits to other companies to offset their pollution. However, such credits are scarce in Southern California.
At the urging of utilities, which were unable to find sufficient credits for sale on the open market, the air district decided to temporarily allow power plant developers to buy credits from a reserve of credits that otherwise could be used only for essential public services.
State agencies with responsibility to avert the rolling blackouts like those in the 2001 statewide energy crisis have been pushing for more power plants in Southern California.
But the ability of the district to use the reserve pollution credits has been thrown into limbo by a lawsuit filed by the Natural Resources Defense Council and other environmental groups. The suit alleges that the district's action didn't adequately consider environmental consequences and violated the California Environmental Quality Act.
Air district spokesman Sam Atwood said the agency likely will postpone a hearing scheduled for next week on the proposed power-plant rules after a judge on Wednesday rejected the district's motion to dismiss the lawsuit.
Power plants are prime sources for fine-particle pollution, which has been linked to an array of illnesses. Because Southern California's particulate pollution is the worst in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, the agency wants to limit power plants that produce it particularly in those areas.

Still, Wright said he believes it would be unfair for the air quality district to impose different mitigation costs from zone to zone. The pollution from areas to the west of Riverside are responsible for much of the city's deteriorated air quality.
"It is like the victims are being punished here," Wright said. "Our understanding of the science is the particulate matter levels in Riverside are there from the generation of particulate matter that blows from the west each afternoon."
Yates, Riverside lawyer Jane Carney and Riverside Mayor Ron Loveridge, also air district board members, said Riverside and San Bernardino counties bear responsibility for the region's air pollution because of the Inland region's explosive growth in population and industry.
"The argument that it isn't them polluting is kind of weak," Yates said.
Loveridge said he supports the city's quest to build small power plants that will be used occasionally. But he said he would oppose building major generating plants in Riverside or any other highly polluted community. He also said he accepts the idea of charging more for mitigation credits to build generation plants in Riverside as long as the money is spent to alleviate pollution nearby.
The air district board, prompted by community objections to power plant development, has been trying to devise a way to discourage power plant developers from building in areas where air pollution is already concentrated.
The agency's staff has proposed six alternatives. All of them divide the region into three zones based on concentrations of fine-particle pollution, considered the most serious pollutant produced by power plants. Fine particles can penetrate deep into the lungs and have been linked to increased mortality and reduction in lung capacity.
Zone three, which includes public utilities in Riverside, Colton, Corona, Moreno Valley and Banning has the worst fine-particle pollution in the entire air district. A private company has an application pending for a new power plant in Grand Terrace.
One proposal would virtually prohibit any new gas-fired power plants in zone three by making AQMD pollution credits unavailable. Another would charge twice as much for the credits in zone three than in the least polluted zone.
At stake is whether Riverside will be able to build 96 megawatts of additional power capacity. Wright said a new plant must be built within the city because transmission lines that bring electricity from elsewhere are at full capacity. A new substation that would solve the problem won't be finished for another five to seven years.
The city's first priority is to get the two peaker plants built, Wright said. If necessary, he said, the city would agree to pay a premium. He figured Riverside might have to pay $10 million for pollution credits needed for the $100 million project. That would add 15 to 20 cents a month to the average residential bill in the city, he said.
Riverside is proposing an alternative option that would require power plant developers throughout the basin to pay equal sums for pollution credits at twice the amount already authorized, Wright said.
Colton officials, who are considering building a peaker plant, support Riverside's plan, Colton Electric Utility manager Jeannette Olko said.
The air district staff said the money raised from pollution-credit sales would help pay for clean energy and other measures to reduce pollution wherever the new plants are built in Southern California.
Reach Leslie Berkman at 951-893-2111 or lberkman@PE.com

Friday, February 23, 2007

Greenhouse gas drop, what will ALGORE do now?

Draft EPA report shows drop in greenhouse
gas growth amid economic boom


A draft report released this week by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
shows overall emissions of greenhouse gasses (GHG) in 2005 grew by less than 1 percent
compared with 2004 emissions. The report also documents an overall emissions increase
of 16 percent between 1990 and 2005, during which time America’s economy grew by 55
percent.
These findings were contained in a draft version of a report entitled Inventory of
U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2005, released by EPA on Feb. 20,
which the agency will accept public comments on for 30 days. EPA is likely to issue
a final version of the report in April.
Specifically, the draft report found that emissions of GHG in 2005 were 0.8 percent

higher than the previous year, down from the 1.4 percent increase
recorded in 2004. Overall, 2005 emissions of the six greenhouse
gasses catalogued were equivalent to 7.262 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide. The study tracked emissions of carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons
and sulfur hexafluoride. The draft study tracks a 2.1 percent
drop in nitrogen oxide emissions from stationar y fossil fuel
sources and a 0.2 percent drop in sulfur dioxide emissions from
these sources.
The draft report notes that 11 percent of 2005 GHG emissions
were offset by carbon sequestration in forests, agricultural soils
and other sources.
The draft report is a catalogue of emissions that the agency
is required to produce and submit under the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC). In a Feb.
20 press release, EPA said it will submit a final inventory report
to the UNFCC secretariat in order to fulfill an annual reporting
requirement.
A copy of the draft report is available at: http://epa.gov/
climatechange/emissions/usinventoryreport07.html.

Tuesday, February 13, 2007

Gore may be nuts?

President of Czech Republic Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' -

Questions Gore's Sanity


ETCzech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•A: ...I am right...•Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.
Developing...

Flowers and climate change

Valentine bouquets 'are bad for the planet'By Nicole Martin

The Valentine's Day bouquet —
the gift that every woman in Britain will be waiting for next week — has become the latest bête noire among environmental campaigners.
Latest Government figures show that the flowers that make up the average bunch have flown 33,800 miles to reach Britain.
In the past three years, the amount of flowers imported from the Netherlands has fallen by 47 per cent to 94,000 tons, while those from Africa have risen 39 per cent to 17,000 tons.
Environmentalists warned that "flower miles" could have serious implications on climate change in terms of carbon dioxide emissions from aeroplanes.
Andrew Sims, the policy director of the New Economics Foundation, said: "There are plenty of flowers that grow in Britain in the winter and don't need to be hothoused.
"Air freighting flowers half way round the world contributes to global warming.
"You can argue the planes would be flying anyway but the amount of greenhouse gases pumped out depends on the weight of the cargo."
Vicky Hird, of Friends of the Earth, said: "We don't want to be killjoys because receiving flowers can be lovely but why not grow your own gift?"
The figures also revealed that imports of roses from Ethiopia have grown from zero to 130 tons a year since 2003.
Kenya is the second biggest exporter of flowers after the Netherlands, followed by Colombia and Spain.
In total, Britain imports more than £315 million of flowers, with the typical Briton spending £39 a year on them.
"That's very little when you think what we spend on CDs, coffee and even lipstick," said a spokesman for the Flowers and Plants Association.
He said the boom in Third World flowers would help poorer countries to build schools and boost the economy.

Sunday, February 11, 2007

Coal-fired debate heats up in Texas

By Eileen O'Grady

HOUSTON, Feb 9 (Reuters) - Opposition is growing to TXU Corp.'s $10 billion plan to build new coal-fired power plants in Texas as lawmakers and regulators consider measures in the next few weeks that will determine whether the projects can move forward.
Environmental groups have been joined by elected officials and business leaders arguing that TXU's plan to build 11 new coal plants will drastically increase emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury and carbon dioxide, worsening the state's air quality and contributing to global warming.
A public rally to oppose plans by TXU and other developers is set for Sunday on the steps of the state capitol in Austin. Both sides have bought newspaper and TV ads to sway public opinion.
"No one wants all these coal plants the way they have been sprung on Texans," said Jackson Williams, executive director of Texas Clean Sky Coalition, the latest business-based coalition to oppose new coal plants.
The battle pits powerful mayors in Houston and Dallas against Texas Gov. Rick Perry who supports coal development. It pits Texas cities that welcome jobs and taxes the plants will create against communities that want more coal plants only if they use a technology, called gasification, to cut pollution.
Dallas-based TXU said new plants will add generation to keep pace with the state's growing appetite for power in a cost-effective way that uses the best anti-pollution technology available.
Critics say TXU is using old coal technology and only wants to boost profits while adding more pollution to the Texas sky in hopes of beating the deadline for future laws to restrict coal-plant emissions.
"The company will more than double its emissions of carbon dioxide, the primary man-made greenhouse gas, from 55 million tons a year to 133 million tons a year," said Jim Marson, regional director of Environmental Defense in Austin.

OPPOSITION EXCEEDS TXU'S EXPECTATIONS
The showdown begins later this month on two fronts. A regulatory hearing will be held for permits that would allow TXU to build six coal plants. Legislators are meeting to consider a coal moratorium and proposals that would limit power-plant ownership or tighten the air-permit process.
Donna Hoffman, a spokeswoman for the Sierra Club in Texas, said rally organizers hope to convince legislators to endorse a six-month moratorium on coal permits.
A moratorium would derail the governor's effort to expedite Texas' air-permit process. In 2005, as electricity prices soared after two hurricanes disrupted U.S. natural gas production, Perry issued an order to spur coal construction to reduce Texas' reliance on expensive gas.
Opposition to its plan has exceeded TXU's expectations, said spokeswoman Kim Morgan.
"We feel we have put together a strong, positive program for the state to lower prices, supply much-needed power and better air quality," Morgan said.
TXU critics are skeptical of TXU's pledge to cut overall emissions by 20 percent by cleaning up its older coal plants with additional pollution controls.
The only concession made by TXU has been to agree to build some new plants so that equipment can be added to capture carbon emissions in the future.
Investors are watching the growing opposition.
"We had the impression when this was announced that people were a lot more concerned about the high and rising price of electricity in Texas," said Tim O'Brien, a principal with Crow Point Partners, which advises the Boston-based Evergreen Utility and Telecommunications mutual fund which owns TXU shares.

AlertNet news is provided by Reuters AlertNet

Fed regulators now say four days of breathable air needed to meet new regs.

Coal mines must provide 4 days of emergency air under new law

Princeton Daily Clarion, Gibson Countys Newspaper

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - Underground coal mines must provide up to four days of breathable air to keep miners alive in emergencies such as an explosion or a tunnel collapse, federal regulators announced Thursday.
The requirement is part of a new law enacted after a string of deadly accidents, including the deaths of 12 miners at the Sago Mine in January 2006. If miners cannot evacuate in an emergency, “they need a safe location that maintains an adequate supply of breathable air for them to use while they await rescue,” said Richard Stickler, director of the Mine Safety and Health Administration.
Mine operators have 30 days to submit plans to the agency, which has been criticized by the United Mine Workers labor union and members of Congress for not implementing the law quickly enough after it took effect in June.
A National Mining Association spokesman declined to comment.
Bill Raney, president of the West Virginia Coal Association, said he was concerned the rule would disrupt similar efforts by the state.
The state Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training is in the process of approving underground shelters that can provide 48 hours of air. Mine operators have until mid-April to submit plans for installing the shelters.
In the Sago accident, one miner was killed in an explosion and 12 others were unable to escape. Eleven died of carbon monoxide poisoning and only one, Randal McCloy Jr., was rescued after more than 40 hours trapped underground.
A company trying to get a mine shelter approved in West Virginia said it supported the 96-hour rule from the beginning.
Ed Roscioli, chief executive of Allentown, Pa.-based ChemBio Shelter Inc., said he wants to give rescuers plenty of time so they don't risk their own lives out of fear that trapped miners have only a few hours of air.

Saturday, February 10, 2007

Warming predates modern industry

College of Wooster speaker: Global warming predates modern industry


Photo By Chris Kick photo William Ruddiman (center), professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and author of the award-winning book “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate,” answers questions from students at The College of Wooster about how agriculture changed the climate. Ruddiman was the first speaker in The College’s “Global Climate Change” symposium, which runs through May.
By CHRIS KICK
Staff Writer
WOOSTER -- There's more to global warming than automobile emissions, factory smokestacks, aerosol cans and other industrial innovations of the last couple hundred years, according to William Ruddiman, professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Ruddiman on Wednesday presented "Farmers First Altered Climate Thousands of Years Ago" to a full audience inside the Lean Lecture Room at The College of Wooster. He explained it was not the industrial, but rather early farming practices, that first altered the climate and essentially led to the concept of global warming.
"If you came to a scientist, any scientist in my field four or five years ago and (asked) when did humans start to interfere with climate, the answer would come back to it was about 1800 ... That was the conventional wisdom," he said.
But Ruddiman argued the process of change began much earlier, thousands of years earlier, with agricultural practices such as irrigation and deforestation. He reviewed with his audience diagrams of two greenhouse gasses linked to climate change, methane and carbon dioxide, and showed how gaps in their patterns correspond to periods of heavy irrigation and deforestation.
Ruddiman explained methane gas is created from swampy areas like wetlands, where water and vegetation are prevalent and methane gas bubbles out. He showed a trend of methane decreasing until about 5,000 years ago, when it instead turned and began climbing. The reason, according to Ruddiman, was the rise of irrigation, in which Chinese farmers began heavy irrigation of their rice paddies, creating human-made wetlands and thereby more methane.
"An irrigated rice paddy is a wetland," he said. "It's a human-made wetland, not a natural wetland."
As for carbon dioxide, he said some 8,000 years ago, the levels reversed from a downward direction and began climbing, which he attributed to heavy deforestation, based on the logic trees sequester and utilize carbon dioxide.
He addressed large deforestation efforts of the past several thousand years, including a survey during William the Conqueror's era that indicated 90 percent of England had been deforested.
He said deforestation continues today, in places like the Amazon, but emphasized the extreme nature of historical deforestation and the recent efforts of reforestation, which have improved modern forest conditions.
Part of his information is based on core samples of ice that date back almost a million years, he said, in which tiny pockets bubbles of dated air can be analyzed for their methane and carbon dioxide content.
His research focuses on cycles over the past 10,000 years and beyond, and anomalies of those cycles.
"If you have cycles, you have predictability, you have a reason for knowing what should be happening at any period of time," he said.
Ruddiman recognized the effect the industrial period (past 200 years) has had on climate change and said today farming probably affects the climate very little compared to industry, but still emphasized the early influence of agriculture in climate changes.
Had the climate not been altered, he figured we would be experiencing another glaciation (ice age).
"Basically, we're overdue for a glaciation," he said. "If nature had stayed in control we'd be in one right now."
He explained how periods of plagues and war also have shown changes in greenhouse gasses, corresponding to changes in human population. During a question-and-answer session, Ruddiman was asked whether society would have to "kill off half the world" to lower its greenhouse gas level, since the levels apparently decrease with population.
He admitted to being a cynic about the forecast of global warming, but did not endorse killing anyone and instead expressed optimism new technology could find a way to combat the greenhouse gasses, such as microbes that can eat carbon dioxide and omit something other than greenhouse gasses.
Another answer might be engineering an optimal climate for earth, he explained, by tuning earth's climate to an internationally acceptable level. While it may sound like science fiction, it's something he said already is "coming into our capability" and expects to be a major issue over the next decade.
"If we keep going the way that we're going, we're going to make climate roughly as much warmer 200 years from now as the last ice age was colder," he said. "It's as big a deal as the ice age in reverse, and that's absolutely mainstream science."
Asked about the future of climate change and what people can do, he explained it's serious, but said most probably won't change their ways.
"I think we're going to live with a big part of the warming ..." he said. "We just don't have the will to give up our comforts."
Ruddiman is the author of the award-winning book "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans took Control of Climate," which won the 2006 Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. It's a book explaining human impact on climate, which several in the college's geology department have read.
Jessica Hark, a senior geology major, said there's much talk about whether global warming is something that even exists, but said after listening to Ruddiman, the argument for it is valid.
"Just listening to some of the work that he's done, you could definitely say, you could make the argument that yes, it's valid," she said.
She said the presentation was interesting and valuable, and said his book is very accessible to most readers.
"Anybody could understand it, even if you haven't really been studying geology or science," she said.
Greg Wiles, professor of geology at The College of Wooster and coordinator of Wednesday's presentation, said he also has read Ruddiman's book and said his point of human impact on climate is important.
"I think the main thing is that humans do impact the environment," Wiles said.
Ruddiman's presentation was part of a symposium called "Global Climate Change" and will continue Feb. 20 at 7 p.m. in McGaw Chapel with "Possibilities in Problems: The Good Side of Global Warming," presented by Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. Admission is free and open to the public.
Reporter Chris Kick can be reached at (330) 287-1635 or e-mail ckick@the-daily-record.com.


Letter to editor;
Posted by Loren Eberly 3 hours ago
One needs not be a rocket scientist; to understand; that trees use the oxygen contained in rainwater; to replace oxygen; used to burn fossil fuels; and replace hydrogen in the soil; veggies need to grow. We the stupid, defiant of demands; Of natural law (what Mother Nature, God, or Whatever Power decreed to be the reality of the real world); God, democracy, capitalism, the US Constitution, and free, fair, and affordable commerce; deceived in Sunday schools, public schools, private schools, home schools, colleges, and universities government; of the people, by the people, for the people; successfully; elect legislators and representatives; that support; cementing, blacktopping, and roofing green space; so rainwater cant percolate through soil into aquifer; supporting Nazi stockholders (money marketers); marketing more stock dividends (money); quarterly; in the wholesale and retail price of American automobiles; to honor; American soldiers on Normandy beach. This support for the demise of Natural Law, God, democracy, capitalism, the US Constitution, and free, fair, and affordable commerce: Makes free, fair, and affordable commerce IMPOSSIBLE; Makes balancing every budget IMPOSSIBLE; Makes union workers, consumers, taxpayers, and Americas grandchildrens children LIFE UNAFFORDABLE; and created the $8.5 trillion debt. Americas grandchildrens children are responsible to pay interest with until they are 18 years old. Then pay the debt with the $5.15 per hour labor wage; We the stupid, defiant of demands; Of natural law (what Mother Nature, God, or Whatever Power decreed to be the reality of the real world); God, democracy, capitalism, the US Constitution, and free, fair, and affordable commerce; deceived in Sunday schools, public schools, private schools, home schools, colleges, and universities government; of the people, by the people, for the people; elected legislators and representatives to enact. There is no reason to believe Americas grandchildrens children that go to bed hungry can pay this debt in a hundred million years.

Global warming predates modern industry

The-Daily-Record.com
College of Wooster speaker: Global warming predates modern industry
15 hours ago
By CHRIS KICK
Staff Writer
WOOSTER -- There's more to global warming than automobile emissions, factory smokestacks, aerosol cans and other industrial innovations of the last couple hundred years, according to William Ruddiman, professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia.
Ruddiman on Wednesday presented "Farmers First Altered Climate Thousands of Years Ago" to a full audience inside the Lean Lecture Room at The College of Wooster. He explained it was not the industrial, but rather early farming practices, that first altered the climate and essentially led to the concept of global warming.
"If you came to a scientist, any scientist in my field four or five years ago and (asked) when did humans start to interfere with climate, the answer would come back to it was about 1800 ... That was the conventional wisdom," he said.
But Ruddiman argued the process of change began much earlier, thousands of years earlier, with agricultural practices such as irrigation and deforestation. He reviewed with his audience diagrams of two greenhouse gasses linked to climate change, methane and carbon dioxide, and showed how gaps in their patterns correspond to periods of heavy irrigation and deforestation.
Ruddiman explained methane gas is created from swampy areas like wetlands, where water and vegetation are prevalent and methane gas bubbles out. He showed a trend of methane decreasing until about 5,000 years ago, when it instead turned and began climbing. The reason, according to Ruddiman, was the rise of irrigation, in which Chinese farmers began heavy irrigation of their rice paddies, creating human-made wetlands and thereby more methane.
"An irrigated rice paddy is a wetland," he said. "It's a human-made wetland, not a natural wetland."
As for carbon dioxide, he said some 8,000 years ago, the levels reversed from a downward direction and began climbing, which he attributed to heavy deforestation, based on the logic trees sequester and utilize carbon dioxide.
He addressed large deforestation efforts of the past several thousand years, including a survey during William the Conqueror's era that indicated 90 percent of England had been deforested.
He said deforestation continues today, in places like the Amazon, but emphasized the extreme nature of historical deforestation and the recent efforts of reforestation, which have improved modern forest conditions.
Part of his information is based on core samples of ice that date back almost a million years, he said, in which tiny pockets bubbles of dated air can be analyzed for their methane and carbon dioxide content.
His research focuses on cycles over the past 10,000 years and beyond, and anomalies of those cycles.
"If you have cycles, you have predictability, you have a reason for knowing what should be happening at any period of time," he said.
Ruddiman recognized the effect the industrial period (past 200 years) has had on climate change and said today farming probably affects the climate very little compared to industry, but still emphasized the early influence of agriculture in climate changes.
Had the climate not been altered, he figured we would be experiencing another glaciation (ice age).
"Basically, we're overdue for a glaciation," he said. "If nature had stayed in control we'd be in one right now."
He explained how periods of plagues and war also have shown changes in greenhouse gasses, corresponding to changes in human population. During a question-and-answer session, Ruddiman was asked whether society would have to "kill off half the world" to lower its greenhouse gas level, since the levels apparently decrease with population.
He admitted to being a cynic about the forecast of global warming, but did not endorse killing anyone and instead expressed optimism new technology could find a way to combat the greenhouse gasses, such as microbes that can eat carbon dioxide and omit something other than greenhouse gasses.
Another answer might be engineering an optimal climate for earth, he explained, by tuning earth's climate to an internationally acceptable level. While it may sound like science fiction, it's something he said already is "coming into our capability" and expects to be a major issue over the next decade.
"If we keep going the way that we're going, we're going to make climate roughly as much warmer 200 years from now as the last ice age was colder," he said. "It's as big a deal as the ice age in reverse, and that's absolutely mainstream science."
Asked about the future of climate change and what people can do, he explained it's serious, but said most probably won't change their ways.
"I think we're going to live with a big part of the warming ..." he said. "We just don't have the will to give up our comforts."
Ruddiman is the author of the award-winning book "Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum: How Humans took Control of Climate," which won the 2006 Phi Beta Kappa Award in Science. It's a book explaining human impact on climate, which several in the college's geology department have read.
Jessica Hark, a senior geology major, said there's much talk about whether global warming is something that even exists, but said after listening to Ruddiman, the argument for it is valid.
"Just listening to some of the work that he's done, you could definitely say, you could make the argument that yes, it's valid," she said.
She said the presentation was interesting and valuable, and said his book is very accessible to most readers.
"Anybody could understand it, even if you haven't really been studying geology or science," she said.
Greg Wiles, professor of geology at The College of Wooster and coordinator of Wednesday's presentation, said he also has read Ruddiman's book and said his point of human impact on climate is important.
"I think the main thing is that humans do impact the environment," Wiles said.
Ruddiman's presentation was part of a symposium called "Global Climate Change" and will continue Feb. 20 at 7 p.m. in McGaw Chapel with "Possibilities in Problems: The Good Side of Global Warming," presented by Richard Alley, Evan Pugh Professor of Geosciences at Pennsylvania State University. Admission is free and open to the public.

Reporter Chris Kick can be reached at (330) 287-1635 or e-mail ckick@the-daily-record.com.

Stronger mine seals needed says gov scientist

Government calls for stronger mine seals

CHARLESTON, W.Va. Government scientists are calling for stronger seals on underground mines.A report from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health says methane gas explosions could generate nearly 13 times more destructive force than the current federal standard for seals.
Government regulators have been grappling with questions about seals since 12 miners died in a January 2006 explosion at the Sago Mine in West Virginia. Officials say a lightning strike sparked methane gas in a sealed-off section of the mine. The blast shattered alternative seals made of lighter material than traditional concrete block and prompted the federal mine safety agency to increase the standard for seals in July.
But the new standard may have to be significantly revised if NIOSH is correct.
Almost 14-thousand underground seals across the country are built to the old standard.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Air packs and the free market forces.

Posted on Sat, Feb. 10, 2007
Coal mine air pack makers struggle to meet ordersNew safety rules beginning to take effect

Associated Press
--
MONROEVILLE, Pa. -- At first glance, everything seems to be going well for CSE Corp.
Sales of the emergency air packs CSE pioneered for coal mining are up more than fourfold. And the small, family-owned operation that used to produce about 1,000 air packs a month has orders for 55,000, enough to prompt a small-scale expansion.
But company president Scott Shearer is getting pressure from the federal Mine Safety and Health Administration and even members of Congress. They want to know why CSE and other air pack manufacturers haven't delivered more products in the wake of state and federal legislation that requires thousands of new devices in underground mines.
Congress and coal-mining states such as Kentucky, Illinois and New Mexico pushed to increase emergency air packs following the deaths last year of 19 miners in West Virginia and Kentucky in accidents where air supplies came into question.
"The whole thing has certainly been a huge burden on the whole organization," said Shearer during a recent tour of his suburban Pittsburgh plant.
CSE isn't the only company that produces emergency air packs, but before last year's string of mine fatalities it had about 65 percent of the U.S. market and had made inroads in Australia and South Africa. The other major manufacturers are Prairie, Wis.-based Ocenco Corp. and Draeger Safety in Pittsburgh.
Pat Droppleman, president of No. 2 manufacturer Ocenco Corp., was unavailable for comment. However, the company recently told the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health, Safety and Training that it has a 10-month backlog.
Draeger Safety has 8,500 of its air packs ready to ship, but few if any buyers.
"We had product built and brought in and waiting for the marketplace," said Kent Armstrong, Draeger's national sales manager. Armstrong acknowledges that large mining companies chose Ocenco or CSE years ago and are loath to change, which has made cracking the market hard for Draeger. The company, one of the oldest and biggest in mine and fire safety gear, has made air packs for decades, but hasn't amassed a significant share of the coal mining business.
"The major players have selected," Armstrong says.
Air packs are designed to help miners breathe for one hour. The number of devices to be carried by miners and stored underground vary by state and federal law. The goal is to give miners enough air packs to switch to a new device every 30 minutes as they attempt to escape along designated routes.
There are no national figures that show how many of the estimated 100,000 air packs ordered over the past year have made it into the nation's underground mines. But numbers gathered by West Virginia regulators suggest few have been delivered.
West Virginia has more underground coal production than any other state and the latest accounting shows state operators have ordered more than 39,000 air packs and have 14,615 on hand. The figure includes thousands of air packs in use before 2006.
Kentucky has the most underground coal mines in the nation, but hasn't put any pressure on the air pack makers to meet a July 1 air pack deadline.

© 2007 Belleville News-Democrat and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.http://www.belleville.com