Blatant Reality

HR Biopetroleum has hired Ed Shonsey to help commercialize alternative fuels like algae-based biodiesel. More on this here:
-

(Link)

The Astronomical Society of Australia has issued a warning about global COOLING within the next decade. Read more about it at the link below.
-

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3709

I’m going on my annual float trip with some friends so I will be out of town until Wednesday. I wll try to post something daily but that depends on whether or not AT&T has signal at the campsite. Hope everyone has a good week and I might post something while we are on our way there.

People always tend to look at the down side of Global Warming (be it man made or natural), but there are some benefits to it as well. Now, before I start going into what all the benefits are, I would like to preface it with saying that too much of anything is a bad thing. Therefore, there will come a point where too much warming will stop creating benefits and create more problems. With that being said, I don’t believe we are at that point where the world is too warm.

Also, I believe the warming we may be experiencing now is due to a natural variability (yes, I am a “skeptic”) and any of the drastic measures proposed in treaties like Kyoto or legislation like the Lieberman/Warner Act will not do anything to stop global warming.

Another thing to note is that I am by no means a climate scientist and the following is somewhat an amalgamation of several other scientists/economists/researchers ideas. Since even the best climate models have no idea exactly what the future will bring, some of the benefits listed below might not pan out but the flip side to that is there may be some unexpected benefits that we have not yet predicted.

Now, on to the list. Keep in mind the above paragraphs along with the fact that some of these benefits are only benefits if we act upon them.

1. Overall, Fewer Deaths Caused by Cold: Most people would agree that if the earth is warming, then the average temperature will be higher. This increase in temperature will lead to less deaths from cold related complications. Now before you get all up in arms saying that there will be more deaths caused by heat, you must understand that cold related deaths greatly outnumber heat related deaths each year.

    

   In Bjorn Lomborg’s book “Cool it,” he argues that an increase in temperature by just 3.6 degrees F would increase heat related deaths in Britain by about two thousand but decrease cold related deaths by twenty-thousand. Thats good news when you consider that for the 2005/2006 winter, 25,700 people died in cold related deaths which is much more than the predicted 6,000 heat related deaths in the coming years.

2. More Water Overall: If the world does warm by 3.6 degrees F, the average precipitation worldwide will increase by 7%. Now Gore would have you believe that this water is going towards places where we really don’t need water that much and away from areas that do need the precipitation. However, Lomborg would make the point that a warming world will have even less people that are water stressed. Here is a map that shows the water availability of most the world.

    

   Lomborg states that without global warming, people living in water stressed regions will increase to 3 billion (by 2100) but with global warming, the number will be at 1.7 billion, 300 million lower than today. With fresh water becoming one of the major issues in the world, this definitely sounds like a benefit.

3. Warmer Winters: When looking at the trend for when the warming is happening, one will find that the good majority of the warming is occurring during the winter. Not only will this lead to less deaths as stated above, it will also potentially lead to longer growing seasons. This of course is on the whole a good thing with increased food production being one of the benefits.

    

   However, one must take into account that this past winter was one of the coldest and most snow field winters we have had in a while so we might not be able to count on “warmer winters” in the future.

4. More CO2 = Better Growing Seasons: Another thing that people miss is the fact that more CO2 in the air will contribute to more plant life (Photosynthesis 101). Now some people tend to think that we are the reason for the increase CO2 (which we are to an extent) but there are other factors involved too. A warmer world also releases more CO2 into the atmosphere because the oceans (one of the main sources of CO2) won’t be able to hold as much dissolved CO2 in them (Chemistry 101).

    

   Already we are beginning to see this with the world becoming greener than in the past. According to Fred Singer and Dennis Avery in the book “Unstoppable Global Warming,” wheat production alone could increase by 70% with an increase of 100ppm of CO2.

    

   And while I am on this topic of CO2, there is no such thing as CO2 “pollution.” The CO2 that comes out of your car is exactly the same that we, along with (almost) every other creature on this planet, exhale. Its chemically identical. So if your car is polluting by emitting CO2, so is Al Gore and all the other greens by just breathing. “Anthropological” CO2 and “natural” CO2 are the exact same molecule.

5. Warmer Temps = More arable land: Another things that is often cited is that we will lose a lot of arable land do to global warming. What people don’t take into account is that we will also gain a lot more land to cultivate. This is good news for the folks living in the colder regions. For example Greenland is now able to support cattle for the first time in hundreds of years and it is largely contributed to global warming.

    

   If you look on a map, you will notice that there is a lot of land in the north that is fairly uninhabitable and almost completely useless in growing crops. This land in Canada and Russia will greatly benefit from a warmer climate.

Now do these benefits outweigh the negative impacts of a warming world? In my mind they do. A warmer world seems to offer more chances of opportunity which may help the world benefit as a overall. Will there be changes we will have to deal with? Sure, but the world isn’t static (never has been and never will be) so change is something that we will never be able to get rid of.

Overall, if our world does warm by a couple of degrees, there will be changes. However, one mustn’t only think about the gloom and doom aspects because there are benefits as well. Now will these benefits truly outweigh the negatives? Only time will tell but I believe that the ingenuity of man will be able to make the best out of any situation nature may deal to us.

The weekend is here and it is time to relax. This next picture is from the beautiful US Virgin Islands. This particular pic is of Megan’s Bay on the island of St. Thomas.

Megan’s Bay, St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands

Corn ethanol is once again being linked to as a contributor of rising food prices and it seems that things will only get worse. This year, because of flooding and other factors, the corn harvest expected to be drastically smaller than last year. When you add this to the fact that the government has mandated a 9 billion gallon corn-based Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), the demand for corn is going to far outstrip the supply. This will end up contributing to the increase of prices of all corn-based products, including food.

“A lot depends on how badly this weather has devastated the corn crop,” said Thomas Elam, an agricultural economist at Indiana University who was commissioned by the Balanced Food and Fuel Coalition to release a study on the matter. “A smaller crop will be devastating to meat, dairy, and poultry producers if the Renewable Fuels Standard is maintained, and consumers will suffer as food and fuel costs rise.”

 

About 5% of the world’s corn supply goes to producing bio fuels – representing a whopping three years of growth in typical crop production, according to Elam.

 

“Corn will have to go to at least $8 a bushel to squeeze out enough food use to keep up with corn for ethanol,” he said. “Food prices will be significantly impacted by corn if RFS goes to 10.5 billion gallons for 2009.”

 

How significantly? Collins said food costs could rise 23% to 35% above the normal annual inflation rate of 2.5% over the next two to three years if the RFS mandates are not reduced. Elam said food price inflation rate could go as high as 7% without a mandate reduction.

“Collins” is the US Department of Agriculture chief economist just to let you know. How should we fix this? Well the article states that just a simple 50% reduction in the RFS would bring the bushel price of corn to $2. Sadly, this probably won’t happen.

I sure hope everyone is beginning to see that using a food crop for fuel is never a good idea, no matter how well intentioned or fool-proof it looks on paper.

For more of my thoughts on Corn Ethanol, check out this article I wrote on the subject a couple weeks back.

Yea, a new intelligence report is stating that global warming could possibly be a threat to our national security by destabilizing countries and making them more susceptible to extremism. Take a look:

Global warming is likely to have a series of destabilizing effects around the world, causing humanitarian crises as well as surges in ethnic violence and illegal immigration, according to a U.S. intelligence assessment debated Wednesday.

 

“Logic suggests the conditions exacerbated [by climate change] would increase the pool of potential recruits for terrorism,” said Tom Fingar, deputy director of national intelligence, who testified Wednesday before a joint hearing of two House committees.

 

Climate change alone would not topple governments, but it could worsen problems such as poverty, disease, migration and hunger that could destabilize already vulnerable areas, Mr. Fingar said.

 

But he warned that efforts to reduce global warming by changing energy policies “may affect U.S. national security interests even more than the physical impacts of climate change itself.

 

“The operative word there is ‘may.’ We don’t know,” he said.

I’m glad that they admit that they do not know the future because otherwise I would definitely want to know who will win the coming election so I can plan accordingly.

Anyways, the problem with this report (or it might just be the article since the actual intelligence report is still classified) is that it assumes that fixing global warming would help stabilize these regions. The fact is that we could help these countries more and at a cheaper cost by giving them direct humanitarian aid to help with the affects climate change (not man-made of course). This is what Bjorn Lomborg basically proposes in his newest book “Cool It.”

One of these days I will get around to writing a nice long article describing how outrageously expensive and economically inefficient trying to combat climate change is but today is not the day.

As you might have already noticed, I am going in a somewhat new direction with the website by mainly focusing on Environmental, Energy, and Global Warming issues because I feel these topics will have great significance in the coming years. However, there will be times like this were I just can’t help but post an article about another topic.

This really just makes my blood boil to even think that some of these liberals who have been hooting and hollering for the past year that the surge isn’t working to finally admit that it has worked and that it was there idea the whole time. I refuse to even publish the outright lies that these liberals are saying on my blog but you can read all about it with commentary here.

I will republish this part of the commentary that highlights Obama’s foresight into the whole Surge situation.

And yet the Democrats whined, “We need more troops” in mantra like fashion, meaning not that the surge would be a success but that the additional “surge” troops in Iraq would be insignificant. Barack Obama’s comment at the time captured the prevailing lefty sentiment rather well: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

 

Wow! What judgment!

Global Warming has struck again, this time blessing the Costa Rican highlands with the ability to grow coffee in higher altitudes.

In Costa Rica, the temperature increases may help transform mountainous land that was once too chilly for delicate coffee trees into prime coffee-planting territory.

 

The strictly hard-bean Arabica coffee sought by specialty roasters is only found at high altitudes, so the shift could mean more opportunities for a country already known for its quality coffee.

 

“We can now plant at 2,000 meters (6,562 feet). We didn’t plant there before,” said Daniel Urena, an agronomist for the Coopedota coffee cooperative, which sells its high-altitude coffee to buyers such as Starbucks Corp.

 

Urena said the cooperative’s coffee plants traditionally have not survived above 1,800 meters (5,906 feet).

Of course the article had to add some gloom and doom aspects like “unusual cold snaps” which has me scratching my head (If we are actually experiencing global warming, shouldn’t there be less “unusual cold snaps”?). The article goes on to say that many farms in Africa and Brazil will be hurt by a warming world, but does hint on the fact that a lot of the “problems” can be mitigated by simply educating farmers on better agricultural methods.

Anyways, it was nice to see that the media is beginning to acknowledge that rising global temperatures do have some benefits (which I think outweigh the negative impacts)

Obama seems to be in a little conundrum about whether or not to support ethanol subsidies. Better yet, he still hasn’t decided who these subsidies help: the nation which he wants to represent or corn-growing Illinois (my emphasis).

Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”

 

It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.