Paul Krugman: Colorless Green Ideas

Now that the scientific debate over global warming is all but over, Paul Krugman looks at what we can do limit greenhouse gas emissions:

Colorless Green Ideas, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over. The question now is what to do about it.

Aside from a few dead-enders on the political right, climate change skeptics seem to be making a seamless transition from denial to fatalism. In the past, they rejected the science. Now, with the scientific evidence pretty much irrefutable, they insist that it doesn’t matter because any serious attempt to curb greenhouse gas emissions is politically and economically impossible.

Behind this claim lies the assumption, ... that any substantial cut in energy use would require a drastic change in the way we live. To be fair, some people in the conservation movement seem to share that assumption.

But the assumption is false. Let me tell you about ... an advanced economy that has managed to combine rising living standards with a substantial decline in per capita energy consumption, and managed to keep total carbon dioxide emissions more or less flat for two decades, even as both its economy and its population grew rapidly. And it achieved all this without fundamentally changing a lifestyle centered on automobiles and single-family houses.

The name of the economy? California.

There’s nothing heroic about California’s energy policy... [T]he state has adopted ... conservation measures that are ... the kind of drab, colorless stuff that excites only real policy wonks. Yet the cumulative effect has been impressive...

The energy divergence between California and the rest of the United States dates from the 1970s. Both the nation and the state initially engaged in significant energy conservation after that decade’s energy crisis. But conservation in most of America soon stalled...

In California, by contrast, the state continued to push policies designed to encourage conservation, especially of electricity. And these policies worked.

People in California have always used a bit less energy ... because of the mild climate. But the difference has grown much larger since the 1970s. Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and ... emit[s] only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide.

How did the state do it? In some cases conservation was mandated directly, through energy efficiency standards for appliances and rules governing new construction. Also, regulated power companies were given new incentives to promote conservation...

And yes, a variety of state actions had the effect of raising energy prices. In the early 1970s, the price of electricity in California was close to the national average. Today, it’s about 50 percent higher. ... As the higher price of power indicates, conservation didn’t come free. Still, it’s striking how invisible California’s energy policy remains...

So is California a role model for climate policy? No and yes. Even if America as a whole had matched California..., we’d still be emitting about as much carbon dioxide now as we were in 1990. That’s too much.

But California’s experience shows that serious conservation is a lot less disruptive, imposes much less of a burden, than the skeptics would have it. And the fact that a state government, with far more limited powers than those at Washington’s disposal, has been able to achieve so much is a good omen for our ability to do a lot to limit climate change, if and when we find the political will.

_________________________
Previous (2/19) column: Paul Krugman: Wrong is Right
Next (2/26) column: Paul Krugman: Substance Over Image

Comments

says...

They recently banned the incandescent lightbulbs in Australia (which is very easy to enforce by the way-no imports, no local production thus no bulbs to buy-unless one's willing to make their own). I heard California plans to do the same.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/20/world/asia/20cnd-light.html

February 20, 2007

Australia Plans to Phase Out Incandescent Lights
By TIM JOHNSTON

SYDNEY — Australia intends to phase out incandescent light bulbs completely within three years, the country's environment minister said today.

The minister, Malcolm Turnbull, said the government would use both persuasion and regulation to get the whole country to switch to compact fluorescent bulbs, which use less energy, as part of its drive to cut down on the amount of "greenhouse" gases, implicated in global warming, that it releases into the atmosphere.

"The most effective and immediate way we can reduce greenhouse-gas emissions is by using energy more efficiently," Mr. Turnbull said. "Electric lighting is a vital part of our lives; globally, it generates emissions equal to 70 percent of those from all the world's passenger vehicles."

Australia already imposes minimum efficiency standards on many kinds of electrical appliances. A similar system will be applied to light bulbs, Mr. Turnbull said, and the standards would be steadily tightened to the point where it will ultimately be impossible to sell ordinary incandescent bulbs that meet them.

Mr. Turnbull said the government would consider making some exceptions to the restrictions for special applications like medical lighting and oven lights where compact fluorescent bulbs cannot be substituted.

Australia has also used similar methods to eliminate full-flow shower heads and full-size lavatory cisterns, to conserve water.

Sarah Stock, a spokeswoman for Mr. Turnbull, said the first step would be to encourage manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and retailers to make ample supplies of appropriate fluorescent bulbs available and to cut back on incandescents.

"Once the main players have removed those inefficient products, that investment in better quality and more efficient product will be protected by regulation," Ms. Stock said. "The actual enforcement would be conducted by state and territory energy-efficiency and consumer protection agencies."

If it goes ahead, Australia would be the first country to try to completely eliminate incandescent lighting, although last month, state legislators in California suggested a similar measure....

[Elvis]

A few years ago, I clandestinely replaced a few bulbs in my mother's Detroit home. A week or so later, I told them what I had done. "Oh, now that you mention it, it does look different." The old-style bulbs were back the next time I visited.

'nuf said.

[Elvis]

I started following this blog because Krugman's articles regularly appeared. I keep following because there are so many interesting folk here.

Back to Krugman. I like him because he just looks at the numbers in a non-partisan way. But this can't be passed over: if America as a whole had matched California..., we’d still be emitting about as much carbon dioxide now as we were in 1990. That's too much.That's too much. is quite an understatement.

Just looking at the basic facts, not touching a calculator at all, we are faced with this scenerio:
150 years of geometrically increasing emissions has resulted in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere not seen since the age of dinos [forgive me Young Earth believers].
Now scientists tell us, "Red warning light is flashing!". I'm sorry, but rolling our emissions back to 1990 is only the begining of the begining.
Don't we need to get to zero emissions? And then possibly negative emissions?

If instead of CO2 emissions, we were discussing deficit spending which was pilfering funds from Social Security, I think the tone of PK's article would have been very different.

It's great that economists like PK and the Stern Report are taking up the ball. However, there seems to be a conception that we just need to stabilize our emissions--but that would only change the increase in CO2 concentrations from a geometric curve to a linear one... or am I missing something?

[ltlee]

I discovered this site recently and enjoy it a lot.

I also has problem with Krugman's citing california as an example of rising living
standard without disruption. What is possible in one state may not be possible for the whole country. What is possible in one country may not be possible for the whole world.
Yes, California can be green if it pushes out the dirtier industries to other states.
Counry A can be cleaner if it outsources industrial productions to country C. But these won't solve the problem. The only way is better technology or reduced consumption. The latter entails a disruption of current life style.

[Kevin Doyle]

Dear Editor,

Krugman is remarkably uninformed.
Most articles on the subject repeat the common assertion that CO2 content of the atmosphere promotes ‘global warming’ (by retarding radiational cooling of the earth’s surface). This idea is constantly repeated by ‘environmentalists’ and even such organizations as the U.S. EPA and the U.N. IPCC, and accepted as fact.
In the interest of good science and education, it is worthwhile to point out a few basic oversights and exaggerations in the popular ‘wisdom’. During the daytime the sun heats the surface of the earth, and then a smaller portion of this heat energy is then re-radiated back into space at a longer wavelength (e.g. IR radiation). Greenhouse gases (CO2, CH4, O3, H2O, etc.) retard the rate at which IR radiation is reflected/emitted through the earth’s atmosphere. If they didn’t, then the earth could not sustain human life.
The popular wisdom repeated is that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, and that any increases in atmospheric CO2 will result in an increase in temperatures on earth leading to all sorts of climate catastrophe. Virtually all of the ‘scientific studies’ published on the subject discuss the ‘importance’ of CO2, while giving scant mention that H2O (water vapor or humidity) is the most abundant and dominant greenhouse gas. Neither the IPCC report nor the EPA website discusses the importance of humidity on the earth’s climate. Perhaps, they are utilizing sloppy science or are advocates for a particular view?
Atmospheric humidity, or water vapor content, varies across the globe according to geography and temperature. Most of the earth’s lower atmosphere over the oceans and much of the land has a water vapor content of between 1-2%, which can be verified with any basic chart of ‘relative humidity’. The atmospheric content of CO2 is approximately 0.035%. There is somewhat of an order of magnitude difference here! If one does the math, then the resulting balance shows that water vapor accounts for between 96.5-98.5% of greenhouse gases (ignoring for the moment all O3, CH4, etc.). An inconvenient fact for global warming alarmists is that CO2 is not very effective when it comes to its ability to trap or re-radiate heat. The radiational emissivity (ability to radiate heat) of H2O is over twice as strong as CO2 (0.35 vs. 0.15), therefore when emissivity of the two gases is factored into the equation, then the effect of H2O becomes over 99% dominant. This scenario also ignores the other important relevant factors involved, such as clouds, rain, snow, fog, etc., which further obscure any miniscule effect of CO2.
Furthermore, the earth is cooled by two mechanisms: Convection (e.g. – wind, storms, jet streams) and Radiation. The earth’s cooling by radiation only accounts for approximately one fourth of the total daily cooling, while the remaining three quarters of heat transferred back into space is as a result of winds, storms, water evaporation (which forms clouds), and jet streams.
As my college thermodynamics professor, Jack Boyd, used to say, “Therefore, it is intuitively obvious …”

If the Queen of England lights a candle in Buckingham Palace, most scientists would agree the palace is getting warmer. However, the increase in temperature within the palace would be immeasurable and irrelevant. The same could be said for CO2.

I haven’t heard any politicians and environmentalists who preach the evils of CO2 condemning the evils of water vapor. Nor, have I heard them lament the challenge of controlling the magnitude and intensity of trade-winds across our globe. Al Gore should be renamed Don Quixote, as he is crusading against a fictional dragon…
As for ‘scientists’ who support the CO2 mythology, no one would give them a grant or a paycheck to point out the obvious, as I have just done. Funding is required by them to ‘study’ the complex subject, and they need to justify their ‘research’ with scenarios of fear and panic. It is a clever and self-fulfilling prophecy.

Kevin Doyle
Newport, Rhode Island

[DrBill]

There's so much wrong with Kevin Doyles' diatribe, it's hard to know where to begin.

But radiational emissivity has little to do with the current global warming process. Don't fall for these righties' "scientific-ishness".

What we're worried about is the tendency to inhibit radiational cooling through ever-increasing atmospheric densities.

[Cyrille]

Oh dear...
NO scientist ever claims that water vapour has no effect. Ditto no scientist claims that no greenhouse effect is a desirable target.
But, absent a tremendous change in the surface of oceans from artificial islands all over the world, mankind has very little effect on water vapour. Which, by the way, does not stay in the atmosphere for very long at all.

Not so CO2, which is being sent to the atmosphere by humans, with a tremendous increase in concentration (do you get that? In a change, it's the dynamic that counts) and which has enough effect to push us over the brink, and stays in the atmosphere for decades.
Admittedly, there is at least one other kind of gas (besides methane) that could become VERY problematic in the near future: all the fluids used for air conditioning have a colossal greenhouse effect. And everyone seems to want air conditioning these days...

[Cyrille]

By the way, water vapour also has a strong albedo effect: clouds reflect sunshine in a way that CO2 never will. That effect greatly reduces the impact of their greenhouse effect.

[reason]

Elvis...
ever noticed how few light fittings can take low energy bulbs?

Unfortunately, it is not human to put up with any inconvenience, even for the public good (and when it saves them money). We are a very spoiled society. I know that Crooked Timber recently reviewed (sort of) a book called The Challenge of Affluence. The blurb starts so:
"Affluence breeds impatience and impatience undermines well-being."

A nice one liner.

It would be nice to think that public spiritedness would make a difference, but in the case of very distributed externalities, there is unfortunately no substitute for some sort of regulation or another (and cap and trade is a sort of regulation).

P.S. If you don't know Crooked Timber try it, but it is VERY intellectual. I find it often heavy going and I don't regard myself as dumb.

[Isabel]

Reason, it's not for naught that Crooked Timber is mentioned in the blogroll of "A fistful of euros" as "That egghead lot"...

[DrBill]

Cyrille, to correct the record, water vapor is indeed a serious consideration. Not really yet, so much, but moving forward yes. However, as you point out, guess where all the extra water vapor comes from? That's right, global warming caused by increased greenhouse gases! This is one of the positive feedback effects that makes folks like me so scared.

One of the characteristics of a positive feedback mechanism is that with every passing day, our marginal ability to have an effect on countering these effects diminishes. When people ask me why Richard (Betts) said the next 10 years are vital, this is why. At roughly this point, our ability to have any effect at all is likely to be gone.

To all the economic minds here I might draw an analogy to compounding interest: it's very powerful. When such a mechanism causes positive things, it's wonderful. When it causes negative changes, watch out.

[Bupa]

“The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over.”

How could that misinformed Krugman write this without consulting with Kevin Doyle of Newport, Rhode Island!?!

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that amplifies the effect of CO2.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/#more-212

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/climate-feedbacks/#more-332

and

“An increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to ultimately increase so as to maintain a balance with the absorbed solar radiation. The increase is amplified by water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), which increases with temperature in such a way as to keep relative humidity approximately constant. Melting of ice will further amplify the warming, particularly in high latitudes. The resulting widespread warming corresponding to a doubling of CO2 will be large enough and rapid enough to be well outside the range of past experience of the human species, by an amount comparable to the difference between a glacial and interglacial climate. Changes in atmospheric cloud properties may somewhat reduce or increase the sensitivity, but do not substantially alter the conclusion.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/#more-258

The infallible Kevin Doyle of Newport, Rhode Island "Neither the IPCC report nor the EPA website discusses the importance of humidity on the earth’s climate."

I guess he didn't search IPCC for water vapor:

Search the latest IPCC summary for policy makers for water vapor and get no results…..Damn Brits, you gotta search for water vapour ….ah then you get some results:

• The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.

and:

The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9}

and

The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9}

The infallible Kevin Doyle of Newport, Rhode Island "Neither the IPCC report nor the EPA website discusses the importance of humidity on the earth’s climate."

I guess he didn't search IPCC for cloud:

Range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness.

• Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}

Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}

[Bupa]

“The factual debate about whether global warming is real is, or at least should be, over.”

How could that misinformed Krugman write this without consulting with Kevin Doyle of Newport, Rhode Island!?!

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas that amplifies the effect of CO2.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/11/busy-week-for-water-vapor/#more-212

and

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/08/climate-feedbacks/#more-332

and

“An increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 and other long lived greenhouse gases requires the surface temperature to ultimately increase so as to maintain a balance with the absorbed solar radiation. The increase is amplified by water vapor (also a greenhouse gas), which increases with temperature in such a way as to keep relative humidity approximately constant. Melting of ice will further amplify the warming, particularly in high latitudes. The resulting widespread warming corresponding to a doubling of CO2 will be large enough and rapid enough to be well outside the range of past experience of the human species, by an amount comparable to the difference between a glacial and interglacial climate. Changes in atmospheric cloud properties may somewhat reduce or increase the sensitivity, but do not substantially alter the conclusion.” http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/happy-birthday-charles-darwin/#more-258

The infallible Kevin Doyle of Newport, Rhode Island says "Neither the IPCC report nor the EPA website discusses the importance of humidity on the earth’s climate."

I guess he didn't search IPCC for water vapor:

Search the latest IPCC summary for policy makers for water vapor and get no results…..Damn Brits, you gotta search for water vapour ….ah then you get some results:

• The average atmospheric water vapour content has increased since at least the 1980s over land and ocean as well as in the upper troposphere. The increase is broadly consistent with the extra water vapour that warmer air can hold.

and:

The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9}

and

The frequency of heavy precipitation events has increased over most land areas, consistent with warming and observed increases of atmospheric water vapour. {3.8, 3.9}

The infallible Kevin Doyle of Newport, Rhode Island "Neither the IPCC report nor the EPA website discusses the importance of humidity on the earth’s climate."

I guess he didn't search IPCC for cloud:

Range for linear contrails does not include other possible effects of aviation on cloudiness.

• Anthropogenic contributions to aerosols (primarily sulphate, organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust) together produce a cooling effect, with a total direct radiative forcing of -0.5 [-0.9 to -0.1] W m-2 and an indirect cloud albedo forcing of -0.7 [-1.8 to -0.3] W m-2. These forcings are now better understood than at the time of the TAR due to improved in situ, satellite and ground-based measurements and more comprehensive modelling, but remain the dominant uncertainty in radiative forcing. Aerosols also influence cloud lifetime and precipitation. {2.4, 2.9, 7.5}

Water vapour changes represent the largest feedback affecting climate sensitivity and are now better understood than in the TAR. Cloud feedbacks remain the largest source of uncertainty. {8.6, 9.6, Box 10.2}

The IPCC summary is only 18 pages long including charts and tables. How much space does Kevin Doyle of Newport Rhode Island want the IPCC summary to devote to this topic?

[RN]

Doyle's comment is Exhibit A in how the right wing does these things these days:

Just make stuff up.
Say it in some kind of serious way.
Hope that all the dumb people fall for it.
Call the smart people who don't unpatriotic.

What a country and what a time we live in.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/business/02bulb.html?ex=1325394000&en=78dfdd6856cb7590&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

January 2, 2007

Power-Sipping Bulbs Get Backing From Wal-Mart
By MICHAEL BARBARO

As a way to cut energy use, it could not be simpler. Unscrew a light bulb that uses a lot of electricity and replace it with one that uses much less.

While it sounds like a promising idea, it turns out that the long-lasting, swirl-shaped light bulbs known as compact fluorescent lamps are to the nation's energy problem what vegetables are to its obesity epidemic: a near perfect answer, if only Americans could be persuaded to swallow them.

But now Wal-Mart Stores, the giant discount retailer, is determined to push them into at least 100 million homes. And its ambitions extend even further, spurred by a sweeping commitment from its chief executive, H. Lee Scott Jr., to reduce energy use across the country, a move that could also improve Wal-Mart's appeal to the more affluent consumers the chain must win over to keep growing in the United States.

"The environment," Mr. Scott said, "is begging for the Wal-Mart business model." ...

[ken melvin]

If you don't understand science, there's no difference between voodoo and science.

[Tex]

I have a question for all of you "climatologists", how much CO2 enters the atmosphere, say when there is a large volcanic eruption? An asteroid impact? Forest fire? Do you have any ideas how to stop this? Maybe you can hold a concert or a candlelight vigil for mother earth.

Has anyone, ANYONE, ever done research on the compensatory response of the earth during a period of global warming? Has anyone done research on the recovery periods when we have cycled through temperature increases and declines? For anyone, especially an economist to imply that this is decided is ludicrous.

...the blind are leading the stupid...

[ken melvin]

Don't think the light bulb is the answer, though I do think conservation beats out ethanol by a country mile. Speaking of which, country that is, 'til America deals with lifestyle choices like exurbia there'll be no solution that really matters. Den ders the little matter of growth, as in growing our way out of our problems caused by growing our way out of problems, ....

[bakho]

Tex- There is no question that concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are increasing and the rate of increase is also increasing. This is fact.

The question before us is, "What impact will the increased carbon dioxide have on climate?" That is a stickier question with some models showing drastic effects over the next century and others showing more limited effects over longer times.

The conservative strategy is to try to stabilize the atmosphere by minimizing the increase in carbon dioxide concentration. This is the least disruptive of the status quo of our environment.

Krugman points out that some carbon dioxide can be had by simple conservation measures that should improve the efficiency of the economy for very little cost.

[anne]

Elvis:

While not meaning to be overly personal, why would there be resistance to changing light-bulbs to florescent? When I mention such a change I find no enthusiasm, but I am enthusiastic for with a little thought to the direction-position of lighting I can keep the intensity while dramatically reducing power consumption with florescence.

[Tex]

One last question:

If California is such a wonderful model of green, why is it that they cannot produce enough electricity, and why is it that they have to rely on nasty power from other states during blackouts?

[Lee A. Arnold]

It is hypocrisy that the Polluting Right thinks there's nothing that can be done. On other issues they DEFEND the creativity of free markets. That's the point of the California story. Make a new regulation, and watch it happen.

Kevin Doyle and Tex really ought to learn all the science, instead of supposing their ideas are new.

[ilsm]

We spend almost 4% of GDP for 'national security' an illusion making for a profit sector, to prevent destruction by some unknown, non existent enemy 'threats'.

National security did not work to prevent 9/11.

It won't work for any future threat.

So, take half the 'national security' debacle and spend it on destruction from climate change prevention.

I think climate change destruction prevention is a threat to 'national security' profits thus the right wing blither.

[Tex]

Good luck to Paul Krugman convincing China, India and others to sign on to this idea...

[anne]

"I have a question for all of you 'climatologists', how much CO2 enters the atmosphere, say when there is a large volcanic eruption?"

Though I have no idea of components of atmospheric CO2 added through time, I trust that specializing climatologists do have an idea, but I do not even understand the reason for such a complaint.

Also lighting is just a saving device that seemed too simple not to use, but there is much more to consider to simply having wind block and shade trees properly planted about a house and gardens. I always am looking to green suggestions. Why not?

[yartrebo]

"Most of the earth’s lower atmosphere over the oceans and much of the land has a water vapor content of between 1-2%, which can be verified with any basic chart of ‘relative humidity’. The atmospheric content of CO2 is approximately 0.035%. There is somewhat of an order of magnitude difference here! If one does the math, then the resulting balance shows that water vapor accounts for between 96.5-98.5% of greenhouse gases (ignoring for the moment all O3, CH4, etc.). An inconvenient fact for global warming alarmists is that CO2 is not very effective when it comes to its ability to trap or re-radiate heat. The radiational emissivity (ability to radiate heat) of H2O is over twice as strong as CO2 (0.35 vs. 0.15), therefore when emissivity of the two gases is factored into the equation, then the effect of H2O becomes over 99% dominant."
- Kevin

What you're saying is scientifically wrong on so many counts I don't know where to begin.

First, the greenhouse effect is logarithmic with respect to the amount of a particular gas in the atmosphere. Going from 100 ppm of CO2 (or H2O) to 200 ppm has the same effect as from 200 ppm to 400 ppm. Because of this, the effect of H20 is closer to 60% than 99%.

Second, H20, having a half life of about 10 days in the atmosphere, is considered a feedback, not a source. If the Earth gets a bit warmer, it can hold somewhat more H20 in the air, and it gets even warmer. This effect roughly triples the direct effect of the CO2.

Third, the average concentration of H20 is nowhere near 1-2%. That is only attained near the surface in tropical and subtropical areas. Most of the air in our atmosphere is well below freezing, and is quite limited in the H20 it can hold. You don't define 'lower atmosphere', so I can only assume you mean the troposphere.

"Furthermore, the earth is cooled by two mechanisms: Convection (e.g. – wind, storms, jet streams) and Radiation. The earth’s cooling by radiation only accounts for approximately one fourth of the total daily cooling, while the remaining three quarters of heat transferred back into space is as a result of winds, storms, water evaporation (which forms clouds), and jet streams."
- Kavin

The Earth is 100% cooled by radiation. Some radiation comes from the surface and some comes from the atmosphere, but for it to leave the Earth, it must be as radiation. Heat used to evaporate water is returned when the water condenses. Convection just moves heat around. Greenhouse gasses block radiation coming from most of the atmosphere as well as from the ground, and if they didn't, Venus would be a lot cooler (since virtually 100% of its heat is lost from the atmosphere).

[anne]

Well, the point of diplomacy is to set about continually convincing others to work along with us. Though the vice president is in Australia almost threatening China on its military spending or stances, I cannot imagine why we cannot work closely with China on environmental matters. Similarly India. Will we try? We have not tried.

[anne]

"If California is such a wonderful model of green, why is it that they cannot produce enough electricity, and why is it that they have to rely on nasty power from other states during blackouts?"

Paul Krugman frequently wrote to answer just this question, and later I will find the articles, but the answer was repeatedly power company supply manipulation. The answer was confirmed.

[Tex]

Oh, I see, evil Enron is causing California all of the problems (oops cannot blame those guys any more). Silly me, its not the increasing demand or the unwillingness to produce energy from non-green sources.

Nuclear power is limitless and the used fuel is harmless if buried in rock layers that have not turned over in a billion years (Yucca Mountain). Yet all of the green goofballs, who seemingly cannot understand half-life, do not want nuclear power either. At the current rate of industrial and population growth we cannot produce enough power using green only sources.

Most green sources of energy are really pseudo green anyway. Plugging an electric car into a socket that pulls fossil produced energy is actually worse than just driving a gas car. Reference Newton's Law for details...

[yartrebo]

CFL (compact fluorescent lightbulbs) are an example of low-hanging fruit. They not only save energy, but are very profitable investments in their own right and are more convenient since they rarely require changing.

While reducing CO2 emissions to a safe level (in my opinion, anything greater than 0% of 1990 levels is unsafe, though 20% could be handled for a few thousand years) will take more than efficient lightbulbs and better insulation, they represent a great start, and since they not only save energy but generate a large return on investment, they actually improve the quality of life of households using them and the profitability of businesses using them.

Other reductions, such as using smaller cars, are also quite profitable and the only costs are in the zero-sum category (any loss of prestige or safety you suffer by having a smaller car is a benefit to someone else).

[Movie Guy]

Paul Krugman - "Today, the average Californian uses about a third less total energy than the average American, uses less than 60 percent as much electricity, and ... emit[s] only about 55 percent as much carbon dioxide."

That's pretty funny, considering the facts behind California's electricity generation versus in-state consumption and the high volume of traffic on California's major arteries. If an individual or family doesn't have to heat and cool very much, if at all, that's where the electricity consumption and emission savings kick in in terms of overall power demand and supporting total generation (which California has no present ability to satisfy even with its mild climate).

Paul Krugman - "How did the state do it? In some cases conservation was mandated directly, through energy efficiency standards for appliances and rules governing new construction. Also, regulated power companies were given new incentives to promote conservation..."

California does promote conservation, but that's not the whole story. Try incentives like not growing the domestic power generation industry sufficiently to cover existing or projected demand, and thereby importing increasing levels of electricity from other states. And relying on a large share of generation from natural gas plants (over 37%) which emit levels of nitrogen oxide (NO2) on the order of 280-328 pounds per million cubic feet.

Here are some of the facts that Paul failed to acknowledge while he was patting Californians on the back.

Electricity Generation Imported to California, 2005:

Coal - 68.66%
Large Hydropower - 29.71%
Natural Gas - 9.94%
Nuclear - 13.31%

Total - 21.66%

------

California Electricity Generation by Type Source, 2005:

Coal - 20.1%
Large Hydropower - 17.0%
Natural Gas - 37.7%
Nuclear - 14.5%
Renewables - 10.7%
.. Biomass - 2.1%
.. Geothermal - 5.0%
.. Small hydropower - 1.9%
.. Solar - 0.2%
.. Wind - 1.5%

California has set some high standards for its industries and citizens, but it sucks on electrical power generation and that is why they have problems with summer brownouts and failures by region. California's next game, announced last month, is to put a cap on CO2 emissions from coal-fired electricity generation sources, including imported power sources - the out-of-state electricity generation sources. So, what happens? California will possibly reduce some of its domestic electricity generation presently coal-fired unless the switch to more petroleum and natural gas occurs (more NG is planned), and increase its out-of-state import of power. This creates a couple of problems.

The switchover to lower CO2 coal-fired generation sources out-of-state will perhaps require a shifting of sources relying more on nuclear generation from across the nation and the state sources involved will have to substitute more coal-fired generation for the additional loss of nuclear generation in their own backyards. If it plays out this way and it appears that it will, then California has accomplished much of nothing in terms of national CO2 emission levels. Power will moved around on the grid, and that changes nothing less the possibility of having to supply yet even more power to the state.

California remains a NIMBY (not in my backyard) mentality state, relying on other states' power generation sources for an increasing share of its electricity power generation and, perhaps, additional water resources. Take a closer look at California's passenger vehicle registration level and demand for gasoline (minor slippage during a few months), overcrowded highways, increasing number of closures of hospitals (including increased federal funds to help relieve that problem), matchbox houses for the money, and overcrowded schools before signing on and using California as the model for the nation. Conservation is not solving all of California's energy problems. I give the state for what it has done, aside from importing electricity. Yet, this is Paul's model for the nation. I respectfully disagree. I would gladly adopt many of the good program elements, but you can keep the rest of that situation in California.

[ken melvin]

Tex simply must quit reading the stuff writ on walls.

[anne]

http://www.pkarchive.org/economy/Wolak.html

May 27, 2002

Frank (Wolak) Thoughts On The California Crisis
By Paul Krugman

We're approaching the first anniversary of the sudden, unexpected end of California's energy crisis. I went way out on a limb, at least by journalistic standards, by saying that market manipulation was a key feature of that crisis. I have since been vindicated: arguments that people called leftist nonsense a year ago are now conventional wisdom.

But of course I wasn't a brilliant investigative reporter; I just knew enough to talk to the right people, and to understand what they were saying. Paul Joskow and Severin Borenstein were very helpful. But my most helpful source of all was Frank Wolak, the Stanford professor who also heads the CAISO market surveillance committee. (CAISO is the "system operator").

In a recent paper Wolak offers a very nifty model to explain what was going on. However, as they say in the journalistic trade, he buries his lede: the model is in passing, amid a dense discussion of institutions and their reform. So I thought I would lay it out here, to give you an idea of how I think about the whole thing.

Wolak's model starts with a simplified demand curve. We assume that the demand for electricity is totally inelastic at some given quantity - say 900 megawatt-hours - until the price reaches a ceiling, say $1000 per mwh. It doesn't matter for current purposes whether that's a legal ceiling or the price at which utilities simply refuse to buy.

On the supply side, we assume that there are a smallish number of generators, each with limited capacity - let's say 5 generators with a capacity of 200 mwh each. Each generator has a marginal cost of, say, $20 per mwh actually produced.

Wolak assumes that in the market, each generator submits a bid price for its capacity; then the system operator takes the bids in increasing order of price, but pays all producers the highest bid actually taken. This is a stylized version of the PX, or day-ahead, market that actually operated. He also assumes implicitly that the bids are submitted in order - that the generators go one by one, each knowing what the previous bids were. (It's possible to do this with simultaneous bids; in that case it's a mixed-strategy equilibrium, with qualitatively similar results.)

So what's the Nash equilibrium of this game, given total capacity of 1000 and demand of 900? The first four generators submit bids at $20, their marginal cost; the last generator bids $1000, the maximum. It knows that it will sell only 100 mwh, half its capacity - but far better to sell 100 units at $1000 than 200 at $20! ...

[Peter Schaeffer]

All,

It would appear that the State of California agrees with Movie Guy. Check out http://www.climatechange.ca.gov/policies/images/es2.jpg.

California imports more than 30% of its electricity, much of it from giant coal-fired plants in other states. If these plants were in California, the CO2 data wouldn't nearly as good.

[kharris]

What's scary intellectually, rather than environmentally, is that it took me about two seconds to figure out, upon reading Doyle's comment, what Bupa then pointed out. Higher atmospheric and ocean surface temperatures will lead to higher atmospheric water content. If I can see Doyle's argument was self-contradictory, and I ain't no scienctist, why would he even bother to offer it? Even with the worst will in the world, why would he think that argument is effective?

Tex,

You seem to have mistaken the audience here for something other (studiper) than we are. You also seem not to know much about the state of research in climate change. Forest fires and volcanoes create greenhouse effects aplenty. That is no secret and has not been excluded from standard research on the issue. You should be embarassed to have claimed otherwise. Human behavior has added greenhouse gasses, as pointed out by other comments here, at a geometrically rising rate. That is not true of vulcanism or forest fires. It was CO2 out and CO2 in, with wide cycles over time. Humanity has brought a period of CO2 out with no real prospect of an offsetting CO2 in, absent a radical change in our behavior. One way or another, our behavior will change. Managing that change rather than having it forced upon us seems a wise course.

MG,

Krugman answered his own question about whether California should be the US model with "no and yes" so I fear you are arguing against a straw man. Krugman is also discussing a single element of energy policy, rather than the full range of energy policies. He is using the example of California's conservation efforts to argue that conservation need not be onerous. He is not arguing that all aspects of California's energy policy are exemplary. Your criticism of California reliance energy imports partly answered by California's conservation efforts. California's love affair with cars is partly answered by its first-in-the-nation mileage requirements. NIMBY is a different issue, and one worth addressing, but it is not an answer to Krugman's argument.

[Sam]

Most comments about "bringing India and China onboard" on climate change show the same kind of ignorance as Tex. Growing up in India, my middle class (Indian standards - $400/month family income) family always used flourescent lights in most of our rooms - the tube type found in offices/stores in the US. The cost of electricity was (is) a much higher fraction of income for Indians. Hence it led to the widespread use of flourescent lights since a long time back(before the CFLs were even invented). As Elvis pointed out, even the much improved, less bright white, CFLs are unacceptable to many Americans. Meanwhile, on recent visits to India, I have seen far greater use of CFLs than I see in the US.

Asking for commitments on reduction in energy use from India/China is very unfair because 1) ACCESS to elecricity is increasing in those countries - so far many don't even have access 2) they are already more efficient in the use of energy. Both these facts are reflected in the extremely low (but rising) per capita consumption of energy. Finally, almost all the global warming gases till today have been emitted not by India/China but by the advanced countries. This is the reason why India keeps insisting that freezing emissions at current levels or asking for cuts from present day levels on a per country basis will only freeze the present global economic inequalities. A per capita cap on emissions (which can be continually reduced in the future) is something India has been proposing. Naturally, India/China and other low emissions countries would be far below the cap to begin with and only the advanced economies would have to work to meet the targets (as in the Kyoto accord).

[anne]

The room off the back garden is glassed and planted, and the bird room. The white florescent lighting from various angles seems especially suited to plants and birds and I am repeatedly told is attractive. But, the lighting draws suspicion. (Also, I find the coolness of florescence an advantage.)

I cannot imagine that India or China would be resistance to conservation means that are not growth limiting, and there is no need for conservation to limit growth - quite the reverse.

[Tex]

I am sorry that I do not kneel to the all-knowing and omniscient Paul Krugman (especially on environmental matters). You may do as you please. I will continue to drive my vehicle to work every day and turn on my air conditioner when it is hot. So will you. I am a realist. Those of you who believe that the environmental zealots, such a Al Gore, and much of Hollywood, will stop riding around in private jets and doing as they please are sheep.

If you want to slow green house emissions propose viable solutions: nuclear energy, mass transit, etc. Economically, it's foolish to believe that part of the world will make drastic sacrifices while others do not.

[Tex]

Sam (the wise):

I guess China is bringing up 2200 coal fired plants for fun? Those fluorescent lights in China are really going to fix that... Darn, that should cause a full scale panic amongst you guys. I have no ideas about life in India, but I have read that cattle are significant sources of CO2 (from a green blogger) and that we should all be vegetarians.

You guys crack me up. I will have to endure the .3 degree increase in temperature during the remainder of my lifetime (assuming current rates). : )

[Winston]

Peter Schaeffer:

The figures Krugman cited include CO2 emissions from imported electricity. Californians really do use considerably less energy than Americans in general. They do so because building codes are much stricter, appliances are required to be more efficient, people drive fewer miles, and because CA has a fairly low emitting mix of energy sources compared to the U.S. as a whole.

Movie Guy:

Brownouts are very rare in California. In fact, the law requiring power companies to maintain correct voltage on their power lines was one of the under-reported factors in the rolling blackouts. Had brownouts been permitted, there would have been much less disruption. Further, that whole situation was created because power generation was concentrated in the hands of a few people who figured out how to game the system and make lots of money by deliberately making large cuts in the amount of power available. Given the same market setup, the same thing would have happened anywhere.

[vorpal]

New York uses less energy per capita.
Massachusetts is almost as good as California.

Let me tell you, New York and Massachusetts don't do anything significant to 'conserve' energy.

If New York is lower, then California must be doing a horrible job conserving energy given its much milder climate. Any trip through LA County on the highway and throught the suburbs and you will quickly see why California's performance is so poor.

Krugman is just plain wrong on this one. If not factually, then implicitly. I am disappointed that an economist of his stature would lead people to believe that conservation reduces demand. Even an undergraduate knows that price reduces demand...not efficiency. I think Krugman put on 'Green' blinders. He let his bias affect his judgement.

[Jimmy Martin]

The factual debate about whether Paul Krugman is a moron is, or at least should be, over (he is, without any question whatsoever). The real question now is what to do about his drooling carcus, allowing him to live out the remaining "WARM" years he has left in peace. He should be allowed to live in some out-of-the-way backwater where nobody will bother him or be bothered by him. OH...he writes for the NY Times? Well then, he's already there!

Job well done!

[Minu]

Most comments about "bringing India and China onboard" on climate change show the same kind of ignorance as Tex.

Exactly. An American visiting those places is astonished at how pervasive fluorescent lamps are. Public and workplace lighting is invariably so - dept. store lighting, sodium lamps for streets etc., But I guess that's true here in the US also. It's small business and domestic lighting that's vastly different.

Talk about perverse incentives. Making light bulbs is a reserved industry in India, meaning only small cap is allowed to do it, and they have poor quality controls. This makes it one of the lousiest products there, they burn out so fast. The wild fluctuations in voltage does not help bulb life either.

FL is so popular in India because its way more cheaper - in both lamp and lighting costs.

[anne]

Oh dear, as far as I understand California is the most energy efficient state in the country and, yes, Paul Krugman really does know how to do research, and who to turn to for advice, and how to think.

Of course, energy imports to California are counted. The idea though is to make Krugman wrong and to make conservation or efficiency seem foolish or impossible.

says...

Anne - you have not answered any of the questions. ANother discussion where all you can do is repeat your ideas in spite of the evidence.

Your assumption of energy imports counted is laughable - it sure is not in the Oil and Gas industry - but Krugman must be right. You are a blind zealot, terrible in your tribal affiliations, an intellectual bigot.

Be Gone

[anne]

"---- - go be patronizing elsewhere. Your condescending tone adds nothing to the discussion.

"Leave immediately."

Always the desperation of intimidation, all the time, because that is what intimidators do, they intimidate, they must intimidate for therein is an identity. From lunatic 1930s imagery on, always intimidation all the time. Notice how intimidated I am.

[anne]

"You are a blind zealot, terrible in your tribal affiliations, an intellectual bigot.

"Be Gone"

Always intimidation, all the time, though possibly an improvement in style from using lunatic 1930s metaphors. Why intimidation, because that is what intimidators do, they intimidate, they must intimidate and I suppose they would use cudgels were they able to.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Winston,

Please post your sources. You might be correct. However, a quick check of Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004 gives California CO2 emmissions of 363.4 MT. The chart over at Comparison of California Emissions with Other States and Countries Fig 26 gives a similar number for 1999.

However, Fig 100B at California Emissions in Context shows that California's electriticity imports resulted in another 73 MT of CO2 (1999 data). I can find no evidence that out-of-state emmissions are included in the California totals. However, it may well be true. Please give a source.

[anne]

Oh dear, as far as I understand California is the most energy efficient state in the country and, yes, Paul Krugman really does know how to do research, and who to turn to for advice, and how to think.

Funny, remembering that the Washington Post was writing of California as the most energy efficient state in, well, in America; per capita-wise that is. Yes; the Washingotn Post, even, this week. Imagine.

Notice how intimidated I am.

[James Killus]

It so happens that I'm a fan of nuclear power in the abstract, but it has several things that are much against it in practice. It's nature is such that it requires immense regulatory oversight and sufficient government backing to justify the phrase "inherently socialist." (Liability caps and non-proliferation controls being just two amnong many).

But the nature of the current U.S. political structure and ideology (and I'm not just thinking about the current Administration, although it is a particularly egregious example) is such that the U.S. really can't be trusted to manage a nuclear industry of sufficient size and growth to make a dent in U.S. energy policy.

On the other hand, I've seen the practical limit for wind power contribution to the power grid placed as high as 30%, and there is no good reason why farmers in the West and Mid-West shouldn't add "wind" to their crop list. Solar thermal is also near enough to standard power generation costs to be usable, provided there is a public public policy decision to do so.

Finally, if current development curves extrapolated far enough, photovoltaics become very attractive somewhere around 2020-2030.

[anne]

Winston:

"The figures Krugman cited include CO2 emissions from imported electricity. Californians really do use considerably less energy than Americans in general. They do so because building codes are much stricter, appliances are required to be more efficient, people drive fewer miles, and because CA has a fairly low emitting mix of energy sources compared to the U.S. as a whole."

My oh my, can Winton say such things? Can I repeat them? My oh my. Can Paul Krugman continue to write for the New York Times? My oh my. Imagine a subject so tame and imagine the vituperation. My oh my.

[James Killus]

Also, I find it illustrative that guys like "Tex" (who is yet another fellow who seems to be posting anonymously) never bother to respond to anyone pointing out their factual errors and logic; they just move on to what's next on the list of talking points. Tex got to the sarcasm and insult portion pretty quickly.

Reminds one a little like boiler room phone callers who are following a script, doesn't it?

[Peter Schaeffer]

Krugman’s analysis is flawed in two fundamental ways that he doesn’t mention (or emphasize enough). First, California doesn’t have the heavy industries, rural driving patterns, and severe climate that drive up energy consumption in other states. Second, California is simply poor, with a per-capita GDP 21% below the national average. To his credit, Krugman does mention the exorbitant cost of energy in California. However, energy conservation via unaffordability is hardly something to be proud of, or a model to emulate.
Take a look at US Per Capita Electricity Use By State in 2003. The high ranking states are either industrial, Southern, or both. The interesting exception is Washington, D.C., which ranks number 3, nationwide. D.C. is considerably richer than any U.S. state (by a rather large margin). To put this in perspective California has 838 annual cooling days per year (rank 26). By contrast, Texas has 2,696 cooling data per year (rank 4). See California Energy Statistics for the source. As Krugman mentioned, electricity in California is very pricey, at $0.13 per KWHR (rank 2) according to Electric Power. Note that other sources, give a somewhat lower rank for California’s electricity prices, but not lower prices.
However, if you look at the gasoline consumption data, Califonia’s conservation record falls by the wayside. California does use less gasoline per-capita than the national average 414.4 gallons versus 464 gallons. However, the delta (10.7%) is less than the difference in per-capita GDP. In other words, Californians use more gasoline per dollar than the national average. Of course, California is also predominantly urban (96.6%, rank 2) rather than rural. Take a look at U.S. Gasoline Per Capita Use by State 2004. Other urban states such a Illinois, Pennsyvania, and New York use less gasoline per-capita than California.
It appears that the State of California tends to disagree with Krugman. Take a look at California’s Emissions as Compared to Other States. A few quote
“When considering California’s emissions in comparison to other states’ emissions, it is important to realize that fossil fuel combustion emissions are dependent on many other factors, including climate, the composition of the state’s industrial base, and energy and air quality programs and their effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Using a decomposition analysis, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concluded that the differences in climate and types of industry explain two-thirds of the lower energy consumption per capita in California as compared to the U.S. as a whole.”
The bolding is mine.
The other third could be attributable to conservation, according to the California Climate Change web site. However, low incomes and high inequality provide a cogent explanation as well. As mentioned above, California is one of the poorer states in the Union, ranking 44th in per-capita income. Inequality is also well above U.S norms which tends to further reduce energy consumption (the wealthy consume less energy per dollar).
When you take into account climate, industrial structure, and relative poverty/high inequality, California’s overall energy conservation achievements don’t look particularly impressive. Indeed, it is rather unclear if they exist at all.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Krugman’s analysis is flawed in two fundamental ways that he doesn’t mention (or emphasize enough). First, California doesn’t have the heavy industries, rural driving patterns, and severe climate that drive up energy consumption in other states. Second, California is simply poor, with a per-capita GDP 21% below the national average. To his credit, Krugman does mention the exorbitant cost of energy in California. However, energy conservation via unaffordability is hardly something to be proud of, or a model to emulate.
Take a look at US Per Capita Electricity Use By State in 2003. The high ranking states are either industrial, Southern, or both. The interesting exception is Washington, D.C., which ranks number 3, nationwide. D.C. is considerably richer than any U.S. state (by a rather large margin). To put this in perspective California has 838 annual cooling days per year (rank 26). By contrast, Texas has 2,696 cooling data per year (rank 4). See California Energy Statistics for the source. As Krugman mentioned, electricity in California is very pricey, at $0.13 per KWHR (rank 2) according to Electric Power. Note that other sources, give a somewhat lower rank for California’s electricity prices, but not lower prices.
However, if you look at the gasoline consumption data, Califonia’s conservation record falls by the wayside. California does use less gasoline per-capita than the national average 414.4 gallons versus 464 gallons. However, the delta (10.7%) is less than the difference in per-capita GDP. In other words, Californians use more gasoline per dollar than the national average. Of course, California is also predominantly urban (96.6%, rank 2) rather than rural. Take a look at U.S. Gasoline Per Capita Use by State 2004. Other urban states such a Illinois, Pennsyvania, and New York use less gasoline per-capita than California.
It appears that the State of California tends to disagree with Krugman. Take a look at California’s Emissions as Compared to Other States. A few quote
“When considering California’s emissions in comparison to other states’ emissions, it is important to realize that fossil fuel combustion emissions are dependent on many other factors, including climate, the composition of the state’s industrial base, and energy and air quality programs and their effects on greenhouse gas emissions. Using a decomposition analysis, researchers at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory concluded that the differences in climate and types of industry explain two-thirds of the lower energy consumption per capita in California as compared to the U.S. as a whole.”
The bolding is mine.
The other third could be attributable to conservation, according to the California Climate Change web site. However, low incomes and high inequality provide a cogent explanation as well. As mentioned above, California is one of the poorer states in the Union, ranking 44th in per-capita income. Inequality is also well above U.S norms which tends to further reduce energy consumption (the wealthy consume less energy per dollar).
When you take into account climate, industrial structure, and relative poverty/high inequality, California’s overall energy conservation achievements don’t look particularly impressive. Indeed, it is rather unclear if they exist at all.

[Tex]

Really, the Washington Post, I will have to rethink everything. Their reputation for fair reporting is equal to that of the New York Times. Neither has to necessarily lie or make factual errors, all that is necessary is that they present one side of a story and dismiss other ideas as politically or economically motivated and throw in a few good facts that show part of the picture and presto!

There are several prominent professors and climatologists that disagree with the global warming alarmists on scientific grounds. Those poor guys must feel like Copernicus facing the papacy...

[Peter Schaeffer]

Sorry about the double post. Browser problems.

says...

so Kevin Doyle thinks he is smarter than hundreds of seasoned climatologist with Ph.D.'s combined. So what is he? A hundred Einsteins put together? This guy sounds like one of those conspiracy nuts.

[Tex]

Really, the Washington Post, I will have to rethink everything. Their reputation for fair reporting is equal to that of the New York Times. Neither has to necessarily lie or make factual errors, all that is necessary is that they present one side of a story and dismiss other ideas as politically or economically motivated and throw in a few good facts that show part of the picture and presto!

There are several prominent professors and climatologists that disagree with the global warming alarmists on scientific grounds. Those poor guys must feel like Copernicus facing the papacy...

[anne]

Ah, I understand, of course I understood from the beginning, we have a climate change denier. Well, not just a denier but a belittler. Fine, the science is wrong and the reporting on the science is wronger and the reporting in the New York Times and Washington Post is wrongest, and the reason California seems to be energy efficient, even though it really isn't, is that Calfironia is poorer than peaches and peaches are awfully poor. I understand.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Movie Guy,

You are being too harsh on Anne. Without her we wouldn’t have learned nearly as much about the Irish.

[anne]

Always intimidation, all the time, because that is what intimidators do, they intimidate; they must intimidate because therein is an identity.

[piglet]

Amazing how many newcomers in this forum. The rational debate is over, but the irrational debate is not until the last denier is drowned in the rising sea water. Please don't feed the trolls.

I agree with those who say there is not much exemplary about California's energy economy but also note, as does kharris, that Krugman himself acknowledges this. What Krugman points out is that California's record is better than the US average if you look at the change since the 1970s. California is still, by any other standard, an immensely wasteful economy. What it shows is that policy decisions do matter, and that the fatalism of those who claim that nothing could and should be done is irrational.

[kotika]

the land of the US as a whole is a net reducer of CO2 in the earths atmosphere, this is because of the gigantic areas of grasslands and forests. They measure this as a decrease in the concentration of CO2 while air passes over US from west to east, and leaves into the atlantic ocean with more oxygen than it came in.

other countries like europe and japan have much higher concentrations of people, and their nature has been destroyed during the 16-19th centuries much more thoroughly than that of america. Virtually all forests of europe and japan have been completely cut down in that period. I have seen wild anymals in the Colorado mountains that have been hunted and eliminated centuries ago in europe.

so no need for apologies, my american friends. if european and other greens fell like they are a burden to the earth let them reduce their population densities to that of the US and regrow their forests first, then come knocking on americans door.

[anne]

Notice the structure of intimidation, the intimidator howling for the pack, for in the pack there is true harm to be done. There is the true madness. How poor then is California in comparison to peaches? There we have a real lesson for Paul Krugman.

[piglet]

Concerning the light bulbs, have a look at 18seconds.org. And say a prayer to thank Wal-Mart (just kidding ;-)

[Peter Schaeffer]

I gave the detailed numbers before, but a summary might be helpful. According to Krugman, Californians use around 1/3 less energy than the U.S. average. I haven't checked this, but let's take it for granted. According to the State of California website, around 2/3rd of the delta is a consequence of industrial structure and climate. That leaves 1/9th as a potential consequence of conservation. However, California is 21% poorer than America as a whole.

It appears to be true, that the delta separating California's per-capita energy use and the nation has expanded over time. However, California has grown increasingly poor over the years and heavy industry has declined. The bottom line is that California is less energy efficient than the nation, adjusted for income, climate, and its economy.

[James Killus]

Peter,

In Southern California it isn't uncommon for someone to drive 200 miles in a single day and never leave an urban area. It's pretty easy to have a 60+ mile commute in the SF Bay area as well, and I know people who live in areas like Tracy or Stockton and who work in SF or Sacramento (2+ hour commutes each way).

I'm just saying that the breakdown between "urban" and "rural" driving, um, sorta breaks down in California.

The interesting thing about California's energy use patterns isn't how they compare to other states, but how they have flattened in recent years. I think that higher energy prices have made people more receptive to conservation measures, and that's the real story.

[James Killus]

Ah, and Tex is still on script I see. Now he's on the "Copernicus" riff. Does anyone remember what follows that? I'm pretty sure there's supposed to be something about CO2 and global warming being good for us, or did he hit that one already and I just missed it?

[spencer]

Peter Schaeffer -- you are usually pretty good on this,
but this time you have some facts wrong.

California ranks number 11 in real per capita gdp and the California real per capita gdp is 109.5% of the national
average. So that makes you statement on gas or energy use per real gdp incorrect,

[Bruce Hall]

One point to address florescent bulbs: they contain mercury and nothing has been done to address disposal concerns. Mercury from broken florescent bulbs can and does poison ground water and lakes.

That said...

In so much of what I have read and even written, there are issues of environment, energy and the economy that overlap and may conflict. It is a difficult challenge to separate much of the particulars into neat categories and identify conflicts or contradictions.

For example, let's look at the issue of oil and it's alternatives.

The use of oil is primarily an economic one. Oil has the advantage of amply supply, great distribution and a transportation market designed around oil products. Oil as an energy source is superior to ethanol in the mileage it delivers per gallon. It has distinct environmental drawbacks from all manner of pollution from spills to emissions that foul the air.

When one looks at the alternatives to oil, the same issues face us. For example, ethanol has been pushed as an alternative fuel.

Ethanol is not a good economic alternative at the present price of oil; it requires significant subsidies, it disrupts the corn market, and does not have a good distribution system. It does not produce as much energy per gallon as gasoline. Ethanol has environmental issues because of emissions of pollutants that cause smog plus it continues to create CO2 which has become a political pariah.

How about battery-powered cars?

There is both a technical and economic issue with batteries as a replacement for gasoline. The range of battery-powered vehicles is limited without a supplemental small engine and overall energy usage may be more than a small gasoline-powered vehicle. Then there is the overriding environmental issue of what to do with the dead batteries.

How about hydrogen-powered vehicles?

Hydrogen gas as the source of power for vehicles sounds great, but there is presently no economical method of producing large quantities of this gas and distributing it for consumption. Furthermore, hydrogen gas is essentially a battery... a storage medium... that requires other sources of energy for production... such as nuclear or coal-powered electricity generating plants which have bad environmental reputations.

So when dealing with issues such as "global warming", one must critically look at the alternatives. Alternatives to oil are just one area of discussion. A similar discussion is necessary for coal... and another for nuclear power.

There are many potential alternatives being tossed around. For example, plasma arc technology is being developed for destruction of virtually all wastes except nuclear waste. Plasma arc incineration plants could be built at current landfills and eliminate the need for further landfills. They reduce all waste to its atomic components and, in the process, creates more electricity than it consumes... one disposal site could power a city and eliminate most environmental threats... while actually reducing the cost of waste management. That's a potential win in all three categories of economy, energy and environment. The problem is that this alternative is only getting a start.

There is a tendency to be one-sided in response to perceived problems. The CO2 alarmists want to focus only on efforts to reduce CO2 whether the efforts have detrimental economic, energy, or environmental side-effects. The rush to action... especially political action is often at the expense of other real human concerns.

Here's one: safe water. With population growing ever faster, the availability of safe water may be more pressing than "solving" the CO2 "problem." It just doesn't have the PR that other issues have.

Economic, energy and environmental concerns need critical and balanced solutions. Otherwise, we can "solve" one area of concern and bring chaos in others.

Also see regarding the debate is over:
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/19/comment-on-the-role-of-land-coverland-use-change-within-the-climate-system/

and this which includes comments from/to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate.
http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/02/15/science-errors-or-at-best-cherrypicking-in-the-2007-ipcc-statement-for-policymakers/

[spencer]

Peter Schaeffer -- you are usually pretty good on this,
but this time you have some facts wrong.

California ranks number 11 in real per capita gdp and the California real per capita gdp is 109.5% of the national
average. So that makes you statement on gas or energy use per real gdp incorrect.

While your argument about the composition of industry and output may have some validity, if you compare the growth of energy consumption in California to the growth in the rest of the country you see the big difference Krugman is talking about. The comparisons of growth rates would not be distorted by the composition of output as it does not change significantly over a decade or so.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Spencer,
California's per-capita GDP is well below the national average. The per-capita GDP data is at List of U.S. states by GDP per capita (nominal). The COLI adjustment data is at Cost of Living 2nd Quarter 2006. I would be glad to send you the spreadsheet with the calculations. Adjusting the nominal per-capita data gives the real per-capita GDP.
The gap between California's per-capita energy consumption and the rest of the U.S. had been gradually expanding for 30 years or more. Take a look at Figure 31: California and United States Electricity per Capita Trends Since 1976. That's more than enough time for the composition of output to change materially.

[Bupa]

Jimmy Martin says Paul Krugman is a moron.

We haven’t heard Jimmy’s name on the whisper list for Nobel prizes. We haven’t noted Jimmy’s publication record in peer reviewed journals.

Perhaps Jimmy’s vocabulary is not up to the challenge of describing his feelings about Paul.

I could understand that Paul might get on Jimmy’s nerves. Paul expresses views that Jimmy probably disagrees with. Jimmy probably finds it annoying to read Paul’s articles. He might find Paul querulous and shrill.

But to call Paul a moron is ridiculous. Perhaps in Jimmy’s small mind words like stupid or moron are used as synonyms for petulant or irritating. Understandable. Let’s not hold it against Jimmy. At least he is trying to broaden his horizon by visiting Mark’s website and attempting to jump into the debate.

For the record, while I do find Paul’s style a bit peevish, I think he is one of the few 21st century patriots. He has been putting his mind to good use with his editorials on the New York Times. His articles are well researched, clearly articulated, and usually spot on. He chooses important subjects to address. He uses the limited space of an editorial masterfully. He was a lone voice in big media revealing the ignominious nature of the Bush administration early in 2001. He was a lone voice in big media warning of the disastrous collapse an independent investigative media and the emasculation of the opposition party in the wake of September 11 and the run up to the Iraq war. He was a loan voice in big media pointing out the need for universal health care and a single payer system. He was a loan voice in big media in questioning the Bush administrations flawed fiscal policy favoring the wealthiest few at the expense of the majority.

He has been kind enough to send personal emails to Mark to note the sources he has used. Perhaps he will do so again today.

Thanks Paul, and sorry I called you peevish.

[Movie Guy]

Peter Schaeffer | Feb 23, 2007 11:03:08 AM - "Movie Guy,

You are being too harsh on Anne. Without her we wouldn’t have learned nearly as much about the Irish."

Point taken. She screwed up one thread early this morning. anne has already grossly misstated two issues on this thread. One is a whopper. She's MIA on that one. But I can wait... She will say it again. We can count on that. ha.

I am just watching this thread unfold right now. I'm waiting for those numbers that Winslow is convinced were used in preparing Paul's column.

I want to stack that up against the data I have on file from California and the federal government.

Post 'em, Winslow. Or smoke 'em if you got 'em.

This might turn into an entertaining afternoon. Glad I finished my projects for the week.

This could be fun.

[anne]

Spencer:

"California ranks number 11 in real per capita gdp and the California real per capita gdp is 109.5% of the national average."

Even though this is of course right, it has to be proven wrong. Guess why what is right must be proven wrong. Can you guess? I wonder why....

[anne]

There we have the call of the wild intimidators; "here little intimidators, here." Watch the lunatic intimidators come, here they come. Come lunatic intimidators. Let us find some nice military metaphor, some nice 1930s sort of language for intimidation. "Here little intimidators."

[anne]

Notice the language of intimidation, notice the structures used, notice that intimidators need to travel in packs but that is the way intimidators are. "Here little intimidators." Let us all intimidate together. Notice the language.

[Bruce Hall]

Peter,

A couple of questions regarding energy consumption per person.

1. is this total energy usage (not sure how that is measured) divided by population. Remember that California has been the "beneficiary" of a massive amount of poor, Mexican immigrants... both legal and illegal... who are often forced to live in energy-poor environments.

2. California has not participated in either power-generation growth or industry/manufacturing growth to the extent of the rest of the nation.

I think that the numbers regarding "per person" are distinctly misleading.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Anne,

I would ask for a source, but I know better...
I would aks for some facts, but I know better...
I would ask for a logical argument, but I know better...
I would aks that you use your real name, but I know better...
I would ask that you use your real Email address, but I know better...

So let's be positive instead. What did you like about James Joyce? I have never read him. Was Finnegans Wake as good as Ulysses? What about his other work? What would you recommend reading first?

[Bruce Hall]

Peter... comments not questions above.

[anne]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021602274_pf.html

February 17, 2007

In Energy Conservation, Calif. Sees Light
Progressive Policy Makes It a Model in Global Warming Fight
By Steven Mufson - Washington Post

At the height of the 1973 energy crisis, Arthur H. Rosenfeld had a revelation.

Disturbed about having to spend half an hour in line at a gas station one Friday night, the particle physicist calculated that keeping his floor of offices brightly lit all weekend as usual would consume the equivalent of five gallons of gasoline. So Rosenfeld took what then seemed like a bold step: He turned off the lights.

For 30 years, Rosenfeld has been one of the forces guiding California on a mission of conservation. And today the state uses less energy per capita than any other state in the country, defying the international image of American energy gluttony. Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use per person for the United States overall has jumped 50 percent.

California has managed that feat through a mixture of mandates, regulations and high prices. The state has been able to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, keep utility companies happy and maintain economic growth. And in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on global warming, California serves as a model for other states seeking a similar path to energy reduction. Now California is pushing further in its effort to cut automobile pollution, spur use of solar energy and cap greenhouse gases.

"California really represents what the rest of the country could do if it paid a bit more attention to energy efficiency," says Greg Kats, managing principal at Capital E, an energy and clean-technology advisory firm. "California is the best argument we have about how to very cost-effectively both reduce energy consumption and cut greenhouse gases. And they've made money doing it." Kats estimates that the average Californian family spends about $800 a year less on energy than it would have without efficiency improvements over the past 20 years.

Today, as an energy consumer, California is more like thrifty Denmark than the rest of the energy-guzzling United States. While the average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000 -- and that's counting renewable energy sources.

California has managed to cut its contributions to global warming, too. Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in California have fallen by 30 percent since 1975, while U.S. per capita carbon dioxide emissions have remained essentially level....

[anne]

Breaking now from the joy of intimidation, let us all prove just how poor as peaches California is, and why California is so poor. Just so we come to understand why California is so much "more or less" energy intensive than the rest of the country, and why, to suit our fancies. Paul Krugman; knows nothing, of course, other than what he knows, of course, and what he knows is, well, known.

[Igor]

It's fact that we're spewing huge ammounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. Thinking that it has no ill effect is extremely optimistic on the part of human induced climate change skeptics. They still could be right but I'd rather not bet on it.

Reducing enerty consumption with some basic changes like slightly raising the price of electricity, allowing power meters to 'reverse' if customers generate their own power, CF bulbs or LCD bulbs (the future), energy efficient appliances...the list is very long indeed.

All these changes will happen anyway because of market forces.

All Mr. Krugman suggests is that we speed up the inevitable a little, just in case it makes a positive difference. Sounds good to me.

[Sam]

Tex,

Even after the new 2200 coal power plants China's coal based electricity production is 1.4 trillion kwh for 1.2 billion people to the US's 1.9 trillion kwh of coal fired power production for 0.3 billion people.

As for being vegetarian, it is the protection of cattle in India which gives India 400 million cattle (the US has 100million, Europe 130 million, China 150 million). It would be better for the environment if Indians started eating them (almost half of Indians would if it were legal). However, cattle aren't a major contributor to greenhouse gases. Their worst contribution is the 15% of the world's anthropogenic methane. India's cattle would contribute 4% to world's methane emissions. Methane is responsible for 7% of the greenhouse gas effect. So India's cattle are responsible for a total 0.28% of anthropogenic greenhouse effect. I will celebrate the end of the ban on beef that exists in most Indian states. But cattle aren't really the biggest contributors to greenhouse gases.

References:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epates.html
http://www.cslforum.org/china.htm

[Tex]

Sam, I was attempting to be funny. I thought it quite funny that people seriously consider the effects that cows have on the greenhouse effect. I also thought it quite funny that the conversation was about light bulbs when the fastest growing economies and energy users are resorting to fossil fuel.

I believe in conserving energy and using renewable sources as best we can. But we have to be economically pragmatic. We cannot allow the militant green goblins run our economy and nation into the ground for very miniscule gains. Serious people should make serious suggestions. California is not a shining example and Paul Krugman is no genius (not that I am). A nobel prize is no measure of a person's intellect, i.e. Jimmy Carter, Arafat, etc. And a nomination proves even less.

[anne]

Yeah, I agree, sort of like not letting greens push American car makers to make say a Prius. Perfect. besides California, with subsidies, guess where the most work in being done on research and evelopment and manufacture of solar panels? Tell us though when to buy an American Prius.

[piglet]

anne, thanks for the article.

"the particle physicist calculated that keeping his floor of offices brightly lit all weekend as usual would consume the equivalent of five gallons of gasoline. So Rosenfeld took what then seemed like a bold step: He turned off the lights." I think the American malady is captured in these two sentences. I have witnessed in disbelief American (and Canadian) office workers leaving the office with all the lights on, and all the machines on, like monitors, and heavy copy machines that use so much energy even in idle mode, and I have personally been reprimanded for daring to switch such a machine off over the weekend. That the common-sense flick of a light switch can seriously be called a "bold step" in this country says it all about the sheer wastefulness of its economy. The heated debate in this thread, mostly fueled by irrational deniers and some nitpickers rather than by those who want to make change for the better, is equally revealing. The mere idea of saving some energy is being fought against with religious fervor. I am far from saying that Europeans are angels of conservation but this "I don't care" attitude is typical and almost unique to America.

[Tex]

I have no problem with a Prius. I have a problem with forcing others to conform to your sensibilities. I buy efficient cars. I would like one that gets 1000 mpg. I have problem forcing regulations on our companies that are not enforced elsewhere. This encourages companies to leave for places where their overhead is lower. I have a problem with hypocrites in government who talk the talk, but do not walk the walk.

Your Prius rides alongside a big rig that probably emits 100 times the about of pollution. You will still eat the food that it delivers. If you want a change, suggest real solutions like rail, nuclear power, r&d, etc.

[anne]

Actually, though the point is to develop conservation and efficiency measures or regulations that will be commercially advantageous. Vehicle fleet efficiency requirements simply ceased to be tightened from about 1985 to 2005, had there needed to be subsidies to generate the increases in efficiency and preserve competitiveness that would have been satisfactory. Cleverly make conservation pay, but make it pay before the need is immediate as an investor would.

[anne]

The time to have taken advantage of vehicle maker well-being was precisely when there was no perception of immediate need for conservation, but that was when Berkshire Hathaway was buying oil and energy company shares.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/22/us/22river.html?ex=1329800400&en=1fa69eafd3b67461&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

February 22, 2007

That 'Drought' in Southwest May Be Normal, Report Says
By CORNELIA DEAN

The Colorado River Basin is more prone to drought than had been thought, a panel of experts reported yesterday, and as the climate warms and the population in the region grows, pressure on water supplies will become greater.

The severe droughts the region suffered in the 1990s and early 2000s would not stand out in the record of the last few centuries, the panel said, and the future presents "a sobering prospect for elected officials and water managers." The panel said residents of the region should prepare for more frequent and more severe dry spells, and "costly, controversial and unavoidable trade-offs" in water use.

The data discussed in the report have been published before in scholarly journals and elsewhere. But Ernest T. Smerdon, a former dean of the College of Engineering and Mines at the University of Arizona, who led the panel, said its members hoped with this publication to pull the findings into a single document that ordinary people could understand.

Severe droughts will recur, Dr. Smerdon said, "and we better be prepared. That is the message." He spoke at a news conference yesterday in Las Vegas, where the report was made public.

The panel recommended an "action-oriented" study of water use patterns and demands, including drought planning, population projections and possible effects of transferring water to urban areas from agriculture, still the dominant consumer. Dialogue between policy makers and scientists who study water issues should be "a permanent fixture within the basin," it said.

The panel, organized by the National Research Council, the research arm of the National Academy of Science, noted that the water allocation agreement for the basin, the Colorado River Compact, was negotiated in 1922 based on river flow records dating to the 1890s, when gauging stations were established. The agreement assumed that the annual river flow was 16.4 million acre feet — enough to cover 16.4 million acres to a depth of one foot.

But for some time, the panel said, researchers have known that the early 20th century was unusually wet and that 15 million acre feet was a more accurate estimate of the flow. Recent studies based on tree rings put the figure lower still — as low as 13 million acre feet — and suggest that "drought episodes are a recurrent and integral feature of the region's climate." ...

[anne]

There is every reason to be as tough a minded green company executive, as environmentalist. There is a reason for the success of Whole Foods, and notice that Wal-Mart is following in organic foods. I have not the slightest qualms about being business intelligent from a long term perspective.

Oh, China has the largest program in solar development so far as I know. And, we can afford to push China and India and let them push back on green issues. That should be what business diplomacy is about.

[Peter Schaeffer]

Piglet,
“What Krugman points out is that California's record is better than the US average if you look at the change since the 1970s.”
Perhaps this is true, but it may not be. It is clear that the delta separating per-capita energy consumption in California and the U.S. has grown (at least for electricity). However, other changes have occurred over the last 30 years as well. California was once distinctly richer than the rest of the United States. It is now markedly poorer. Energy intensive industries have either declined, or not grown.
Above, I showed that if you adjust for California’s climate, economic structure, and incomes, per-capita energy consumption is above (10+%) the national average. It is entirely possible that 30 years, the same analysis would have produced an even larger gap. However, without quantification of how much California’s economic structure has changed, and how much incomes have declined, this isn’t possible, at least for me.
James Killus,
I tried to check into this. Take a look at Commuting Times and Modes of Transportation of California Workers. They assert that average commute times in California are only 10% above the national average and that commuting accounts for only 20% of all trips. Of course, gas burned commuting hasn’t been conserved either.

I agree that high prices induce conservation. Is that the model Krugman is advocating for our nation?
Bruce Hall,
Yes, mass immigration / mass poverty has impacted California’s energy consumption statistics. That was the point I was trying to make when I observed that California’s per-capita GDP is 21% below the national average (California used to be wealthy).
However, from a conservation standpoint this doesn’t make much of difference. Imported poverty drives down per-capita energy consumption of course. But it also reduces per-capita GDP. California still ends up above the national average.
I also agree that energy intensive industries have grown less in California versus other states (if not declined). That was one of the points made by the LBNL study mentioned above.
Anne,
Two states, New York and Rhode Island, consume less energy per-capita in the 2002 data. That puts California 48th in the nation. However, California ranks 44th in income, has a benign climate, and little heavy industry.

[Elvis]

Jimmy Martin says Paul Krugman is a moron.
We haven’t heard Jimmy’s name on the whisper list for Nobel prizes.Bupa, mucho funny!
Tex- you're actually Mark Thoma having some fun posting under a different name, aren't you? Come on, fess up! You know that Texas is the new leader in wind energy. You also know that more mountains are blowing their tops in appalachia to release their coal than all the exploding volcanoes. And the Yet all of the green goofballs, who seemingly cannot understand half-life, do not want nuclear power quote. What can I say? A stroke of genius. We all caught that joke right away, because we read--you know, those black markings on paper, and knew that GreenPeace has dropped its opposition to nuclear.

Anne: I can't explain the resistance to CF among my family. I guess it's the nostalgia for keeping things the way they were when we were young. I myself love the warm glow of a traditional bulb. The new CFs come pretty darn close, though.

Bruce: You're right about the mercury in CF. Nothing's perfect. Serious concern, though. Thoughts? How about LED?

All: a friend recently introduced me to the concept of Solar Cooking and it looks great (no, it's not perfect). I quick built a little trial one for myself and cooked some Japanese rice. The result was superb. I tried it with some beans--not so good (but this was just hack job. I'm planning to do it up right. This will be a perfect way to keep the kitchen cooler in the summer.

[anne]

What I have are lamps that in the older style take several bulbs, so the florescent light is ample, sunny and cool and flows from the shades attractively. Old lamps are ideal for florescent.

[ken melvin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#Per_capita_personal_income

[anne]

Ah, we have been buying solar cookers for Darfur Africa. We are getting the cookers at a generous cost, and I have been much impressed. I had not thought though of using a cooker myself, but all through southern Africa they would be welcome.

[James Killus]

Peter,

My admittedly anecdotal remarks were in response to some of your statments that could have been misinterpreted to mean that Californians drive less than one might expect (the "rural vs urban' thing). Also, what I said about some Los Angelenos driving 200 miles in a day and staying within the city was not in reference to commuter trips. I knew a guy from Westlake Village who had a girlfriend in Riverside, for example.

The commutes I alluded to are extreme; I would not put up with them. Driving 4 hours per day for work really doesn't leave much for non-commute driving (or anything else) for those involved.

[js paine]

its a very poor reflection on priority issues
'round these parts
----at least in my snide opinion ----
that ma and pa type
soft ball and apple pie stuff
like
green economics
gets such a big comment infestation here

after all don't we all agree??
except for
that all but few remaining
parlor wild cats and snake dancers

we all now
know going green
needs a big "do it " sign

but still it
gets 100 cross purposed comments here

100 pings and pongs
on stuff
long settled
(the role of water vapor)
or meaningless
(like cal vs amerika who's got bragging rights
and the second part of the twofer
krug's head is or isn't wedged up his...)

what gives...??

meanwhile a post on our industrial base
gets piddle so far ...

maybe its rarity

the green bulb
ain't lit so much here
as the rust belt warning signal

but surely the trade deficit
and its causes and effects
can be more aptly grappled with here

and climate science and who's state has a bigger...
handled better else where

-----------------------------

couldn't this krug post pass
without degenerating into something
as own tail chasing
as this war of names and data links

who counts what in the great greener then thou
competition

since across the board state policy has been
piss poor by any green standard
not drawn up at duke power or exxon hq

btw very common sense economics
suggests a war on brown would stimulate away
some domestic productive slack
and
add a nice injection of r and d dollars
to perk up our lab sector too

only the compulsive contrarian
stump the expert
clowns pranksters and 24/7 goat getters
(not to mention-- more sadly --
nanny state apron string phobes)
ie
rough housers
like tex and good ole acordin to doyle there
yup
only such chaps
have any stake in climate change denial