Sarah Palin has a Twitter account (maybe)—AKGovSarahPalin—and she is determined to create new energy for Alaskans: “Creating New Energy for Alaskans as governor of the 49th state!” Too bad energy can’t be created. However, this might not be Sarah Palin’s Twitter account, since impersonators are common on Twitter. More about Sarah Palin’s apparent Twitter debut can be found at Politics Daily and via akmuckraker.
via Gawker.
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
:: 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) chairman Jon Wellinghoff wants to promote energy efficiency and the use of more renewable energy, and he is rousing controversy with statements like “the United States may never need another nuclear or coal plant.” Personally, I don’t want to see another coal or nuclear power plant constructed, but chairman Wellinghoff’s energy policy has to overcome certain challenges, and a new energy policy for the United States will require both innovation and political will.
Certainly, this change in energy policy will take massive restructuring and new infrastructure in order to use renewable energy such as wind and solar to meet baseload demand (and some energy analysts do not believe this is possible). Baseload demand refers to “the minimum amount of power that a utility or distribution company must make available to its customers, or the amount of power required to meet minimum demands based on reasonable expectations of customer requirements.” Currently, baseload demand is met primarily by coal and nuclear power plants, and it can be supplemented by peakers, which are “small plants that typically run on natural gas or diesel oil and produce between 5 and 50 megawatts (MW) . . . [while] baseload plants produce upwards of 1,000 MW. A MW of electricity is equivalent to the electricity for between 800 and 1,000 homes, depending upon their size.” Consequently, peakers are important because they “can react quickly to changes in demand and provide power to supplement that generated by base load stations.” Some renewable energy enthusiasts believe that “peakers can be replaced by solar power plants.”
In order to integrate more renewable energy into the power grid faster, the U.S. government can look to the European experience with renewables, since Europe has aggressively accepted renewables such as wind and solar. It doesn’t hurt having an open minded and progressive U.S. president either, since President Barack Obama recently announced, “Through the Department of Interior, we are establishing a program to authorize — for the first time — the leasing of federal waters for projects to generate electricity from wind as well as from ocean currents and other renewable sources.”
Another issue that must be overcome is a side effect created by an energy policy that is dominated by energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy—decreasing profits for public utilities, since energy efficiency results in lower energy bills. No doubt passing reasonable costs off to the consumer and changing business plans can alleviate this side effect.
Furthermore, in order to create a more efficient and uniform policy in getting renewable energy to homes, the federal government wants jurisdiction over transmission line siting (currently it’s with the states), but the “Fourth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals [recently] ruled that the 2005 Energy Policy Act does not give FERC the authority to overrule states on transmission line siting.” However, “a new draft bill unveiled by Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee majority staff yesterday would grant states first crack at siting ‘high priority’ national transmission line before allowing federal siting authority.” From The New York Times:
Wellinghoff’s comments last week drew praise from environmentalists but jarred the energy and nuclear industries. He said today that he hasn’t gotten a lot of feedback from industry or from top Obama administration officials about his remarks.
“There’s been a lot of positive comments with respect to the issues of increasing efficiency,” he said. “That’s the key that people seem to respond to.”
He said the biggest challenge to implementing his vision is transmission and “ensuring we have a transmission plan that covers … both the Eastern and Western interconnects.” The country needs to design the system in a way that will allow the delivery of low-cost renewables, such as wind, solar and geothermal, he added.
Not everyone agrees with Wellinghoff’s vision. Jerry Taylor, an energy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, said he first paid attention to Wellinghoff when the chairman outlined his priorities earlier this month.
His belief that renewables like wind, solar and biomass will provide enough energy to meet baseload capacity and future energy demands and that baseload capacity is going to become an anachronism “struck me as crazy,” Taylor said.
. . .
“The idea that half our energy will come from renewable fuels, not new plants … I think is just implausible,” Taylor said. “We hear over-the-top claims and statements about renewable energy on a near-daily basis, so I don’t take his comments particularly seriously. I think they’re part and parcel of rhetorical excess that comes in Washington from all sides.”
—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Currently, there is a debate over whether water wars actually exist or not. Wendy Barnaby argues that water wars do not exist: “Countries do not go to war over water, they solve their water shortages through trade and international agreements, [and] cooperation, in fact, is the dominant response to shared water resources.” And Jack Shafer at Slate writes:
None of my skepticism should imply that I think everybody everywhere has all the clean, cheap water they need. Water, like all resources, is scarce, and I accept that scarcity can cause conflict. But before anyone starts frightening themselves about impending water wars, they might want to consider Barnaby’s observation that in the last five decades there have been no “formal declarations of war over water.”
No doubt, sensationalism in the media has muddied the issue, since I’ve never thought of the phrase “water war” to actually mean “formal declarations of war over water.” I believe it’s more of an umbrella term that includes disputes over water rights, disputes over access to water resources, conflicts over water privatization, water revolts, or a formal declaration of war over water. As a result, the phrase “water-related conflicts” is perhaps more appropriate.
Conflict and war is not formally declared over environmental degradation or water availability, but these themes are surely strong factors in some conflict-ridden regions of the world. This is what I believe some folks like Jeffrey Sachs are arguing—not that wars are officially being declared over water (although it’s not impossible), but certain areas are susceptible to conflict, extremism, and war, because these areas lack an abundance of natural resources, stable economies and trade, dependable infrastructure, educational opportunities, health care, or equal rights—basic necessities that support stable societies. Consequently, there are many factors to consider and certainly environmental degradation and natural resource availability are some of the strongest factors.
Most certainly, water availability or natural resource availability in general is connected to environmental degradation, and a bankrupted human environment results in poverty, disease, and conflict; and these sinister things spread their poison across oceans and political borders like the worst of infectious diseases. From Jeffrey Sachs:
Extremist groups such as the Taliban find ample recruitment possibilities in such impoverished communities. Governments lose their legitimacy when they cannot guarantee their populations’ most basic needs: safe drinking water, staple food crops, and fodder and water for the animal herds on which communities depend for their meagre livelihoods.
Politicians, diplomats and generals in conflict-ridden countries typically treat these crises as they would any other political or military challenge. They mobilize armies, organize political factions, combat warlords or try to grapple with religious extremism.
But these responses overlook the underlying challenge of helping communities meet their urgent needs for water, food and livelihoods. As a result, the United States and Europe often spend billions of dollars to send troops or planes to quell uprisings or target “failed states” but not even a 100th of that amount to address the underlying crises of water scarcity and underdevelopment.
Water problems will not go away by themselves. On the contrary, they will worsen unless we, as a global community, respond.
—
Photo source for attribution. The author or licensor of this image does not endorse my work or me and their image is protected under an attribution license.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
LOL @ the Republican Party.
Someone should explain to Congresswoman Michele Bachmann that although carbon dioxide is “natural,” the anthropogenic release of carbon dioxide trapped within hydrocarbons isn’t a natural process. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, so an increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide impacts the climate. Furthermore, just because something is “natural” that doesn’t mean it can’t be harmful.
Via the Wonk Room
The first video below is a couple of years old, but I’ve just recently discovered it. It shows a turtle that was deformed from being encased within a six-pack plastic ring. The second video is of a snapping turtle (shown in the image) that was affectionately named Mae West. Mae West suffered deformities from being trapped within a plastic ring.
I thought that these videos are excellent to highlight the importance of (1) reducing waste, (2) the utility in recycling (when possible and as much as possible), (3) tossing our trash that can’t be recycled into a garbage bin (or don’t purchase items that can’t be recycled, that contain non-recyclable packaging, or unnecessary packaging), and (4) rethinking how we consume and handle our waste.
See also: Litter is impacting ocean ecosystems and killing wildlife
