A couple of promising links, one explaining the importance of biochar, and one explaining a credible commercialization effort involving biochar.
The Economist reports “The high seas are so vast and distant that people behave as though they cannot be protected or do not need protection. Neither is true. Humanity has harmed the high seas, but it can reverse that damage. Unless it does so, there will be trouble brewing beneath the waves.” [more]
“CPG benefits include sequestering CO2; making geothermal energy accessible in geographic regions where it has not been economically feasible to use this natural heat source for generating power; and storing energy from solar or wind farms. CPG could produce ten times more geothermal energy than traditional geothermal approaches currently yield, offering an important new source of renewable energy while simultaneously contributing to the reduction of CO2 entering the atmosphere due to fossil fuel burning.”
First I’ve heard of this coupling with CCS. But I did see some tantalizing inklings of deep geothermal at AGU 2012. This is very encouraging, but I presume it isn’t a Breakthrough Institute “breakthrough” in the sense that it will be cheap enough to compete with digging filthy s*** up and torching it.
I would like to know if running such a plant and having a meaningful CO2 sink can be done at the same time and place. They seem to gloss that over.
From the “Ding dong! The witch is dead!” department.
Delingpole, until recently a columnist at the influential Telegraph newspaper in the UK, has finally been properly marginalized.
He is now part of the new Breitbart UK enterprise, which may get a lot of clicks but hopefully not much influence.
It’s time that the comparable fringe of American denialism got the same treatment.
Adding to Georgia’s woes, a major ice storm is now predicted for large parts of Georgia and South Carolina, Wednesday into Thursday, including Atlanta. Power outages lasting several days are expected. If this pans out it definitely will be a winter to remember in Atlanta.
Rob Hopkins provides two axes to array the writers who interest him most. The axes are transformation vs revolution, and collapse vs ecotopia. McPherson is on his map, albeit barely. Lomborg is not.
The fundamental unseriousness of the deniers is on display in their hypocritical outrage about “using their explanations”.
Until people understand a relevant problem, they will not support a reasonable approach to dealing with it. A recent op-ed in the New York Times from a ski writer testifies to a surprising level of prior indifference to climate change, attributing it to a “lack of knowledge”. This presents a challenge to those attacking some strawman version of the “deficit model” of politically relevant science. [more]
In what appears to be an overreaction to last weeks disastrous false negative, Georgia is now issuing warnings for snowstorms that are entirely imaginary. [more]
Mike Hulme is right that we have to move beyond science and into policy. But his implication that we can do that without knowing what the science actually tells us is flatly ridiculous. Spinning the facts is a skill which is incentivized in modern society. This must be reversed. But until it is, science has to fight its way through the fog of disinformation. [more]
Getting a scientific question wrong has become a litmus test for political fealty in the Republican party. This really is very awkward and wrongheaded. In the long run it bodes ill for the Republican party but if they stick to this craziness they can do a lot of damage meanwhile.
A nice article on the problem by D R Tucker is here (h/t Mike Mann via Facebook)