Friday, January 31, 2014

Human Population Growth and Wildlife Extinction


The human population is now more than 7.3 billion. That's about 75 million more people very year. Each of them, like the rest of us, needs food, water, and shelter to survive. The planet isn't getting any bigger. Our once abundant resources are becoming ever more scarce. The natural world we depend on is being shredded. We are pushing the wild creatures that share space with us to extinction.

The Center for Biological Diversity has released a powerful 90 second video that links continued human population growth with the destruction of our Earth's biological bounty. There are already 7.3 billion people, and we are still adding well over 200,000 to that number every single day.   How many is enough?  The case can be made that we are already well past that point.  Our human reproductive hubris is destroying the living fabric of our Earth. 

That is the very clear message in this new video. Here is the link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vn8rXbTgWg&feature=youtu.be



Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Old Lady's Revenge


An old lady was crossing the street. She was a bit too slow for an impatient driver.  He started to beep his horn.  The old lady took appropriate action. Fun!

Here is a link to the You Tube video...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxUP871zGP8



Tuesday, January 28, 2014

Wealth Inequality in America


My friend and colleague Bill Hoagland sent me the link to this video.  It's focus is the extraordinary wealth inequality in America. The top one percent on the wealth spectrum has more than the bottom forty percent of the people combined.  The whole sordid picture of wealth distribution is presented very effectively in a short video produced by a group called, Think Reality.

Here is the link to the video...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM




Saturday, January 25, 2014

Net Neutrality on Life Support


Net Neutrality is about having unbiased and unfettered access to all variety of content - websites, blogs, search engines - that populates the internet.

Comcast, Verizon, Time Warner, and other communication giants have been working to gain more control over the net. They are lobbying relentlessly to change the laws governing the public airwaves and they have petitioned the judiciary to alter the rules in their favor.

On January 14, 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave net providers what they wanted. The court ruled against neutrality and for providers. In effect, this allows the big corporations that deliver the net to introduce their own bias into how internet content is presented to their customers. Bottom line: net content that is politically unpalatable to providers can be stifled or cut off completely from customers.

The case can be made that the traditional media has already been coopted by large corporations. Television and radio and the print media once had local ownership. Now, they are all controlled by a handful of large corporations.  Content is now managed to maximize profit, above all else. The news that is delivered through TV, Radio, and the print media is also shaped to fit the political interests of corporate owners. Fox News is the most egregious example.

The internet has been the one place where the public could go to find content that is not subject to censorship or any kind of bias.  In a net neutral world, all content is treated more or less equally. With the court's ruling, providers like Time Warner can decide what customers are able to access, and when, and how, if at all.

Net neutrality is critical to the  maintenance of a citizen democracy.   Every person should be deeply concerned about the court's decision to hand the keys to the internet over to private corporate interests. 

Here is Stephen Colbert's satirical take on net neutrality... http://www.hulu.com/watch/587624


Thursday, January 23, 2014

The Man With Two Dicks



Check out the faux trailer for a 'movie' about a crime fighting hero, who uses his double endowment to beat down a gang of evildoers in a crime laden American city. Co-starring the women with four boobs.

Here is a link to this goofy take on big screen crime-fighting... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_3xYLi9tLA



Wednesday, January 22, 2014

The Way Forward



I am in awe of this reality we live in.  It is amazing to think about the size of the universe; amazing to think how it works; amazing  to think how it gives life to so much complexity.  How can one not appreciate these wonders?  How can we not see the life each of us has been given as a gift… a gift that comes with responsibility; a gift that obligates us to take care of the living fabric of our planet?

The problem is, we are not meeting our obligation. We are not taking care of the Earth. Start with climate change.  We humans are responsible for billions of tons of heat trapping pollutants  being pumped into the atmosphere from our cars, our power plants, even from the food choices we make.  The result: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, and more powerful weather events.   We are stripping the forest from our landscapes. We are polluting the sea and exhausting its biological bounty. We are abusing  our fresh water supplies shamelessly.  The soils we depend on are being parched of critical nutrients. We are propagating ourselves mindlessly, consuming all the resources nature has given us like there is no tomorrow.  There are now more than seven billion humans on Earth. How many is too many? We have ravaged our nest nearly to exhaustion. We are supposed to be intelligent beings. We are not behaving that way.  

If we make the Earth uninhabitable,  where else are we going to go?  Oh yes, some say, ‘no problem, we can go live on the Moon or on Mars’.  What are they thinking?   At best, we are hundreds of years from that possibility.  Even if this was not a fantasy; even if it could happen, have you seen pictures of the Moon and Mars?  Would you want to live there?  Isn’t it so much easier and smarter just to take care of what we have?

Some people believe it’s too late to make things right; too late to avoid civilization  scale collapse.  I hope that  is wrong, but there is no denying, we are already being tested by potentially  catastrophic forces like climate change;  forces we ourselves have unleashed.  It’s happening, and it will get worse. How much worse depends on the decisions we make as a global human culture now. Every moment we delay equates to more suffering for future human generations and  more destruction of the natural world we depend on. 

About three out of ten people totally get what I am saying. The rest are indifferent, undecided, or stubbornly resistant to science and reason. Those of us who share a progressive world view must be assertive. We must encourage our friends who are out of step to see the light.  We must urge them to be part of shaping a future that is sustainable and life affirming.  
 
Where Do We Start?

Our poor stewardship of the biosphere has consequences. Some cannot be stopped, but the worst may still be avoidable. Clean, sustainable technologies are emerging or are already here that can be transformative.   There are behavioral  changes and policy changes we can make that will allow us to reassert thoughtful control over the world we will leave to future generations.

As a first step, beyond the nationalities reflected in our passports, we must begin to see ourselves as citizens of the Earth. Insular thinking does not serve the best interests of society as a whole. Taking proper care of the biosphere must become everyone’s cause.

There is reason for optimism. Tens of millions of people around the world  are already asserting themselves as Earth citizens. They are engaged in progressive action on a whole range of human challenges.  That is a very good thing, but an assertive focus on a single narrow issue, no matter how worthwhile,  is not enough.  Women’s rights activists, and LGBT activists, and animal rights activists, and those fighting for economic fairness must devote a share of their activist energy toward the root cause of our dysfunction.   

Governance, on a local, national, and global scale, is the way the common good is supposed to be facilitated. But what happens when a small number of privileged elites are able to use their wealth and influence to pervert our political systems? What happens when the common good is trampled by self-centered corporate and special interests?   The answer to those questions is abundantly clear. We see the evidence revealed every day on one issue after another.  Everywhere we turn, we find public policy that is  shaped to serve private interests over the public good. 

What is the root cause of our inability to effectively take action on global scale challenges?  Here is the one word answer: corruption.  Governance, politics, the media, finance, health care: all of these arenas have been egregiously corrupted, favoring entrenched private interests over the public good. He who has the money makes the rules, that’s the unfortunate bottom line.  As long as we the people accept that; as long as so many citizens remain unaware or indifferent to that, we’re screwed.

It starts with governance. The congress runs on its own brand of legalized  bribery. The courts, particularly,  the Supreme Court, are corrupted.  Most agencies responsible for managing the government’s regulatory functions are deeply corrupted by industry ‘insider’ appointees.

Candidates for elective office at the local, state, and national level can’t get elected without the financial support of corporations, special interest political action groups, and rich campaign donors, all of whom expect allegiance to their narrow agendas in return. The Supreme Court’s ‘Citizen’s United’  decision opened the floodgates for anonymous and essentially limitless campaign contributions for candidates willing to pledge allegiance to their financial underwriters.  So, who gets elected?  In way too many cases, it’s the candidate with no principles who takes the political sewer money.  It amounts to a barely disguised form of legalized bribery.

Instead of wearing ourselves down fighting the symptoms of this corruption,  we need to get at the root cause.  The evidence suggests that the foundation for this particularly American style of political corruption lies with two morally bankrupt legal constructs. One is the idea that money equates to free speech. If you have money, you are allowed to run roughshod over  the political process; to spend as such as you like to control your own public policy agenda. Thus, we end up with elected officials, who are the best money can buy.

The second corrosive legal construct has never been codified in law. It is the precedent that corporations are considered persons under the law.  It is not the product of any legislation. It has never been properly vetted by the courts.  Yet, it is accepted as legal precedent.  This very bad idea blossomed back in the 19th century during the robber baron era which, it turns out, had more than a little in common with the dysfunctional politics that prevail today.  Assigning personhood to corporations has led to all kinds of ethically repugnant behavior that puts their self-interest ahead of the public interest.

Getting rid of ‘money equals speech’ and ‘corporate personhood’ would do much to make populist political candidates more electable.   How do we make it happen?  It turns out, there is already a clear pathway. A non-profit populist action group called,  Move to Amend [www.movetoamend.com] has emerged. Its mission is tightly focused on one very specific goal: to pass a constitutional amendment that would end ‘money as speech’ and repudiate ‘Corporate personhood’. 

 Move to Amend is not the only group that claims to have a remedy for our constitutional malaise.  There are other initiatives with different focuses. Some are about turning back the clock on ‘Citizens United’.   The problem is ‘Citizens United’  is not the cause of our broken democracy, it is an exacerbation that makes a bad situation worse. The legal foundation for ‘Citizens United’ is the entire focus of Move to Amend.  A constitutional amendment nullifying ‘money as speech’ and ‘corporate personhood’ is a game changer; it is the closest thing to a cure that exists.  It is the critical first step; the foundation on which government can be revitalized and made accountable to its citizens again.  

No matter what the cause,  Move to Amend has the ultimate answer. A constitutional amendment nullifying ‘money as speech’ and ‘corporate personhood’ is the single most important thing that can be done to restore our democracy.  Every citizen needs to become part of the grass roots effort to get this done

Go to the Move to Amend website. www.movetoamend.com   Inform yourself, and become part of the solution.


 

Monday, January 20, 2014

Wild Dolphin Asks for Help


A group of scuba divers off the coast of Hawaii were surprised by a dolphin that approached them underwater. The animal had a fishing line and hook caught in its pectoral fin and wrapped around the fin, restricting its motion. The dolphin was looking for help. One of the divers cut away the line trapping the fin.  The interaction between the divers and the dolphin is beautiful. Compassion is a wonderful thing to witness.

Here is the video link to a wild dolphin asking for help... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wL9I4BxuryY


Sunday, January 19, 2014

Climate Deniers Chair Congressional Science Committees


The U.S. House of Representatives is dominated by conservative republicans. Some are tea party conservatives, some are slightly more moderate corporate conservatives.  The committee chairs are all republicans.

Representative Lamar Smith (R) Texas, is a climate denier. He chairs the House Science Committee.


Rep. Lamar Smith (R) Texas


 The newly appointed chair of the Environment Sub-Committee is Representative David Schweikert (R), Arizona, also an ardent climate denier.


David Schweikert (R), Arizona


Together, these two obstructionist politicians have a huge influence on how our country deals with energy and climate. In fact, they deliver exactly the kind of feckless federal policy the Koch Brothers and Exxon Mobil want. Is it any wonder why we can't get our act together on climate change?


Saturday, January 18, 2014

Study Says Successful People Tend to be Bad


Being selfish pays off. Many successful people have figured that out according to this research study. Well, duh. This is merely a confirmation of what seems patently obvious.  This psychology applies particularly to those in life whose success is defined by power and money. Being bad equates to stepping on other people to achieve rank and status.  Sadly, this kind of behavior does confer advantage.  Moreover, it is all too common .


 ___________________________

Studies Find That Successful People Tend To Be Bad

 By Eric Zuesse, Huffington Post   
On 29 July 2010, Britain's Economist headlined "Wealth, Poverty and Compassion: The Rich Are Different from You and Me; They Are More Selfish," and summarized a study, to be published in the November 2010 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, titled "Having Less, Giving More: The Influence of Social Class on Prosocial Behavior." The authors - Michael Kraus, Paul Piff, and three others - said in their "Abstract": "Across 4 studies, lower class individuals proved to be more generous ..., charitable ..., trusting ..., and helpful ..., compared with their upper class counterparts, ... because of a greater commitment to egalitarian values and feelings of compassion."

On 13 December 2010, Rich O'Hanlon of goodmenproject.com bannered "Study of the Day: Rich People Feel Less Empathy," and he reported that, "In mock job interviews, researchers ... asked more than 300 upper- and lower-class people to read the emotions of people in photos and of live strangers. Those [test-subjects] with a higher education-level, more money, and a self-defined social position, struggled to figure out whether or not someone was angry or happy." This study's main author, Michael Kraus, summarized: "We found that people from a lower-class background - in terms of occupation, status, education and income level - performed better in terms of emotional intelligence, the ability to read the emotions that others are feeling." The study's press release, issued by the journal Psychological Science, headlined "Upper-Class People Have Trouble Recognizing Others' Emotions." This study, published October 25th in Psychological Science, was titled "Social Class, Contextualism, and Empathic Accuracy."

Finally, a piece of scientific research had been done, and was reported here, which tapped into the strong tendency successful people have to be rotten to their core: to be so little concerned about the feelings of less-fortunate individuals, so that they're unable to speculate accurately about what those people's feelings are. Read their faces? What faces? Does Smithfield Corporation look at, or care to read, the faces of the billions of pigs it raises and slaughters? That's not their style. Finally, in this study, the reality was beginning to be examined and exposed, that the more successful a person is, the worse the given individual is likely to be. The implications of this study are ideologically explosive.
Then, on 20 December 2011, The Greater Good Blog, at berkeley.edu, bannered "Low-Income People Quicker to Show Compassion," and reported that, "Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, have found that people in the lower socio-economic classes are more psychologically attuned to suffering, and quicker to express compassion than their more affluent counterparts. ... The results indicate that socio-economic status correlates with the level of empathy and compassion." The following day, the conservative online news-summary Drudge Report headlined "Study: Rich People Less Empathetic Than Poor," and summarized the findings. Reader comments following there were overwhelmingly hostile, such as the first one, which said, simply: "Boo-f**king-hoo." Readers at conservative news sites tend to hold compassionate people in contempt; compassion is despised by them as a weakness, even though George W. Bush and some other lying conservatives claim to espouse a "compassionate conservatism" (a contradiction in terms). The reality, to the contrary of that, was displayed there, at the Drudge Report. The study itself was issued online on 12 December 2011, and it was published in the journal Emotion. Its authors were Jennifer Stellar, Vida Manzo, Michael Kraus, and Dacher Keltner. Its title is "Class and Compassion: Socioeconomic Factors Predict Responses to Suffering."

A perfect case-example of this lack of empathy amongst the aristocracy was provided on 17 December 2010, when Lee Fang of thinkprogress.org headlined "'U.S.' Chamber of Commerce Lobbied To Help Kill Bill To Provide Health Care To 9/11 First Responders," and he provided the first investigative report on why Republicans had killed the bill to help 9/11 first-responders who were now dying from asbestosis (the World Trade Towers had been loaded with asbestos). He found that, "The 'U.S.' ... Chamber fought to help kill the 9/11 compensation bill because it was funded by ending a special tax loophole exploited by foreign corporations doing business in the United States. ... In September, the Chamber sent a letter officially opposing the 9/11 first responders bill ... [and] warned that ending the tax loophole would 'damage U.S. relationships with major trading partners.' ... In typical fashion, the Chamber has not revealed which of its foreign members had asked them to kill the 9/11 bill." Furthermore, "Yesterday, Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) sent out a statement that mirrored the Chamber's opposition to ending the foreign corporate tax loophole." However, Sen. Collins didn't actually cite the Chamber, nor its reason, nor even the tax loophole at all. Instead, she did the same thing that all Republicans in Congress were doing: she argued for the position the Chamber was lobbying for, but without even mentioning the Chamber, or using its argument. Instead, she said: "I support the 9/11 health bill on the merits" (as if that were ever a concern of Republican political figures) but that she was concerned "about the need for legitimate ways of offsetting the cost" (as if ending this tax-loophole weren't a 'legitimate' way). Then, she said, "If the Majority Leader were to bring the bill to the floor with appropriate offsets, I would support the legislation." (By 'appropriate offsets,' she referred to cutting programs for the poor and middle class, rather than cutting this foreign corporate tax-break.) Like with aid to the long-term unemployed, Republicans demanded that this measure be offset by budget-cuts elsewhere in the federal budget, without identifying where that elsewhere would be. (Republicans knew better than to be explicit about their serving only the top 1%.) She favored cutting estate taxes, and other tax-cutting for the super-rich, by adding those tax-expenditures onto the federal debt, but not adding to the federal debt programs for the needy or poor, not even this life-or-death program for 9/11 heroes who were dying from their asbestos-exposure. She demanded that tax-breaks for foreign companies must continue, though her public statements didn't mention that concern, which actually drove her opposition to the 9/11 healthcare bill. In other words: the Republican position on the 9/11 health bill was just another aristocratic con for the faithful.

On 26 January 2012, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, PNAS, which is the world's most prestigious scientific journal, published "Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior," by Paul K. Piff, Dacher Keltner, and three others; and they reported that, "Seven studies using experimental and naturalistic methods reveal that upper-class individuals behave more unethically than lower-class individuals." They found that, "Upper-class individuals' unethical tendencies are accounted for, in part, by their more favorable attitudes toward greed." ABC News headlined "Are Rich People Unethical?" and interviewed Dr. Piff, who said, "What it comes down to, really, is that money creates more of a self-focus, which may account for larger feelings of entitlement." They feel they've got a right to loot. Paul Krugman's 26 September 2013 New York Times column was about "Plutocrats Feeling Persecuted," and discussed Robert Benmosche, the CEO of bailed-out AIG, "in an interview with The Wall Street Journal: He compared the uproar over bonuses to lynchings in the South"; and Krugman also discussed "a comparable outburst from Stephen Schwarzman, the chairman of the Blackstone Group, ... speaking about proposals to close the carried-interest loophole - ... 'It's a war; it's like when Hitler invaded Poland.'"
Then, most recently of all, there is this, so pithy and important that almost the entire Abstract will be quoted here: the study, "Social Class Rank, Essentialism, and Punitive Judgment," by Michael W. Kraus and Dacher Keltner, was published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27 May 2013, with this in its Abstract:

"We tested the hypotheses that upper-class rank individuals would be more likely to endorse essentialist lay theories of social class categories (i.e., that social class is founded in genetically based, biological differences [like 'racism']) than would lower-class rank individuals, and that these beliefs would decrease support for restorative justice - which seeks to rehabilitate offenders, rather than [merely] punish. ... Across studies, higher social class rank was associated with increased essentialism of social class categories ... and decreased support for restorative justice. ... Moreover, ... essentialist beliefs decreased preferences for restorative justice, ... and the association between social class rank and class-based essentialist theories was explained by the tendency to endorse beliefs in a just world [Adam Smith's famous 'invisible hand' of God]. ... Implications for how class-based essentialist beliefs potentially constrain social opportunity and mobility are discussed."
This article itself noted: "These findings suggest that highly ranked members of society - such as individuals who perceive themselves as high in social class rank vis-a-vis others - may be inclined to endorse essentialist beliefs in part to justify or legitimize their elevated social position." Evidence was found that the most successful people ("highly ranked members of society") hold "essentialist belief" partly in order to explain to themselves their success as coming from their superiority, instead of from their ruthlessness or other bad traits that they embody.

To the extent that a person wants his child to succeed (in the ordinary sense of that term), to rise or stay at the top in social standing, the parent will teach his child not to care about the welfare of others but only of himself, and to do anything or crush anyone in order to win what he wants. The child will be taught that he is entitled to do this because of his inborn superiority, his lineage -- not because of anything he does or has done. On the other side, to the extent that a parent encourages a child to care about the welfare of others, or not feel entitled by birth, that parent will reduce the likelihood his child will attain or retain high social standing.

______________________________
 

Friday, January 17, 2014

Best Seal Video Ever


Here's some fun. A diver named Jason Neilus used GoPro cameras to record his playtime with an inquisitive bunch of wild seals in the kelp beds of the Farne Islands in the United Kingdom




Here is the link to  the wonderful video of Jason Neilus' experience visiting with wild seals off the coast of the Farne Islands... http://vimeo.com/78209843#at=0



Sunday, January 12, 2014

DOE's EIA - Thoroughly Wrong on Clean Energy


What follows is a piece that I am reposting from CleanTechnica, one of the energy blogs I follow. If you want honest and up-to-date reporting on what's happening in energy, particularly clean energy, this is a blog you should be reading.

The Energy Information Agency (EIA) is part of the US Department of Energy. The EIA is tasked with turning energy data into reports and projections on the energy industry.  Unfortunately, EIA appears to be populated with insiders from the traditional fossil fuel and nuclear energy industries. They are adept at employing corrupt assumptions to draw indefensible conclusions. The energy forecasts they have put forward are wildly off base; thoroughly corrupted by a biased approach that favors the old ways over the new to a ridiculous degree. Read what follows. You will surely come to the same conclusion.

________________________________


The following is an open letter a few CleanTechnica readers wrote, after discussing recent EIA forecasts down in the comments section. As you’ll see, it’s in response to some absurd forecasts regarding US renewable energy adoption. Here’s one highlight:
it was forecast that we would reach 0.45 GW of Solar PV on the grid by 2035, in November 2013 we reached 7.11 GW according to the FERC.
Surely, in making new predictions it would be appropriate for the EIA to address how their models could produce a 25 year forecast which has already been surpassed 16 times over in less than 3 years.
Anyway, below is the letter, followed by some renewable energy charts I’m adding and some additional commentary.

To Dr. Ernest Moniz,  US Secretary of Energy

Dear Secretary Moniz

We are a group of concerned individuals with an interest in the future of our energy supply. We are aware of the importance of accurate data and forecasts in order to understand energy trends and shape future energy policy. After reading the recently released EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2014, we found it contains a number of forecasts which concern and surprise us.
 
Here is the Figure outlining the long term forecast under the AEO 2014 reference case for US grid power:
 


 
We were surprised to see that the DOE/EIA expects renewables to gain only a further 4% share of total electricity generation and reach only 16% of the total by 2040. That suggests an average annual increase of ~0.1% of the total demand annually by all renewables.
 
Consider that wind alone moved from 3.5% to over 4.5% of the total US electricity supply this last year according to EIA EPM data. Over 1% in one year from one technology. Solar is similarly starting to see accelerated installation rates, albeit from a lower base.
 
Considering that coal plant construction has slowed to a crawl with a paucity of projects in a long development pipeline, nuclear plant construction is sparse, and existing coal and nuclear plants closures are accelerating, it’s hard to see how they maintain such large shares and renewables gain so little.
 
When we look at the EIA predictions for individual non-hydro renewables it becomes clear how the low combined forecast arose. Note that none of these components or the forecasts made about them have been mentioned in any way in the discussion of the report. One has to delve deep into the interactive data browser to discover any of this.
 
AEO 2014 forecasts for individual non-hydro renewable technologies;
PV Solar installations stop in 2016 and do not resume for 12 years and even then at a rate significantly below current rates.
 

No thermal solar is constructed past 2014.


Construction of wind farms ceases in 2016 and does not resume for almost 20 years.
 

Municipal waste generation capacity additions grind to a halt in two years, never to occur again.
 

Wood and biomass suffer a similar fate.
 
 
We find it highly unusual that 5 statistical models using 5 data samples regarding 5 different energy technologies at varying levels of economic and technological maturity could produce such strikingly similar results. The implication is that the EIA’s official position is that all the major non-hydro grid-scale renewables will see 1-2 further years of capacity growth followed by 15-27 years of no further installations.
 
To provide further context on one of these technologies and the forecast for its future in the report, we know from the FERC Energy Infrastructure Reports that 2.63 GW of utility-scale Solar PV has been added to the US grid in the first 11 months of 2013. The AEO 2014 would have us believe that over the next 27 years only a further 10 GW will be added, an average of only 0.37GW per year, including a 12-year hiatus from 2015 to 2027 where no solar PV whatsoever is added.
 
Surely, if the EIA stands by these forecasts of dramatic and sudden deviations from accelerating trends in grid-scale renewable installations, they would warrant graphical publication in the report with an accompanying discussion justifying them?

At present, they are essentially hidden, hard to find for even those with a keen interest in the subject.
We also feel that the EIA has made thousands of forecasts in the past which never seem to be publicly visited again, for example in the 2010 AEO it was forecast that we would reach 0.45 GW of solar PV on the grid by 2035, in November 2013 we reached 7.11 GW according to the FERC.
Surely, in making new predictions it would be appropriate for the EIA to address how their models could produce a 25 year forecast which has already been surpassed 16 times over in less than 3 years. What changes have been made to the models to improve this terrible forecasting record? If none, then should the renewable forecasts come with a disclaimer that they are highly unreliable and have a history of massive underestimation of renewable growth, surely burying them deep in the data of the report is not an appropriate strategy.
 
Do the EIA and the DOE really stand by this report and its predictions as quality forecasts with a high probability of accurately representing future trends? We find it overwhelmingly unlikely that solar PV will soon simply stop being installed for 12 years given recent dramatic price decreases and acceleration of installations, yet the EIA report will allow a congress member to stand up and ask why the government is supporting a technology that is so uneconomical that the EIA believes it will be 12 years before any further installations will occur. We feel the other technologies we have mentioned are similarly highly pessimistically represented by this report.
 
We ask you to review these forecasts and question whether the DOE stands by them or whether they require significant review and revision before being fit for public release as the official forecast of the DOE.
 
Sincerely,
 
Dennis Heidner, Bob Wallace, and RobS
 
US solar power growth
 
 
US wind power growth
 
 
DOE_Solar_Deployment


DOE_Wind_Deployment

That doesn’t look like it’s going to flatline, does it?

Addendum/Update following some discussion with experts on Twitter: So, what is the underlying issue with the EIA’s forecasts? The key issues are the assumptions. One of the most important assumptions is that they don’t include any changes in policy going forward. (Meaning, policies in place today remain in place until they expire… and then no new policies are added.) So, fossil fuels and nuclear keep their subsidies (which are written into the tax code and don’t expire), but renewables lose theirs within a couple of years or so and then never regain them again, and never get any policy support again. This results in pretty good base forecasts off of which other forecasts based on different policy scenarios can be built, using a variety of different policy assumptions, but it also means that no responsible person or media outlet should treat the base EIA forecast as being anything close to what will happen in reality.

Furthermore, beyond the no-policy-change assumptions, the EIA uses a number of rather questionable cost and integration assumptions. These assumptions negatively impact the renewable energy forecasts. But that’s obviously a more complicated matter for a separate, longer discussion.
In the end, the biggest issue seems to be this: the mass media often reports on and references these EIA forecasts as if they are actual forecasts for what will occur in the future. This results in massive misinformation spreading far and wide. Part of the blame is certainly on the mass media, but part of the blame is also on the EIA for not being very clear about this when presenting its “forecasts” and sharing them with the public and media. For example, in the executive summary of the early release of the Annual Energy Outlook 2014, it is written that the projections are made “under the assumption that current laws and regulations remain generally unchanged throughout the projection period.” That can easily be read as saying that, when the laws expire, the EIA is assuming that the laws are renewed and continue as they are set today. But it actually means that there will be no laws renewed and no new laws supporting renewable energy development will be enacted, which is completely unlikely to happen. A member of the mass media could very easily misunderstand that line… if they look at it at all. 

And, again, there are a number of other technical assumptions that are very questionable and counter to renewables.

The end point: don’t treat the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook base case projections as actual, realistic projections. They are primarily useful for forecasters as building blocks for their own more realistic forecasts.

Read more at http://cleantechnica.com/2014/01/10/horrible-eia-forecasts-letter-cleantechnica-readers/#2PuJphLy8zoygD5O.99

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

Hydrogen Cars Arrive in 2014



Hyundai and Toyota have both announced that they will be introducing hydrogen fuel cell cars into the marketplace in the latter part of 2014.  In the U.S., it will begin in California, where the various car manufacturers have been testing fuel cell prototypes for years.  In the U.S., California has been a leader in clean, automotive technology. A number of hydrogen fueling stations are already in place and more are coming.   Europe has put much more effort into building infrastructure for hydrogen vehicles. Most likely, these clean running machines will gain a foothold in the European Union first, simply because European energy policy aggressively encourages  the adoption of hydrogen and other clean energy technologies.


Toyota Fuel Cell Car


The fossil fuel industry has long used its wealth and political influence to undermine the credibility of hydrogen as a clean energy alternative.  Despite the naysayers, hydrogen continues to emerge, because it works. It is nature's elegantly simple answer: clean, non-toxic, cost effective, and safe when properly managed.  I suspect by 2020, the transition into the hydrogen age will be well underway.

Here is a very engaging video from Toyota showcasing their new fuel cell car... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7xCbmkWKkw


Here is a link to the website for the California Fuel Cell Partnership... http://cafcp.org/






Saturday, January 4, 2014

Americans Don't Trust Scientists


Sad but true. I can't remember a time in my life when there has been more distrust of what science has to tell us. The high level of public skepticism about global climate change is amazing given that about 99% of all climate researchers say the same thing: climate change is real; it's based on well understood atmospheric chemistry; it's a problem of immense scale that must be addressed with bold policy changes, without delay.

Why are so many people skeptical? Because hundreds of millions of dollars are being spent to undermine the credible science on climate change by the fossil fuel industry, the chief cause of the air pollution that is driving atmospheric warming.  The people behind dirty fuels like coal and oil are aggressively attempting to corrupt the science behind climate change to preserve their own economic self-interest.  Fostering skepticism is a big part of their agenda.  If you want to know where the truth lies, there is an old adage that applies: 'Follow the money'.


__________________________


Americans Don't Trust Scientists

Reposted from The Huffington Post - 12-26-13

How much faith do Americans have in scientists and science journalists? Not a whole lot, a new survey finds.

In a new HuffPost/YouGov poll, only 36 percent of Americans reported having "a lot" of trust that information they get from scientists is accurate and reliable. Fifty-one percent said they trust that information only a little, and another 6 percent said they don't trust it at all.

Science journalists fared even worse in the poll. Only 12 percent of respondents said they had a lot of trust in journalists to get the facts right in their stories about scientific studies. Fifty-seven percent said they have a little bit of trust, while 26 percent said they don't trust journalists at all to accurately report on scientific studies.

What’s more, many Americans worry that the results of scientific studies are sometimes tainted by political ideology -- or by pressure from the studies’ corporate sponsors.

A whopping 78 percent of Americans think that information reported in scientific studies is often (34 percent) or sometimes (44 percent) influenced by political ideology, compared to only 18 percent who said that happens rarely (15 percent) or never (3 percent).

Similarly, 82 percent said that they think that scientific findings are often (43 percent) or sometimes (39 percent) influenced by the companies or organizations sponsoring them.

Republicans in the new poll were most likely to say that they have only a little bit of trust in scientists to give accurate and reliable information, and the most likely to say that they think scientific findings may be tainted by political ideology -- possibly reflecting distrust in scientists over topics such as evolution and climate change.


The HuffPost/YouGov poll was conducted Dec. 6-7 among 1,000 U.S. adults using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population. Factors considered include age, race, gender, education, employment, income, marital status, number of children, voter registration, time and location of Internet access, interest in politics, religion and church attendance.

The Huffington Post has teamed up with YouGov to conduct daily opinion polls. You can learn more about this project and take part in YouGov's nationally representative opinion polling.



Friday, January 3, 2014

Money as Speech - The Musical


When one closely examines the global scale challenges we face as a human culture,  we must depend on governance to address these issues.  After all, our governments are supposed to be looking out for our interests, right?    Very often,  way too often, that is not happening.  Instead,  the governance process has been coopted for the benefit of a handful of  elites, who use their wealth and power to manipulate public policy for their own narrow interests.

ProPublica's new music video tells that story in very entertaining fashion.

Here is a link to Pro Publica's very provocative and engaging  video...  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3d-bYU2cZ48



Wednesday, January 1, 2014

Mourning the Rhino



I thought hard about whether I should post the image below.  It's very painful to look at. A baby rhino mourning its mother, just killed by poachers for its horn.





The rhino as a species is being wiped out.  They are only found now in a few places in Africa.  The only ones not in jeopardy are under 24 hour armed guard.  

Why are poachers willing to risk their lives to kill one of these creatures to gets its horn? The answer is well known. Traditional medicine markets in Asia, particularly in China, value powdered rhino horn as a medicinal cure. It fact, a rhino's horn is the same stuff as your fingernails. It has zero curative value. But the demand is still the there,  The fewer rhinos there are, the more people are willing to pay. Another market is in the Middle East in places like Yemen, where wealthy young men wear ceremonial daggers. A dagger handle made of carved rhino horn is a prized status symbol.   The fewer rhinos there are, the more a guy with money to burn is willing to pay to have his rhino horn dagger.

Sure, you can put the blame on the poachers. But let's get real.  Most of those guys are uneducated and desperately poor. One rhino horn can fetch them enough income to feed the family for a decade. It's no wonder they are willing to put their lives at risk. 

It's a very sad circumstance, but it's hard to be optimistic about the future of this magnificent species when the human population of the African continent is growing rapidly, faster than any place else on Earth.

Here is a link to Save the Rhino... http://www.savetherhino.org/