The Good, the Bad, and the Butt Ugly!

Distributed Solar in Germany

The last few weeks have been an interesting mix of both good and bad news when it comes to issues like energy and global warming. Being fundamentally an optimist at heart, I think I will start with the good news which begins in Germany. Germany has long been a leader in the use of solar energy despite the fact that they are not exactly a hotbed of solar saturation. As the cost of solar energy continues to plummet their investment in solar energy is starting to pay major dividends. Last week they hit a huge milestone when the measured output of their solar systems peaked at 22 gigawatts of electricity which was more than half of all the electricity used in the entire country that day.
Think about it. One of the most heavily industrialized countries in the world got half of all their daily electricity from solar energy. That means they paid half as many millions to some oil sheik who hates them, they cut their contribution to global warming by half, they reduced air pollution by half, they needed half as many oil tankers to feed their fuel addiction and they kept twice as many of their hard-earned marks at home instead of having to buy energy from a foreign country. It's genuinely a big deal!

In the United States, which gets 1% of its electricity from solar energy, the use of solar is still treated as an afterthought by most energy brokers. But it doesn't have to be that way! The U.S. has far more solar resources than Germany. We could easily be producing twice as much solar energy as Germany does.  Instead of beating up a growing industry because one company failed (Solyndra) while hundreds of companies succeeded, we could be providing the same kinds of incentives that helped Germany have such incredible success. We could renew the federal solar and wind incentives. We could be opening up federal lands for solar and wind farms instead of turning them over to oil and gas companies to destroy with their fracking and oil spills.

Having a significant solar infrastructure has given Germany options and advantages which other countries do not have.  When the Fukishima disaster brought to people's attention the incredible risks involved in nuclear energy the leaders of Germany were able to immediately put in place a plan to phase out all of its nuclear plants. In fact, the 22 gigawatts of solar capacity Germany now has is equal to about 20 nuclear reactors.  Japan, which had to close its nuclear plants following the political upheaval following Fukishima, is going to struggle much more than Germany with closing its plants.  They do not have the renewable energy infrastructure to fall back upon and our paying through the nose to suddenly import even greater amounts of coal, natural gas and fuel oil to handle short-term electricity demand.  This is something the U.S. should keep in mind as we begin looking at all of our aging nuclear plants. 

So much for the good. Now for a milestone of a different kind.  Measurements of greenhouse gasses in the arctic this spring have now been found to show carbon dioxide levels well above 400 parts per million.  This is up from 390 parts per million just a few years ago. Not only is the total accumulation of carbon dioxide increasing but the rate at which we are putting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing, not getting better.

How do we know this.  We know this by measuring ice samples.  Carbon dioxide levels in the arctic are trapped in ice and scientists have been carefully measuring them for many years.  Based on their research we now know that levels of carbon dioxide this high have not been seen for over 800,000 years.  The data clearly shows that global warming is not a short term cyclic phenomenon but a direct consequence of our polluting our atmsophere with carbon dioxide.

Fortunately, the people of North Carolina need not worry about pesky problems like global warming.  The North Carolina Republican-controlled legislature is taking care of that problem.  You see, the state's Coastal Management Commission was trying to (gasp) actually do some management and planning and was recommending adjustments in how the North Carolina coastline should be managed in the future based on sea rises caused by global warming. The current scientific data was telling them that they should be managing coastal properties based upon estimates of a 4 to 6 foot rise in sea levels by 2100 or possibly even higher. The data was absolutely clear that the rate at which sea levels are rising is accelerating due to global warming. 

However, the North Carolina legislature, rather than admit that global warming is real is now ciriculating a bill mandating that the agency must, in its reports, "not include scenarios of accelerated rates of sea-level rise."  In short, it is mandating that the facts be ignored, truly butt ugly behavior if ever I have seen it.  I have to admit that behaviors like this that make me wonder if mankind actually deserves to survive.  When we are so afraid of the truth that we would rather mandate ignorance than face it, then we are almost certainly on the path to our destruction.  Oh, well, maybe tomorrow will be a better news day.  Like I said, I am an optimist at heart!

California Renewable Energy Targets are Working

California has one of the most aggressive renewable energy targets of any state in the U.S. The type of standard California uses is called a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). What this means is that all investor owned utility companies, such as PG&E or SMUD, must get a certain percentage of their electricity from a renewable energy provider. That source could be a privately held 3rd party energy company such as a hydro-electric plant, solar farm or wind farm operator. It could also come from solar or wind farms that are owned directly by the utility.

In 2011 California passed Senate Bill 2 (SB-2) which raised the portfolio standard from 20% renewables to 33% by 2020. This move was seen as exceedingly ambitious by many renewable energy critics and was quickly discounted as just a political ploy. However, what these critics failed to grasp is that RPS standards actually work! This week PG&E, California's biggest investor-owned utility announced that it is making significant progress towards meeting this demanding target. PG&E stated that for 2011 it had generated more than 19.4% of its energy from completely renewable energy sources including wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and small hydro-electric sources. Furthermore, PG&E says that it is completely on track to hit the 33% RPS target by 2020.

Since 2002 PG&E has signed more than 110 contract for energy from renewable energy contractors. That's about 10,000 Megawatts of energy! Moreover, PG&E has been able to do this without having to increase the price it pays for energy. Many citizens do not realize that in 2012 modern renewable energy power plants such as wind farms and solar farms are completely cost competitive with polluting fossil-fuel sources such as coal and natural gas when a long-term contract is used. That's because the cost of renewable energy sources are already low and going down, and fossil-fuel and nuclear sources are steadily going up in cost. PG&E has done the math and has seen how much solar and wind sources have come down in cost. For them renewable energy is a win-win. They get the positive public image of supporting non-polluting renewable energy and they completely avoid the risk of price spikes because they have locked in the price with a long-term RE contract. Most fossil-fuel providers won't sign long-term contracts because they know fossil-fuel prices will inevitably increase in the future as supplies begin to dwindle or as speculation drives up the cost (as we are seeing right now with Iran).

The progress California is making towards its RPS goals is incredibly good news. Think about it! The country's largest, most energy hungry state will be getting one third or more of its energy from renewable energy in less than 8 years. This would be an enormous step forward for California and would clearly give it a huge economic advantage over competing states. In terms of GDP California is the fifth largest economy in the world. If California can do this, nearly any other country in the world could do this to. And that, my friend, is the whole point! Renewable energy is real, its big, and its working now, not just in some distant future.

The great success states like California and Colorado have had in using aggressive RPS standards leads to the obvious question of why not have a national RPS, not just a state-by-state standard. National level RPS standards have worked wonderfully for countries in Europe so why not in the United States. This week Senator Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat from New Mexico introduced the Clean Energy Standard Act of 2012, a bill that would try to set nationwide standards for large retail utilities. Unfortunately, the bill does not limit sources to truly renewable energy sources, but includes coal with carbon capture and nuclear power.

We think the idea of having a national RPS is a good one but it needs to be limited to truly renewable sources, not just less polluting sources. Nonetheless, it is a start and it will be interesting to see how it fares in Congress. At least it will get the discussion started and hopefully in a few years our entire country can begin chasing and achieving a national RPS target. Let's go for it!!

Fukushima USA

When I'm not busy being an environmental activist and an unrepentant liberal,I actually attempt to have a life, which I must admit is a whole lot easier to do since I retired out here on the central coast.  Last weekend I was out at one of my favorite wineries, Sculpterra, listening to music from my friend Steve Key, a local music promoter, performer and songwriter who performed a new song which was so completely perfect for what I wanted to write about that I requested and got his permission to include his lyrics in this post.

The song is called Fukushima USA and you can hear him perform it on his Web site by clicking on this link. In the song Steve is referring to the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California which is located not only right on top of a geological fault line, but just 20 miles from the city of San Luis Obisop, here in the wine country.  Here's a bit of the lyrics:

Local wines by the bottle or taste
Pools filled up with nuclear waste
Nowhere to send it, so it’s here to stay In Fukushima USA
The sunshine and the skies so clear
How could anything bad happen here?
That’s what the Japanese used to say Now it’s Fukushima USA

They had reactors built by GE
All the latest technology
A nineteen foot high seawall
Wasn’t much protection at all

But don’t think about that distant land
Things are safer here than in Japan
Relax and sip a little chardonnay
In Fukushima USA

At a time when the rest of the more or less sane world is running away from nuclear power like it was, well radioactive, the United States appears headed in the opposite direction. Last week the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) voted 4-1 to allow Atlanta-based Southern Company to build two new nuclear power reactors at its existing Vogtle nuclear power plant in Georgia. This represents the first approval of a new nuclear power plant in the U.S. in over 30 years.

The one silver lining in the vote was that it was the Chairman of the NRC,Gregory Jaczko , who cast the dissenting vote.  Jaczko said "I cannot support issuing this license as if Fukushima never happened. I believe it requires some type of binding commitment that the Fukushima enhancements that are currently projected and currently planned to be made would be made before the operation of the facility." Sounds like common sense to me, too bad the rest of the commission didn't show any.

The timing of this announcement also strikes me as completely out of step.  The Obama administation has just gone through a year of getting beat up about providing loan guarantees to Solyndra, a solar energy company.  And so just when they are being scrutinized about the economics of their energy policy they approve the first nuclear plant in 30 years.  Good gracious, nuclear plants are practically the poster children for cost overruns! They are guaranteed to cost the public exorbitant amounts of money even if there isn't a nuclear accident.  (And by the way nuclear accidents are not exactly cheap. Experts estimate the Fukushima accident will end up costing Japan over $257 billion dollars!).

If you want to see proof of this you need to look no further than this handy little table provided by the independent Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It shows a chart of the cost overruns at nuclear plants to date. The data is not pretty!

Cost Overruns for Nuclear Plants

Year Begun	Number of Plants	Projected Costs(thousands per MW)	Actual Costs (thousands per MW)	Cost Overrun %
1966 to 1967	11	612	1,279	109%
1968 to 1969	26	741	2,180	194%
1970 to 1971	12	829	2,889	248%
1972 to 1973	7	1,220	3,882	218%
1974 to 1975	14	1,263	4,817	281%
1976 to 1977	5	1,630	4,377	169%
Overall Average	13	938	2,959	207%

There is a reason we stopped building nuclear plants and it wasn't the one most people think. It wasn't 3 Mile Island, or nuclear waste disposal, or nuclear accidents, it was the fact that nuclear energy plants proved to be ridiculously expensive. So here we are in the middle of the worst recession since the great depression, at a time when wind and solar energy have never been cheaper, and our government wants to support the development of more nuclear plants?

We have often been very supportive at EB of the progressive energy policies of the Obama administration, but on this one they just got it wrong, very wrong! Nuclear energy is too expensive and we still have no solution on how to handle nuclear waste! Moreover, there should be a complete moratorium on nuclear plants until we fully understand the implications from Fukushima. Now is not the time to build Fukushima USA!

Throwing Good Money After Bad

The above expression has always struck me as a bit esoteric.  Its an expression I have seen and heard a lot and yet the meaning of it never quite seems to fit the words themselves. The best definition I have seen of this expression is as follows:  "To spend more and more money on something that will never be successful."  The best example I have seen lately of this expression comes, not surprisingly, from our friends in the coal industry. 

It seems that Kentucky Power Company, a privately held power company serving the eastern counties of Kentucky has proposed spending $980 million of the public's dollars in order to update its 800 MW Big Sandy Power Plant near Louis, Kentucky in order to meet the recent regulations on air pollution which are finally being enforced by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

We have to admit that this is a good news/bad news type of story. The fact that coal-based utility companies are finally being held accountable for the tons of pollutants they have been putting into the atmosphere is a very good thing.  We are thrilled that the EPA is, at last, being allowed to do their job by the Obama administration given that they were completely hog tied during the administration of George W. Bush, the oilman. Still, nearly a billion dollars spent on a single power plant that will only be marginally less polluting after this is all done?  Isn't this a perfect example of throwing good money after bad, and in this case, a whole lot of good money?

I realize that a billion bucks probably is not what it used to be, but that's one thousand million dollars and that's still a pretty good chunk of change. Why isn't Kentucky spending that money on a renewable energy plant, either wind power or solar power, instead of trying to retrofit an old coal plant that has already seen too much use.  Kentucky has plenty of sun and given the incredible price drop in the cost of solar panels in the last couple of years Kentucky Power could build one heck of good solar power plant or wind farm for what its planning to spend to put lipstick on one very ugly pig! 

Solar has gone through an unprecedented decline in costs in recent years and solar plants are going up all over our country.  One big solar project currently under construction is the Topaz solar project in San Luis Obispo County, California.  This plant will be a 550 megawatt plant and will cost $1.2 billion to construct, only a little less than what Kentucky is proposing to spend just to clean up an already well aged coal plant.  The solar PV plant will put out no pollution, zero, have no significant environmental impact, will not contribute to global warming and will last at least 50 years.  When you look at all energy costs (see Dr. Paul Epstein's recent Harvard study on coal costs) the energy from a solar or wind plant will cost less than the energy from the coal plant. Moreover, solar photovoltaic plants are incredibly straightforward in design and require very few people to maintain them.  The maintenance costs alone would be a fraction of what they would be for a coal plant.   Wouldn't that be a better deal for the people of Kentucky!

The numbers are about the same if Kentucky were to look at building a modern Wind Farm instead of fixing an old coal plant.  Eastern Kentucky has plenty of wind resource.  A large wind farm could easily provide the same amount of electricity at less cost than coal. Costs for modern wind turbines have also gone under significant decline and the current cost of a megawatt of wind energy appears to be just a little over $1 million per megawatt.  That means that for a couple of hundred million less than they are now planning to spend to clean up the old coal plant Kentucky could have a totally non-polluting wind farm that would last much longer than a coal plant and produce the same amount of energy.  Once again, it would put out zero pollution, no contribution to global warming and could move Kentucky into the modern energy era. Once again, a better deal for the people of Kentucky!

There is a saying that there is nothing so powerful as an idea who's time has come.  I would like to believe that is true since renewable energy is definitely an idea who's time has come.  However, it may be the case that it has run up against an even more powerful force, the power of human inertia, the tendency of senseless humans to keep on doing what they have always done even when it no longer makes any sense.  The plans of Kentucky Power strike me as a perfect example of inertia.  They are going forward with spending massive amounts of public money on coal, even when coal no longer makes any sense, either for the people of Kentucky or the people on our planet. 

The time has come to realize that if we are really going to stop global warming we are going to have to do something about coal.  Coal is without a doubt the single biggest contributor to global warming.  It is not enough to build new solar farms and wind farms. If we are going to escape the ravages of a too warm planet, we must eliminate coal from our energy vocabulary.  To do that we have to stop throwing good money after bad and start replacing, not repairing, the thousands of coal-fired energy plants that are killing us and our planet.

True Costs

The last twelve months have been a critical and hopefully enlightening period in the energy world. It has been a period when the true costs of our current energy policies became abundantly clear. Let's take a quick look back at three events that occurred in the last 12 months which should impact our thinking about energy policy:

The Gulf Oil Spill

On April 20th in 2010 the BP oil platform called Deepwater Horizon which was drilling a well at about 5000 feet under the water erupted in a huge explosion which killed 11 men and seriously injured 17 others. Within a couple of days the well platform had melted and collapsed into the ocean. However, a piece of equipment called a blowout preventer which was supposed to cut off the oil flow in the event of a catastrophe such as this failed to work and oil began to spew from the wellhead. The preventer had never been tested at these depths.

For weeks, then months, the world was transfixed by videos showing oil pouring from the wellhead into the ocean. The amount of oil leaking from the well became a topic of much contraversy with BP, for obvious reasons, radically underestimating the true amount of the spill. At a minimum, according to the Department of Energy, the well was probably leaking around 2,600,000 gallons of oil per day and this went on from April until July 15th when the well was finally capped. The spill devastated the gulf fishing industry and covered more than 320 miles of coastline with oil slicks and tar balls. The cost of this spill is impossible to determine. To BP alone the combination of payouts, law suits and stock leases is estimated to be over $50 billion dollars. The impact on gulf fishing and tourism is estimated to be at least $4 to 10 billion dollars. Its hard to put a price tag on the ecological impact of the spill but millions of plants and animals were killed and hundreds of miles of coastline massively impacted.

San Bruno Pipeline Explosion

The 2010 San Bruno pipeline explosion occurred at 6:11 p.m. PDT on September 9, 2010, in San Bruno, California, a suburb of San Francisco. The accident occurred when a 30inch diameter steel natural gas pipeline owned by Pacific Gas & Electric exploded in flames in the Crestmoor residential neighborhood 2 mi (3.2 km) west of San Francisco International Airport near Skyline Boulevard and San Bruno Avenue. The death toll was eight people. It took more than 200 fire fighters to bring the fire under control. The ensuing fire destroyed more than 38 homes and seriously damaged many others. The fire damage was estimated at in excess of $38 million dollars. PG&E will probably be in court for years to come with law suits.

The Fukishima Nuclear Accident
On March 11, 2011 a devastating earthquake struck northern Japan followed by an even more devastating tsunami. The combination of the two caused massive failures at several of Japan's nuclear plants, particularly the coastal Fukushima nuclear plant. As of this writing four of the plant's nuclear reactors have experienced significant damage. At this time reactor number #3 is leaking significant amounts of highly radioactive water into the ocean and into the atmosphere. The radioactivity has already impacted food supplies in the region and has the potential to spread to huge populations in Tokyo. The Japanese nuclear program is one of the most well established in the world. The plants were built with a knowledge that earthquakes are frequent in the area and Japanese nuclear experts said the plants were built with multiple backup systems and could withstand anything nature could throw at it. The nuclear experts were wrong!

Considering True Costs

At Energy Bible we are constantly working to find accurate data which will allow consumers to make intelligent decisions about energy policy. It is often a frustrating process. Nearly all the data comes from some type of energy lobby and is designed to show that their form of energy, whether it be oil, gas, nuclear energy, solar energy, wind energy, etc. is the cheapest. Probably the most accurate data comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration which has some good charts comparing different types of fuel for home heating, but the data is still pretty limited in scope.

The challenge is that understanding the real costs of energy alternatives is not simply a matter of looking at fuel pricing charts and traditional cost comparisons. Even the best government or industry data on energy costs doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the true costs of our addiction to non-renewable forms of energy. One of the images that has stuck in my mind from the recent nuclear disaster in Japan is from an interview NBC news did of a woman pouring through the rubble of what used to be her home town in Japan. The interviewer asked her what she was most afraid of, and despite the fact she was sitting in the midst of immense devastation, her fear wasn't another earthquake, it wasn't another tsunami, it was the fear of the unseen radiation coming from the Fukushima nuclear plant.

How do we put a price on that kind of fear? How do we put a price on the millions of plants and animals destroyed in the BP oil spill? How do we put a price on the fear of millions of homeowners in California who live near a PG&E gas line? I really have no idea but it seems to me we have to try. We have to find some way to take these things into account when we make practical decisions on energy policy both locally and nationally. We have to look at the true costs of continuing our current dependence on non-renewable energy!

Passion, Politeness and Politics

On Saturday morning (January 8) I was going through my normal morning routine of slowly dragging myself into consciousness with the aid of significant quantities of caffeine, and reading the morning paper. Two things in the paper that morning struck me. First was a quote from a top aide (an ex radio talk show host) to newly elected Representative Allan West of Florida. The aides quote was "If ballots don't work, bullets will". The idea that one of our Representatives would endorse such a point of view was shocking to me.

The news that morning also contained an article about the sad state of affairs in Pakistan where recently the Governor of Punjab, Salmon Taseer, was assassinated for having failed to support the blasphemy laws of Pakistan which basically allow any citizen to accuse another citizen of blasphemy against Allah and then have them summarily executed. What in many ways was even sadder then Taseer's execution was the reaction that followed it. The man who assassinated Taseer, Malik Qadri,, was then treated as a hero by radical Muslims throughout the country and the Pakistani press, in fear for their own lives, refused to counter it.

I think my reaction Saturday morning was probably typical of most Americans. I found the whole state of affairs in Pakistan sad and worrisome, but part of me thought, thank God that can't happen here. I was wrong. It can happen here and is happening here! By now most of you are aware that later that Saturday morning U.S. Representative Gabrielle Giffords, a federal judge and 17 other people were either killed or wounded by a clearly unstable man named Jared Loughner.

Following the assassination FBI Director Robert Mueller said "hate speech and other inciteful speech" presented a challenge to law enforcement officials, especially when it resulted in "lone wolves" undertaking attacks. He's right! I am constantly shocked by the vehemence and vitriol that is taking place in the media. From Fox News to MSNBC the degree of polarization and viciousness in the media is truly disturbing. We have experienced a little bit of it ourselves in some of the emails we get here at EnergyBible.com.

The primary purpose of our Web site is to inform the public about renewable energy. But we have never shied away from advocacy when we felt it was in the public interest. At times we have been strongly critical of the Republican Party for its positions on global warming and energy policy. At times we have been critical of the Obama administration for its opinions on the use of mythical "clean coal". Whether to the left or right we have always attempted to base our points of view on sound, scientific data and we have always encouraged our viewers to share their views both for and against.

The ability to engage in rational discussion of critical issues is at the heart of all successful societies. That is why the violent act this Saturday is so serious. I have no idea whether this particular gunman had viewpoints on the left or the right. It seems highly likely to me that the guy was just plain nuts. However, in the vast numbers of comments I have seen on the Web and in the traditional media, what no one seems to question is that public opinion in our country has become excessively vitriolic and vicious. So what are we going to do about it! Here are a few simple suggestions:

• Be Polite - There are few things that will do more to stop this nonsense than simply being polite to one another. If you take great care to listen carefully to those around you and avoid insulting anyone when expressing a point of view it will not only go over better but the person might actually listen to you the next time you have something to say.
• Be Truly Informed - Read a newspaper, better yet read several newspapers. Watch PBS and any other non-partisan news show you can find, though admittedly there are not many left. Avoid like the plague on both TV and the Web, Fox News, MSNBC and any other demagogic show masquerading as news. They are not there to inform, they are there to propagandize, and to make a whole lot of money doing it. If you know the opinion of a news source before you ever read it, don't read it!
• Be scientific- I could have said be rational but every crazy demagogue out there from Limbaugh to Beck to Olberman swear they are presenting rationale arguments. So when you can, follow the rules of the scientific method. Create a hypothesis, test it by getting objective opinion from multiple sources who have no stake in the outcome, and challenge all premises.
• Be Calm - Passion has its place, but when trying to develop a point of view on any critical issue, the odds of finding the correct answer are better if you set aside your passion and just try to work through the issue. If you can't avoid being passionate then be passionate about the process of getting the most accurate data from the most sources.

Those are my admittedly passionate recommendations!

Dan Daniel

Editor, EnergyBible.com

Magical Thinking and the Republican Party

Everyone engages in a little magical thinking from time to time. I personally have engaged in a ton of it at times. For example, at one point in my life I constructed a very nice fantasy involving the re-emergence of fairies from the middle ages. They were ever so useful. There was the Coffee Fairy who would bring me fresh coffee every morning. There was the Tax Preparation Fairy who would magically calculate my taxes every year with the outcome always ending up in a big refund. There was the Dishes Fairy who ..... well, you get the idea. Unfortunately, like Linus and the Great Pumpkin, my fairy people never actually did appear and so now, years later, I am still forced to deal with the dreary tasks of every day life.

At least I have the comfort of knowing I am not the only one engaging in magical thinking who has been disappointed. During our recent 2010 elections here in California it became increasingly evident that the Republican Party and its now embraced off-shoot, the Tea Party, are even better at engaging in magical thinking than I am. A recent Pew Poll of Republican Party members released in October found that "A 53%-majority of Republicans say there is no solid evidence the earth is warming. Among Tea Party Republicans, fully 70% say there is no evidence."

What is particularly interesting about this poll is that it actually represents a major retrenchment from polls taken just a few years ago (2007) when only 31% of the Republicans said global warming didn't exist. It seems that in this age of hyper-partisan politics even science is in play. Based on recent comments from the Republican leadership it appears many leading Republicans are approaching it from another perspective. According to John Shimkus of Illinois, God not science should be the source we should be relying on. At a a climate hearing last year he said "The earth will end only when God decides it's time to be over. This earth will not be destroyed by a flood.". Shimkus may be right but in the meantime I think I will buy a wet suit because first, I have a hunch God wants us to clean up our own messes, and second, the actual scientific data is pointing in the opposite direction.

I don't claim that scientists are infallible, just that when taken as a very large group they tend to be right most of the time. Currently many of them have begun to change some of their thinking about global warming. Unfortunately, it is not in the direction our friends in the Republican Party would like to see things go. It turns out that scientists are finding that global warming may be much worse than they originally thought. In particular, the antarctic is warming at a rate that is truly alarming.

According to a new report from the U.S. Geological Survey and the British Antarctic Survey the ice shelves in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula appear to be disappearing because of climate change. This summer's loss of ice was much worse than any of the scientists had predicted. "The loss of ice shelves is evidence of the effects of global warming," says USGS scientist and lead author Jane Ferrigno. Since 1998, the ice lost from just one of the five ice shelves in the study totals more than 1,500 square miles, an area larger than the state of Rhode Island.

Its not just the antarctic that is at issue. Global temperatures in the first half of the year were the hottest since records began more than a century ago. Scientists from two leading climate research centres have also recently released what they described as the "best evidence yet" of rising long-term temperatures. Their report looked at 11 different indicators, each one based on between three and seven data sets, dating back to between 1850 and the 1970s. Peter Stott, the head of climate modelling at the UK Met Office, said despite variations between individual years, the evidence was unequivocal: "When you follow those decade-to-decade trends then you see clearly and unmistakably signs of a warming world".

OK so given the most current data the scientists have provided it seems the world is getting warmer. What are we going to do about it? It appears the Republican strategy is not only to deny the problem but to try and make it even worse. This year the California Republican party, egged on by some very wealthy Texas oil millionaires, decided to try and repeal or at least postpone the current California environmental laws (AB32)that could have at least minimized the increase in global warming pollutants. Unfortunately for the Republicans, those wild and crazy California voters rejected this proposition (Proposition 23)and decided to continue fighting global warming.

I am sure this was a big setback for the party in Red, but I think I see their problem. The Republican strategy of magical thinking where they simply imagined all of the scientists were wrong and that global warming would magically go away was simply not enticing enough for the average voter. I mean if you are going to create an imaginary world at least create a really good one. Personally I would suggest that it involve strong doses of Pamela Anderson, a repeal of all taxes, and most importantly, the resurgence of the Coffee Fairy!

Dan Daniel
Editor, EnergyBible.com