What's the Difference between a Skeptic and a Denier?

To someone with a scientific background, the difference is obvious. A skeptic has an open mind; a denier has a closed mind.

The denier has made up his mind that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming isn't happening. He rejects any scientific evidence supporting AGW, and blindly accepts any evidence, pseudo-evidence, emotional appeal, or unsupported argument that opposes AGW. Scientifically disproving his argument won't sway him.

The skeptic doesn't believe something just because the establishment says it's so. He needs to personally examine the evidence, and won't believe it until he can prove it for himself.

The skeptic is pro-science, exactly the type of person who moves science forward. The denier is anti-science, but may hide behind the term "skeptic" the same way a creationist hides behind the term "intelligent design."

Dr. Richard Muller is a skeptic. The Berkeley physicist criticized errors he saw in Al Gore's movie, "An Inconvenient Truth" He criticized the scientists involved in the so-called "climategate scandal." He vocally criticized the "hockey stick" graph that climate scientists have used to show the sharp increase in temperature in the past few decades.


[more]

Take our Time with Energy Decision

Two weeks ago I wrote about Xcel's proposal to provide Boulder with lots of wind energy. I said that Xcel would be able to count that wind energy towards its legislated mandate to provide 30 percent of its Colorado electricity as renewable or recycled energy.

I received a couple of emails from folks who told me I was wrong. Xcel would sell the renewable energy credits associated with the new wind energy to Boulder, and Boulder would get the RECs.

However, the Colorado statute that mandates utilities to provide a minimum percentage via renewable and recycled energy doesn't mention RECs. It just says that the utility has to generate or cause to be generated the energy.

The Public Utility Commission rules that implemented that law say that a utility will use RECs to meet the mandate, but they don`t seem to say that RECs are the only way to meet the mandate.

Confused? According to Xcel, the interpretation of this requirement doesn't matter. They say that they`ve already gotten enough renewable energy lined up to meet the mandate without Boulder, and to meet it early. Whether or not they are allowed to count the Boulder wind toward the 30 percent, they are not planning on doing so.

They don't need us.


[more]

Zero net carbons

Xcel Energy has finally outlined a proposal to City Council for a new franchise agreement that looks like it meets the goals for Boulder's energy future. I'm not convinced.

It's actually quite slick, a virtual game of three-card Monte. Who uses the renewable energy? Who pays for it? Who gets credit for it?

Xcel already provides renewable energy. They have to by law. Under their Boulder proposal, they won't have to provide a single kilowatt-hour more. Xcel claims that this wind power generation capacity will be built specifically for Boulder, but that is disingenuous. It will still count against Xcel's statewide renewable energy mandate.

They think they've found a mark for their con game. Boulder citizens want more renewable energy, and Xcel management is betting we'll willingly spend more to get it. They've also used the classic con strategy of telling us the deal is off the table if we don`t agree by November.

With Xcel's offer we'd be getting the same renewable energy that Xcel already has to generate, but we'll be on the hook to pay for it while everyone else in Colorado will get a price break.


[more]

First Lucky Island

One thing seems evident when looking at the nuclear crisis at Fukushima Dai-Ichi (literally, Fortunate Island Number One, not to be confused with Three Mile Island).

If you are a fan of nuclear energy, that one thing is that even after one of the biggest earthquakes ever followed by a huge tsunami, the worst case scenario didn't happen. Nuclear is even more good-to-go than before.

If you are a nuclear foe, then what happened in Japan proves how dangerous this technology is. It is only pure luck and seat-of-the-pants management that prevented a complete meltdown and huge nuclear disaster.

I look at things differently.


[more]

The opening of open space

After the recent election, Boulder County officials immediately approved new open space purchases using revenue from the Issue 1B tax increase.

This year's vote was a squeaker -- the measure passed by 0.86 percent. The county clearly learned something from last year's embarrassing loss, but can obviously no longer count on overwhelming support for program expansions.

Most recent opposition to open space expansion cited higher taxes and the large amount of open space already protected.

But some of the loudest opposition came from the program's biggest fans.

Some withheld support because there are too many bikes on open space trails, others because there is not enough bike access, too many dogs, not enough dog access, too many people and too many trails, or too much open space that is not open to the public.


[more]

How High in Boulder?

When I first saw Boulder Ballot Question 2C, I thought it was arrogant. I assumed builders were asking to be able to build up to the maximum height, and then add on extra for their solar panels. Why couldn't they just plan for the solar panels in their overall plans and build a bit shorter to allow for them?

But my assumptions were wrong. Question 2C is about the ability to add solar panels on top of existing buildings, buildings which were built before the concept of solar gardens was conceived.

Solar gardens, recently approved in Colorado, are a new way to provide solar energy to the masses. Build larger arrays, large enough for several families, on larger rooftops and other locations. Then, the people who couldn't use solar energy otherwise can take advantage of its benefits. People like renters, or people with shady lots.

Boulder Question 2C is a simple proposal and makes sense. Vote yes.

Deepwatergate

Eleven men dead. Wildlife dying. Livelihoods lost. Beaches fouled. Oceans polluted. Unknown deep-sea impact.

Someone must be to blame.

Some say this is President Obama's Katrina. But what can he do but fly to the Gulf, sound sympathetic, and talk tough to BP? Neither Obama nor anyone in his administration knows how to stop the flow of oil, much less eliminate the oil that has already spilled.

Some environmentalists and scientists say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar is to blame and should resign. After all Salazar's Minerals Management Service was responsible for regulating the drilling operation and screwed up. Literally. MMS staffers were partying and sleeping with the people they were supposed to be regulating. Talk about strange bedfellows.

[more]

Flushing our Environment down the Toilet

I was looking at the plastic packaging from the Earth First toilet paper we recently purchased, trying to determine if the plastic was recyclable. Generally, recyclable plastic bags have a recycling symbol with a number that tells you exactly what it is, and which lets you know if it is one of the types taken locally. But all I saw was the symbol on the package saying 100% recyclable.

Did that refer to the package, or just to the contents?

Then I noticed on the package in small print something saying that the plastic was designed to be environmentally friendly, and would expire in 18 months.

I had no idea what that meant. Would I have to bring it back to he public library, or what?

So I called the number on the package. I thought about pretending I was Gene Weingarten, but decided to play it straight.

The operator I talked to listened to my question and was flummoxed, and she sent me to customer service. The customer service agent had also never heard the question before, and said she'd get back to me after talking to the factory.

Just about this point in the conversation, I finally saw it -- the number 4 recycling symbol on the plastic wrap. So, that was my answer. Recyclable after all! I decided to not tell the person on the phone what I'd seen, mostly out of embarrassment.

When the phone call came a hour or so later and the caller ID said "Royal Paper," I ignored it, thinking it was some kind of telemarketing call. But my wife picked it up, and it was my agent calling back to make sure she had the details of the query. What brand of toilet paper was it exactly I was looking at?

Well, it turns out that Earth First is the environmentally friendly brand used by Royal Paper, I guess to differentiate it from their eco-disaster brands, like Soft & Silky and Petalo.

And when they finally called back with the answer, we found that the bag was not a recyclable number 4 plastic, but a decomposable number 4. That means that the bag decomposes over a small number of months.

But decomposable doesn't mean compostable. It doesn't turn into organic material, so we can't put it into the compost. It's not regular plastic and can't be recycled. If it ends up in the Great Pacific Garbage Patch, it will turn into microscopic plastic bits that will make their way up the food chain. It has to go into the landfill.

Plus, the confusing packaging makes it likely that the bag will be thrown in with the rest of the plastic bags being turned into fleece or lumber, and may contaminate the entire load.

Royal Paper, how has your greenwashing (or greenwiping) helped anybody, except helping you market your green brand to gullible environmentalists?

Good News on Global Warming Front

I'm committed to telling both sides of the global warming story. So, here are a couple of items of good news that have been published lately.

First, New Moore Island has disappeared to rising sea levels. This uninhabited island in the Bay of Bengal, known by India as New Moore Island and by Bangladesh as South Talpatti of 81 square miles is now under water. The two countries have been arguing about control of this island since it first emerged from the sea over 35 years ago. Now, happily, the dispute is over.

Second, pollution from China is being carried around the globe by the Asian Monsoon. Why good news? Because pollution such as black carbon can reflect solar energy back into space, masking the increasing greenhouse effect that is causing global warming. Let's hope the Chinese don't address their pollution problem any time soon, or it could be getting lots warmer lots faster.

Safe, Clean Nuclear Power

To create more of these clean energy jobs, we need more production, more efficiency, more incentives. And that means building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country. - President Barack Obama, 2010 State of the Union Address

Many environmentalists gasped when the President made this comment. We all know that nuclear power is neither safe nor clean.

Nuclear reactors are dangerous. They are subject to meltdown. They are targets for terrorists. Nuclear fuel is a safety problem from mining though transportation, and there is not nearly enough uranium available for widespread use of nuclear power. Nuclear waste is dangerous in even small quantities: There is no safe storage option, and it remains unsafe for thousands of years.

Plus, huge amounts of greenhouse gases are produced in the mining, enriching, and transport of uranium; the building and decommissioning of the plants; and the transportation of nuclear waste.

But what if these dangers and problems didn`t exist?

[more]

Liberal Guilt

My wife and I are pretty darn serious about minimizing our impact on this planet.

We proudly put out one orange bag of whatever trash we can't recycle, reuse or compost about every six weeks. Our water usage is an order of magnitude smaller than our city-assigned budget.

We bike and bus and walk, and Caron rides her hot pink scooter so we don't drive much. Our old cars work fine, thank you; the energy to scrap and replace them with a shiny new hybrid would be more than we'd save in years of use.

[more]

The Purity of Science

The level of smugness rising from the anti-global-warming blogosphere is reaching the level they accuse us environmentalists of exhibiting.

The bloggers who cry "hoax" have stumbled upon (some say stolen) a steaming pile of e-mails and files they claim proves there is a conspiracy by scientists to fudge the data and silence dissent.

[more]

Climate Change causes Civilization

Here`s an intriguing coincidence.

Humans evolved about 200,000 years ago in Africa. For most of the time since, we have lived as hunter-gatherers. There were fits and starts at agriculture, but nothing really "took."

And then, starting about 10,000 years ago, we figured it out. We domesticated wheat, oats and barley, and other grains. We started herding cattle, sheep, and goats. We built villages and towns.

[more]

How Did I Do? -- Election 2009

First of all, I'm glad to say that all of my choices on the City of Boulder issues were agreed to by the voters. Four out of four, not bad.

I didn't do so great on the county issues. Issue 1A, the extension of the Open Space tax, failed by about 4 percentage points. It looks to me that this was partly because of the economy, partly because the County Commissioners did not do a good job of explaining why it needed to be renewed 10 years in advance of when the tax expires, and partly out of backlash against current open space policy.

However, if you look at that backlash, it seemed to come from both sides -- for example, one person commented that he voted against the tax because he wasn't allowed to mountain bike on county open space, while another said he voted against it because of too many bikes on open space. This sounds like a can't win situation. That's especially true since most of the folks who complained about the open space department seemed to be confusing the city's open space rules with the county's -- the contentious mountain bike rules actually are on city property. So, bottom line, lack of a good sales pitch by the county, coupled with ignorant voters who had to lash out against something.

The real puzzler was County Issue 1B, the extension of the ClimateSmart loan program, which lost by two percentage points. This program is already in place and has been enormously successful. It helps locals fund improvements that cut CO2 emissions. It adds to local jobs. And the best thing is that it doesn't cost anybody a nickle except the people who take out the loans.

It looks like 1B was caught in the backfire against 1A, as there was no organized opposition. Again, opponents seemed to not understand it, thinking it was a tax increase, and the county did not do much PR in advance of the election.

Both of these issues will undoubtedly be on the 2010 ballot, and the county will undoubtedly do a much batter sales job then.

Still undecided is Question 1D, the extension of term limits for DA from two to three terms. Latest results show that ahead by just 41 votes, too close to call with the last of the ballots still to be counted.

And that leaves me with the city council race. My endorsed candidate, Barry Siff, came in sixth in a race in which the top five get seats. He missed it by just 672 votes (not all votes have been counted, but there are not enough ballots outstanding to change the results).

Why did Barry lose? (Ok, best of the rest.)

As I see it, the biggest issue was the media and others who lumped the candidates together into so called "power blocks". There was the pro-environment slate, those endorsed by the Sierra Club and PLAN Boulder County, and there was the so-called pro-business slate. With his credentials, Barry could have been on either list. But because he has been a businessman, he was lumped in with the second group.

In Boulder, not being endorsed by the Sierra Club and being labelled pro-business are the kiss of death at the ballot box for many. Undoubtedly, he gained some votes by association with the business crowd. But he did not stand out from that group, and I think it was a net loss for him.

It would have been a better strategy, I think, for Barry to have tried to straddle both groups. He could have been the environmental candidate who actually knows how to pay for it, for example.

In any case, the fundamental makeup of council didn't change much, in spite of the loud voices of the mostly anonymous single-issue attackers.

So, Barry, have a well deserved vacation and when you come back think about whether there is some other way to contribute to this community and maybe get to be better known for the next election cycle (if you're still up for it).

Boulder County 2009 Ballot Issues

This year's county issues are pretty straightforward.

Issue 1A would extend a current 0.25% sales and use tax dedicated to open space acquisition, improvement, and maintenance. Without this ballot issue, the tax will expire in 2019. If this issue passes, that will be extended to 2034. This issue also authorizes the issuance of bonds, to be repaid from the revenue from that tax, and to be used for those purposes. I support the county's open space program, and this would allow it to continue. Some opponents question renewing this tax 10 years before it expires. But the fact is that the money from that tax has already been spent, by virtue of bonds already issued. The county's open space program cannot continue to grow without this additional revenue. Vote YES.

Issue 1B would authorize additional bonds to extend the ClimateSmart program. This program allows county property owners to use the county's credit rating, to effectively cosign, on loans to make energy efficiency and renewable energy improvements. There is no cost to taxpayers. I supported this program when it was first implemented, and I continue to support it. Vote YES.

Issue 1C would authorize new bonds to pay for energy efficiency improvements in county buildings. Some or all of these bonds would be very low interest federal Qualified Energy Conservation Bonds, authorized under the recent stimulus bill. This is a smart long-term investment, takes advantage of a short-term opportunity, and is smart from an environmental point of view. Vote YES.

Question 1D would extend the term limit for the county DA from two terms to three. Several other county offices have already had this change approved. In general, I believe that term limits are anti-democratic. Having the option to suffer the overhead of a new DA every twelve years instead of eight would be a benefit as well. Vote YES.

Boulder City Council Election 2009

There are five open seats on council up for election. I'm not going to endorse five candidates, because I don't think there are five outstanding candidates.

The ballot tells us to vote for up to five candidates. I've asked several people who they are supporting, and usually they can rattle off two or three or four names. But they're not sure who they are going to add to make up their five choices.

Here's what I tell them: Don't do it. If you really like three candidates, vote just for those three. If you also vote for two candidates you think are okay but not great, those two votes are votes against the people you support. Your second tier candidates may win against your favorites because of your votes and the votes of others who also just included them to get up to five.


There are many specific issues on which to evaluate the candidates. But I don't think this is about specific issues. I think this is about principles, and about the kind of person.

Here are some of the things that I think are important for council, and candidates should be on top of these:

• Council needs to learn to run this city without micromanaging. Council meetings cannot go until 2:00 AM just because they can't get through all the issues.
• Council needs to set direction, and staff needs to be on board and held accountable. Today there are too many rogue departments and rogue department heads who are interested in turf building, rather than supporting the direction defined by our elected representatives.
• Council needs to lay down the law with the City Manager to make sure she is enforcing this principle with all departments.
• There is no real understanding of business principles in the council. As far as I can tell, some departments don't even understand which aspects of their programs make money and which ones lose money. Council can't make sound fiscal decisions without this kind of information, and nobody on council seems to have the background to understand what is necessary.
• Fitting in with the national mood, it seems to be common belief that you have to be either pro-environment or pro-business. Yet our leaders need to embrace both in order to properly represent our interests and serve us.
• The relationship with the county government is good, and the relationship with CU is improving. But the relationships with Boulder Valley School District and RTD are dismal. It is critical that the city be able to work well with these other government agencies.
• It is a PR nightmare when the city moves forward with big, unpopular capital projects while cutting back library services. The city needs to better figure out how to remain flexible in its budgets and responsive when needed.
• In fact, in general the city government needs to work on its PR. They makes lots of decisions that are controversial, and the reasoning behind the decisions is only evident to the people who stayed to 1:00 AM at the council meeting at which the topic was discussed. Currently, the public discussion is often controlled by the opponents to these decisions, who make their own one-sided emotional appeals. There's nothing wrong with one-sided appeals to the public, but the council needs to figure out how to get its story out too.
• Make it a high priority to make information available and to make it easy for people to actually find that information.
• Be willing to drop an idea if the public is obviously opposed. For example, whether or not council deserves a raise, they should have dropped the idea once the public voted it down the first time.

So, who am I endorsing?

I've known Barry Siff for several years, so perhaps I'm biased. But he is taking his council bid so seriously that it is impossible to ignore him.

When Barry started considering the run for council, he started going to every single council meeting, and he stayed until the bitter end. He even sold his booming business to be able to concentrate on this effort.

Barry has been in business for years and has business savvy. He understands all aspects of running a business, having been in senior management at a large company, as well as owning and running a small local business. He understands the bottom line, and he knows the value of having the best people working for him -- without that nothing can happen.

Barry is excited about changing the way council runs, stopping this crazy business of running meetings until the wee hours of the morning. After all, the way things are now, citizen participation is a joke.

Barry took a small local triathlon, and built it into a successful business that ran several races every year. So successful, in fact, that he had several suitors when he was ready to sell. He picked the buyer that would be best for the sport and best for Boulder -- Ironman is the biggest brand in the sport and is well-known outside the sport, and bringing that brand to Boulder without the city having to court them is a huge coup.

While running 5430 Sports, Barry did something he didn't have to. He turned his races into an environmental example for the entire multisport community around the country. It wasn't just having Eco-Cycle come in and collect recycling and compostables. It was actively pursuing what he called tri-sustainability. Using solar power at the races. Encouraging alternative transport. Even finding ways to recycle water bottles, bike parts, and energy bar wrappers. This shows that Barry is not just talk, that he can not only do the right thing, but also show the way to the rest of the world.

Everyone talks about having good relationships with other government entities. However, Barry called up Bruce Benson, the President of CU, made an appointment, and sat down with him. Our current council members are not doing that, much less the other candidates.

Barry has put a huge amount of effort into supporting low-income children in Boulder. He just doesn't talk about it, he does it.

Barry has more energy and enthusiasm than anyone I know. He's a former adventure racer, and so has unique qualifications to make it through marathon council meetings. He is also a huge Boulder booster.

Look at who is backing Barry. It's everyone from the most conservative to the most liberal. He doesn't have the biggest name recognition, but he is becoming well known all around town.

I say, when you make your city council selection(s) this year, include Barry Siff. I'm convinced he will make a huge contribution to the city. I don't agree with him on every issue, but on the guiding principles he is a perfect match.

Keep on Clunkin'!

The cash for clunkers program may be many things. However, environmentally friendly isn't one of them.

Look at it this way. Suppose you trade in a car that gets 18 MPG for one that gets 28 MPG, and that you driver 12,000 miles per year. Also, assume that you will keep the new car for the typical six years.

For each of those six years, you will be burning 428 gallons of gas instead of 667 gallons. You save 238 gallons per year, or about 35% of the gas you would have burned.

A study by Toyota showed that as much as 28% of the carbon dioxide emissions generated during the life of a car occur during its manufacture and its transport to the dealer. That means that up to 38% more CO2 is generated than the CO2 generated from the burning of fuel during normal operation.

So, you emit 35% less CO2 during operation, but the act of buying a new car results in up to 38% more CO2 just to get you that car.

Ignoring the economic impact, the very best thing you can do is keep driving that car until it doesn't go any more.

The only exception I can think of is if you put lots and lots of miles on your car every year and plan to keep it a long time. Then, it might make more environmental sense to buy a new, more fuel-efficient car, and donate your old car to charity.

But scrapping the old car, as is required by law under this program, is pure waste.

Global warming whodunit

After my recent column about Dr. Jim Hansen's global warming research, I received e-mails with dozens of references designed to convince me that anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming (AGW) is a hoax.

I'd seen many of the references before. They ranged from irrelevant to bad science. Some I honestly don't have the expertise to evaluate. But I owe it to my scientific background to evaluate the case with a skeptical eye.

[more]

Sons of Ditches

Boulder's 150th birthday this year got me thinking: Is there anything in town that has actually been around that long?

Elizabeth Black, who is putting together "The Ditch Project" as part of Boulder's sesquicentennial celebration, confirmed my suspicion. Irrigation ditches are not only the oldest remaining human structures in the city of Boulder, but ditch companies are also the oldest continuously operating companies.

[more]

How to Save the World

Dr. James Hansen spoke on "Climate threat to the planet: Implications for intergenerational and environmental justice" to a packed Macky Auditorium on April 9, as part of the Conference on World Affairs.

Way back in 1988 Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, testified about climate change to Colorado Senator Tim Wirth's Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, bringing the issue to the public eye.

At CWA, Hansen presented a target for what needs to be done, scientific rationale for that target, and a step-by-step plan for getting there. Not bad for a 50 minute talk.
[more]