Art Diamond's web log
Source: screen capture from video clip referenced below.
Ben Stein commenting during CBS’s “Sunday Morning” on July 6, 2008, delivered a wonderful tribute to the benefits of air conditioning.
The clip can be viewed at:
http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=4235362n
Source: screen capture from video clip referenced above.
(p. A9) Washington never learns from its mistakes. In “The Worst Hard Time,” Timothy Egan notes how federal price supports encouraged farmers in World War I to plow up millions of acres of dry grasslands and plant wheat. When the price of wheat crashed after the war, the denuded land lay fallow; then it blew away during the droughts of the 1930s, turning a big chunk of America into a Dust Bowl.
For the full commentary, see:
Ernest S. Christian and Gary A. Robbins. “Stupidity and the State.” The Wall Street Journal. (Eastern edition). (Sat., June 7, 2008): A9.
(p. B5) Even natural-gas companies can’t resist the draw of $100 oil. Though prices for both natural gas and oil have risen steeply, oil fetches nearly twice the price of gas per unit of energy and brings fatter profits.
That is prompting even the most natural-gas-focused companies to step up their oil drilling in the U.S. With the biggest, easiest-to-get deposits of domestic crude oil drained long ago, U.S. energy companies in recent years have concentrated most of their domestic production efforts on natural gas. Some companies, such as Chesapeake Energy Corp. and EOG Resources Inc. devoted nearly their entire production to natural gas.
EOG recently announced it had begun drilling for oil in Colorado and Texas, including in the Barnett Shale, a vast hydrocarbon reserve that had previously been known for gas, not oil. With prices rising faster for oil than natural gas, “you’re probably better off searching for oil,” said EOG Chief Executive Mark Papa.
For the full story, see:
BEN CASSELMAN. “Prices Prompt Natural-Gas Firms To Drill for Oil in U.S.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., April 7, 2008): B5.
“Nelson Brooke, the executive director of Black Warrior Riverkeeper, walked along an area of the river near Moundville, Ala.” Source of the caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.
(p. A12) MOUNDVILLE, Ala. — After residents of the Riverbend Farms subdivision noticed that an oily, fetid substance had begun fouling the Black Warrior River, which runs through their backyards, Mark Storey, a retired petroleum plant worker, hopped into his boat to follow it upstream to its source.
It turned out to be an old chemical factory that had been converted into Alabama’s first biodiesel plant, a refinery that intended to turn soybean oil into earth-friendly fuel.
“I’m all for the plant,” Mr. Storey said. “But I was really amazed that a plant like that would produce anything that could get into the river without taking the necessary precautions.”
But the oily sheen on the water returned again and again, and a laboratory analysis of a sample taken in March 2007 revealed that the ribbon of oil and grease being released by the plant — it resembled Italian salad dressing — was 450 times higher than permit levels typically allow, and that it had drifted at least two miles downstream.
The spills, at the Alabama Biodiesel Corporation plant outside this city about 17 miles from Tuscaloosa, are similar to others that have come from biofuel plants in the Midwest. The discharges, which can be hazardous to birds and fish, have many people scratching their heads over the seeming incongruity of pollution from an industry that sells products with the promise of blue skies and clear streams.
. . .
“They’re environmental Jimmy Swaggarts, in my opinion,” said Representative Brian P. Bilbray, Republican of California, who spoke out against the $18 billion energy package recently passed by Congress that provides tax credits for biofuels.
For the full story, see:
BRENDA GOODMAN. “Pollution Is Called a Byproduct of a ‘Clean’ Fuel.” The New York Times (Tues., March 11, 2008): A12.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: At one point, the online version of the article, as quoted above, was very slightly different (and clearer) than the print version.)
“Oil and grease from a biodiesel plant had been released.” Source of the caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.
(p. A11) . . . consider the story of the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Opened in 1975, it was capable of generating over 900 megawatts (MW) of electricity, enough to power upward of 900,000 homes. Fourteen years after powering up, the nuclear reactor shut down, thanks to fierce antinuclear opposition. Eventually, the facility was converted to solar power, and today generates a measly four MW of electricity. After millions of dollars in subsidies and other support, the entire state has less than 250 MW of solar capacity.
. . .
. . . : California now imports lots of energy from neighboring states to make up for having too few power plants. Up to 20% of the state’s power comes from coal-burning plants in Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, Colorado and Montana. Another significant portion comes from large-scale hydropower in Oregon, Washington State and the Hoover Dam near Las Vegas.
“California practices a sort of energy colonialism,” says James Lucier of Capital Alpha Partners, a Washington, D.C.-area investment group. “They leave those states to deal with the resulting pollution.”
. . .
The unreliable power grid is starting to rattle some Silicon Valley heavyweights. Intel CEO Craig Barrett, for instance, vowed in 2001 not to build a chip-making facility in California until power supplies became more reliable. This October, Intel opened a $3 billion factory near Phoenix for mass production of its new 45-nanometer microprocessors. Google has chosen to build the massive server farms that will fuel its expansion anywhere but in California.
For the full commentary, see:
MAX SCHULZ. “California’s Energy Colonialism.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., May 3, 2008): A11.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(p. A31) Most economists oppose the Clinton-McCain gas tax holiday because they can’t see how consumers will benefit. In fact, “most” is an understatement; when challenged to name one economist willing to back her plan, Mrs. Clinton’s response was to disparage the whole profession.
Why are economists so opposed? In the short run, the supply of gasoline is basically fixed; it takes a while to build a new refinery. The demand for gasoline, in contrast, is more responsive to price; we’re already seeing greater use of public transportation and brisk sales of fuel-efficient cars. When you combine fixed supply with flexible demand, it’s suppliers, not demanders, who pocket the tax cut. That’s Econ 101.
. . .
When the public rejects the mundane explanations for high gas prices — big boring facts like rapid Asian growth — politicians aren’t going to correct them. The best we can expect is for Washington to try to channel the public’s misconceptions in relatively harmless directions. We could do a lot worse than the gas tax holiday; in fact, we usually do.
For the full commentary, see:
BRYAN CAPLAN. “The 18-Cent Solution.” The New York Times (Thurs., May 8, 2008): A31.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
The journal Nature (along with the journal Science) is often viewed as one of the two most prestigious journals in science. The NYT article below reports that a recent Nature article forecasts that temperatures in Europe and North America will be cooler over the next decade.
After the portion quoted below, the NYT article goes on to reassure global warming true-believers that a decade of cooling would in no way be evidence against the global warming maintained hypothesis.
(p. A10) After decades of research that sought, and found, evidence of a human influence on the earth’s climate, climatologists are beginning to shift to a new and similarly daunting enterprise: creating decade-long forecasts for climate, just as meteorologists routinely generate weeklong forecasts for weather.
One of the first attempts to look ahead a decade, using computer simulations and measurements of ocean temperatures, predicts a slight cooling of Europe and North America, probably related to shifting currents and patterns in the oceans.
The team that generated the forecast, whose members come from two German ocean and climate research centers, acknowledged that it was a preliminary effort. But in a short paper published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature, they said their modeling method was able to reasonably replicate climate patterns in those regions in recent decades, providing some confidence in their prediction for the next one.
For the full story, see:
ANDREW C. REVKIN. “Scientists Work on Decade-Based Forecast for the Climate.” The New York Times (Thurs., May 1, 2008): A10.
Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.
(p. A4) While the U.S. and others race to expand the use and production of biofuels, two new studies suggest these gasoline alternatives actually will increase carbon-dioxide levels.
A study published in the latest issue of Science finds that corn-based ethanol, a type of biofuel pushed heavily in the U.S., will nearly double the output of greenhouse-gas emissions instead of reducing them by about one-fifth by some estimates. A separate paper in Science concludes that clearing native habitats to grow crops for biofuel generally will lead to more carbon emissions.
The findings are the latest to take aim at biofuels, which have already been blamed for pushing up prices of corn and other food crops, as well as straining water supplies. The Energy Department expects U.S. ethanol production to reach about 7.5 billion gallons this year from 3.9 billion in 2005, encouraged by high prices and government support. The European Union has proposed that 10% of all fuel used in transportation should come from biofuels by 2020.
Some scientists have praised biofuels because growing biofuel feedstock would remove gases that trap the sun’s heat from the air, while gasoline and diesel fuel take carbon from the ground and put it in the air. However, some earlier studies didn’t account for one hard-to-measure factor: the decision by farmers world-wide to convert forest and grasslands to grow feedstock for the new biofuels.
. . .
[One] study’s funding came from the National Science Foundation and the University of Minnesota’s Initiative on Renewable Energy and the Environment, . . . The other paper relied on funding from various indirect sources, including the Hewlett Foundation and the Agriculture Department.
For the full story, see:
GAUTAM NAIK. “Biofuels Hold Potential for Greater Levels of CO2; Land Use for Crops May Cancel Out Benefits of Use.” The Wall Street Journal (Fri., February 8, 2008): A4.
(Note: ellipses added; and bracketed word added.)
(Note: the somewhat different title of the online version was “Biofuels May Hinder Antiglobal-Warming Efforts; Carbon Emissions Could Increase As Land-Use Shifts.”)
A New York Times article spent nine paragraphs on the damage to the Arctic from global warming. At the top of the article is a substantial photo showing shrinking ice around Canada’s Northwest Passage.
Then at the end of the article, there is a tenth paragraph, consisting of the following single sentence:
(p. A6) Sea ice around Antarctica has seen unusual winter expansions recently, and this week is near a record high.
Global warming is an important issue. So in judging the truth and severity of global warming, why is the shrinking of ice in the arctic, worth so much more attention than the expanding of ice in the antarctic?
(In fairness to the NYT, given the overwhelming politically correct pressure to be onboard the global warming bandwagon, especially among NYT readers, one might argue that what made the article notable was not that it lacked objective balance, but that the NYT had the courage to include the final sentence at all.)
For the full story, or at least the part of the full story that the NYT wants to report, see:
ANDREW C. REVKIN. “Scientists Report Severe Retreat of Arctic Ice.” The New York Times (Fri., September 21, 2007): A6.
(p. A19) MOST people view traffic with a mixture of rage and resignation: rage because congestion wastes valuable time, resignation because, well, what can anyone do about it? People have places to go, after all; congestion seems inevitable.
But a surprising amount of traffic isn’t caused by people who are on their way somewhere. Rather, it is caused by those who have already arrived. Streets are clogged, in part, by drivers searching for a place to park.
Several studies have found that cruising for curb parking generates about 30 percent of the traffic in central business districts. In a recent survey conducted by Bruce Schaller in the SoHo district in Manhattan, 28 percent of drivers interviewed while they were stopped at traffic lights said they were searching for curb parking. A similar study conducted by Transportation Alternatives in the Park Slope neighborhood in Brooklyn found that 45 percent of drivers were cruising.
. . .
If cities want to reduce congestion, clean the air, save energy, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve neighborhoods — and do it all quickly — they should charge the right price for curb parking, and spend the resulting revenue to improve local public services.
For the full commentary, see:
Donald Shoup. “Gone Parkin’.” The New York Times (Thurs., March 29, 2007): A19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)