Mysteries of Methane Leak in Florida and Not-So-Clean Fossil Fuels

There’s a BIG NatGas leak (Methane) in Florida. The source of which is not being owned up to. There’s no oil/gas drilling in the area. And, until about a year ago, most such leaks might go totally unnoticed. Read the Bloomberg article No One is Owning Up to Releasing Cloud of Methane in Florida.

Oil Flaring at Night in North America (Bakken)

First Methane. The largest component of natural gas (NatGas) is methane (EIA). Various oil formations of fossil fuels are oil, mostly gas, or a combination. Even in coal formations there is methane, which has made coal mining especially dangerous for explosions and fires.

When you see the flame stacks burning above oil wells and refineries, this is natural gas being flared off. Flaring is far preferred then just releasing it, venting, because methane is a wicked greenhouse gas (GHG) at 82 times the global warming capacity as CO2 in the first 20 years (about 30 times as potent over 100 years).

Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess - WSJ

Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess - WSJ:

Bjorn Lomborg may have been best know for his massive tomb of a book entitled The Skeptical Environmentalist. Lomborg (2007) in The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World "may be the best source for reviewing the facts about quality of life, global
warming, and the optimal approaches for addressing the issues." (Hall, Taylor, Zapalski, & Hall, 2009, p. 5)

Apparently he has since gone off to consult for oil & gas interest. That's not all bad, but it does mean that he may not be unbiased as seemed to be the case during his Skeptical days.

Bjorn talks about, essentially, the bang for the buck ($US, in this case). The current Obama plan doesn't do much to move the global warming needle, especially given the costs. On the one hand, Obama will say that we have to start somewhere. In this case, and in several others, Bjorn simply says that this won't do much good. A smart guy like that should suggest better alternatives.

We, at SBPlan, argue that there are two monster places to start. AND neither requires the special help of government, really. Both are energy efficiency (EE) focused. Two EE business models that SBP especially likes are related to telecommuting using remote work centers and a pay-forward model
of promoting energy efficiency in all buildings – residential, commercial and
government. Since both of these initiatives save money, they offer a special win-win-win of sustainability (Employees, Employers and Environment, in this case).

I'm a little disappointing that Bjorn has been simply complaining about the expense and the likely lack of success from various government initiatives, not offering up his own recommendations. It's easy to complain and stop progress, but I give no respect to someone who does not offer up better alternatives. In the case of our non-sustainable practices of energy, the olde business as usual (BAU) model is a failed business model; it is only a matter of time for this living beyond our means model of existence will come crashing down.

Bjorn offers up more research, presumably to make renewables more affordable. And touts the Fracking-NatGas revolutions as a massive windfall for reducing our pollution and greenhouse gases away from coal. NatGas is both good and bad; it shifts us away from really dirty energy associated with coal. Yeah!:-) But it reduced the costs and availability of all oil, gas and coal such that we may have tagged on another 50 years worth of fossil fuels to global economies before we really start to run low(er) and basic economics starts to really solves our addiction to fossil fuels. 

If you read Bjorn's Skeptical Environmentalist, you will find that he totally believes that there is global warming and that man is a big (?major?) contributor. When you read this book you will agree, even before including the 10 record hot years since he published in 2007. What he does say, forcefully then, and now, is that we need to focus on the efforts that will result the move benefits. Huge government spending on reducing CO2, especially in developing countries, may have little, none, or even negative results. 

Bjorn ended up in a big tiff over the 2007 book Skeptical Environmentalist. If it was an opinion piece then it would be okay to take the liberties that he did with interpreting the results; but as a scientific book, he had gone way to far. The  Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD) in Bjorn's home country, charged him with academic dishonesty in the book. This ruling went against Bjorn. On appeal the charge of scientific dishonesty was sent back for a do-over, where it stalled out.

Bjorg's follow Skeptical Environmentalist book(s) have titles that start with "Cool it!", concentrating on what to do that will likely have the most (short-term) benefits. 

Bjorg, don't just complain in op-eds about Obama and the other 200 countries who signed the Paris greenhouse deal this April (agreed to in Dec 2015). The average person reading this op-ed would think that we all should do nothing and wait for Bill Gates Foundation to find a cure. Give people real suggestions for actions. Or, are you simply trying to sell your books and consulting?

References

Hall, E., Taylor, S., Zapalski, C., & Hall, T.
(2009). Sustainability in education: Green in the facilities, but not in the
classrooms. Proceedings of the Society for Advancement of Management,
USA.

Lomborg, Bjorn. (2007). The skeptical environmentalist: Measuring the real state of the world. NY:
Cambridge University Press.

'via Blog this'

Skeptical Science on a Skeptical Scientist: Patrick Moore on climate change

Is there really a debate as to whether humans are contributing to Global Warming?

This will take you some time, so if you are looking for a couple quick sound-bites, skip this entire post, and absolutely, skip the videos.

Dr. Patrick Moore was recently pointed out to me as a qualified scientist and a active skeptic of Global Warming. Read about Moore on Wikipedia. He was an active founder of Greenpeace, but left the greenie organization when they become too radical. He thinks that Greenpeace has moved toward more social and anti-capitalistic agendas, not so much the protection of the environment that Greenpeace was founded on.

Now he is very skeptical of many things, especially the man-made contribution to global warming.

Moore has become a PR guy for some of the most criticized companies and industries by environmental groups. Working, and consulting for 'the enemy' is not at all a bad thing. Being in the economic engine side of energy production, metals, etc., can give people detailed insight into complete solutions to major issues. But this does not seem to be how Moore functions; his interviews and books seem to actually be an extension of his job as a PR guy. See the criticism at the end of his Wikipedia page.

(Wiki note: The Wikipedia entry seem mature, with about 700 edits, 21 over the last 30 days and the most recent edit today. No editorial complaints. Note that there are no articles outside links to this page, so Moore does not seem to be the indisputable expert he might lead us to believe.)

There are many interviews of Moore that seem rational and reasonable enough on the surface: Hannity Feb 2014, and Fox Business Network with Stuart Varney pushing his book, Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout. But, don't watch these videos unless you are willing to go look that the scientific breakdown of what Moore has to say. Point by point, issue by issue.

This is a blog by John Mason (2012, Aug 25).
Unpicking a Gish-Gallop: former Greenpeace figure Patrick Moore on climate change:

Mason takes on the details of an interview in which Moore lavishes on facts, figures, assumptions and conclusions. And Mason breaks it down point-by-point with the best facts that exist today. Mason gives some of the best, and most factual, address of the issues associated with "Global Warming" and those who would say their "ain't no such thing". And he did it all without "sensationalist scare tactics".

When you are done, ask yourself: Who was the most shrill and panic? Who presented the facts with the most facts? Who's probabilities are most probable, give the facts?

This SustainZine blog does not devote much time to the debate over "Global Warming". Life's too short. There is global warming. Moore and Mason agree on this. Humans contribute to global warming. Moore says only a little; Mason (and the IPCC scientists) say humans contribute a lot to global warming. One of the last skeptical climate scientist Richard Muller, said that there was global warming and that humans are a major cause. Blogs here. Muller's research was funded by the Koch brothers.

This blog, however, focuses on Sustainability. Sustainability is good. Activities and business models that are non-sustainable are broken models. (Hah, you thought I was going to say "Bad".). A steady move toward 100% sustainability is not only a good plan, it is a sane plan. (Hah, you thought I was going to use the words "insane not to do so...".)

So let's get past this foolish debate and have real people and real companies start making real progress toward sustainability. If businesses and communities and individuals take long enough to get started on serious efforts to become sustainable, then governments will (start to) take charge.

What probably scares people more than Global Warming itself, actually, is that Governments far and wide will jump into the mix to "fix" things.

We especially like efforts that will save money, save time, save resources and reduce our impact on the environment. Usually, we "don't need no government" for that. (Actually that, not entirely true, but subject of another story.)

Responsible vs. Irresponsible.
You choose?

'via Blog this'

Next generation of biofuels is still years away | Hattiesburg American | hattiesburgamerican.com

Next generation of biofuels is still years away | Hattiesburg American | hattiesburgamerican.com:

Biofuel is a byline in the energy mix.

So biofuel is mandated. And because it is ordered to be true, it must be.

And because it is ordered to be true, the mandate must meet the expectations.

Thus is the problem with government subsidies... Burning food for fuel (corn to ethanol) is still a rather dumb idea, even though it is finally getting efficient enough that there is a small net gain gallon-equivalent per gallon of ethanol.

What would work perfectly well, from an economics point of view, is to raise taxes on non-renewable sources of fuel and energy. A simple carbon tax would do it. It could be progressive over time.

Then the more accurate costs of non-renewables would allow for the energy economy to shift and make its on path forward. The types of renewable fuel would decide themselves and the government would be out of the picture setting mandates in less-than-smart -- some might say foolish -- areas.

Of course the politicians who set the wheels in process for a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade (tax?) will soon find themselves out to pasture shoveling biowaste.

'via Blog this'

Better BTU Blog: Global Climate Change Summit Brings Questions of America’s Role in Reversing Carbon Trends

Better BTU Blog: Global Climate Change Summit Brings Questions of America’s Role in Reversing Carbon Trends:

Great article on the point that no government is leading on sustainability, at least in terms of those countries that count, namely the US, China and maybe India.

It is amazing and surprising that conservation and energy efficiency (EE) efforts don't move forward even without any government assistance or encouragement. A kilowatt or gallon never used is one that never had to be produced, distributed, and consumed. At least up to a point, the costs associated with EE can be very small with a ROI in months, not years. Then those efficiency savings can be realized for years to come... (And oh, by the way, it helps out the environment as well, now and in the future.)

Of course we can do some of this stuff later today or tomorrow. The low-lying fruit would be so easy to start picking at.

Getting started with or without government help (involvement) seems to be the first order of business. Savings this year that will be realized each year thereafter...

... This is a (Christmas) gift that keeps on giving...

Keywords: Better BTU, carbon emissions, China, Doha, economics, emissions, gasification, global warming, Green Climate Fund, greenhouse gases, PricewaterhouseCoopers, renewable energy, technology, United Nations, World Bank

'via Blog this'