A website to lighten up your day.

Don’t miss the hilarious point/counterpoint debate between Palin and a suprisingly articulate and snarky polar bear.

Read more

General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz, on the 100th anniversary of GM’s founding, appeared on Stephen Colbert’s show last night, and embarrassed his company. Lutz, unfortunately for this aging industrial giant, is a Luddite, supporting the most extreme crackpot denials of the science of climate change and attacking the Volt — GM’s next-generation hybrid automobile that can run entirely on electricity for trips of 40 miles or less — as a weak, unattractive car. His extremism was barely matched by Colbert’s parodic statements:

Colbert: Why not just call this the Chevy Gore? You don’t believe global warming is real, you’ve said so.

Lutz: I accept that the planet is heated, but I, like many noted scientists, I don’t believe in the CO2 theory.

Colbert: Exactly! I just think that people are leaving their toaster ovens open. [Or] it’s just sun-spot activity.

Lutz: In the opinion of about 32,000 of the world’s leading scientists, yes.

Watch it:

Lutz’s “32,000 of the world’s leading scientists” nonsense is taken from press releases by the right-wing industry-funded Heartland Institute, amplified by right-wing blogs and radio shows. This is a zombie lie, which was begun in 1998 by the right-wing industry-funded Oregon Institute. The National Academy of Sciences, whose name was misleadingly used, issued this warning on April 20, 1998:

The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.

One might think Lutz was merely joking along, but this February, Lutz called global warming “a total crock of shit.” General Motors deserves better leadership, particularly when its economic future depends on escaping the suicidal oil-based economy that has driven the company to the brink. As Max Gladwell writes:

The irony is that Lutz and his ilk are buying this Big Oil propaganda. Meanwhile, his company’s cozy relationship with Big Oil has lead them to the verge of bankruptcy, unless American taxpayers come through with a bailout. The supreme irony is that the bailout is to help GM meet efficiency standards that it needs to achieve anyway to stay competitive with foreign automakers. When will they learn?

UPDATE: The Seminal‘s Josh Nelson notes, “On their website, GM claims to be concerned about the environment. They even specifically address their greenhouse gas emissions:”

There is no question that our products and manufacturing facilities have an impact on the environment. Not only do internal combustion engines produce emissions and greenhouse gases, but in the process of building millions of vehicles per year, our manufacturing facilities emit CO2 and greenhouse gases as well. The good news is that GM is hard at work trying to reduce our impact on the environment.

The buzzwords of the day: TE with high TZ.

The world doesn’t need a major technology breakthrough to cost-effectively cut carbon emissions in half by midcentury (see “The breakthrough technology illusion“). Indeed, most such breakthroughs would be difficult to deploy fast enough and on a large enough scale to make a large difference in that timeframe. Other key medium-term technologies, like low-cost solar photovoltaics, don’t require breakthroughs so much as they need steady technological advances, economies of scale, and continued experiential learning from increased market sales.

Sure, we are going to need big-time advances to give us new low-carbon technologies for widescale deployment in the second half of this century to have any hope of getting back to 350 ppm — but is there any genuine breakthrough that could make a serious difference fast enough to matter by 2050? Such a technology would have to be compatible with the existing energy system. Ideally, it would take advantage of major existing inefficiencies or flaws in our current energy system. It would have to be a technology that could be scaled to many different applications.

Only one long-sought-for technology I can think of, a true holy Grail of clean energy, fits the bill: thermoelectric (TE) materials and devices, which directly convert temperature differences to electric voltage and vice versa.

Thermoelectric devices are based on the fact that when certain materials are heated, they generate a significant electrical voltage. Conversely, when a voltage is applied to them, they become hotter on one side, and colder on the other. The process works with a variety of materials, and especially well with semiconductors — the materials from which computer chips are made.

Why does the ability to turn low-level heat into electricity matter? Because the energy system throws away vast amounts of energy as waste heat. Heck, the energy now lost as waste heat just from U.S. power generation exceeds the energy used by Japan for all purposes.

And that doesn’t even include the massive amount of waste heat from much smaller scale engines, like those in your car, where some 80% of the fuel’s energy is lost. Wouldn’t it be great to capture some of that waste heat and use it for electricity — in plug-in hybrids, for instance?

Imagine if you could design a TE device right into a microchip, to take waste heat and generate more power for you laptop? And what about the potential of high-efficiency, solid-state heating and cooling devices? Or, as M.I.T. noted recently:

The same materials might also play a role in improving the efficiency of photovoltaic cells, harnessing some of the sun’s heat as well as its light to make electricity. The key will be finding materials that have the right properties but are not too expensive to produce.

And, of course, a larger scale system could take the waste heat that needs to be rejected from baseload solar (a concentrated solar thermal electric system) and use it to increase efficiency and power output.

Okay, if TE devices are so great, why aren’t they everywhere already? After all, the key underlying scientific principles of TE were first discovered nearly 200 years ago.

Read more

Last month, the Wonk Room reported that the oil and coal industries and their conservative allies are spending two million dollars a day “to influence public opinion and public policy” this year. Most visible in this lobbying, advertising, and campaign donating machine has been Newt Gingrich’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign, which has successfully driven the energy debate onto the false shoals of expanded drilling.

Evidently, Al Gore and the We Campaign have had enough. They’ve released a new ad, which they hope to run on national television, directly attacking industry propaganda and making reference to the recent sex, drugs, and oil scandal rocking the Bush administration.

Watch it:

The policy goal underlying the “Drill, Baby, Drill” message — lifting decades-old protections on America’s lands and waters — would help only Big Oil’s already obscene profits. But the primary political goal has been to prevent Congress from enacting genuine change, by killing climate legislation, blocking renewable energy investments and standards like those called for by the We Campaign, demonizing biofuels, and corrupting the media — drilling us deeper into the pollution economy just when we need to build our way out.

Today, Center for American Progress Action Fund fellow Bracken Hendricks is testifying before the House Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming about the Center’s plan for a Green Recovery. You can watch watch the webcast live at 1:30 pm.

The Green Jobs Now Day of Action, on September 27, is now little more than a week away.

Transcript: Read more

GM has rolled out its upcoming plug-in hybrid electric vehicle, the Chevy Volt. Calcars has posted a bunch of articles from GM and the press on “why GM changed the design.” Personally, I can’t really imagine that many people will choose to buy — or not buy — this particular vehicle on the basis of its looks.

The new Volt design is about the same size as the Prius, but with much less cargo space because of the batteries:

GM says it will cost 2 cents per mile to drive the Volt less than 40 miles per day versus 12 cents per mile for gasoline at a price of $3.60.

Imagine how much you’ll save when the price of gasoline is double that (see “Must read CIBC report: $7 gas by 2010“).

In theory the new House energy bill would provide a $5,000 tax credit (see below), but many people might not be able to get that because of our delightful tax code. In particular, the Alternative Minimum Tax may negate some or all of the credit, as it does with the current hybrid vehicle tax credit, as the IRS explains:

Read more

Turns out you can fool some of the people all of the time — if those people are conservatives.

I have previously argued “The deniers are winning, especially with the GOP,” which received more than 500 comments. Now Environment magazine has published an analysis that suggests the deniers are winning only with the GOP. This analysis should be especially alarming to scientists.

Is Global Warming Occurring? As Figure 1 shows, despite the steadily growing observational evidence that global warming has begun — indeed that it is occurring faster than expected — Republicans have actually been less than oblivious. The global cooling lie has worked — with the GOP.

[All of the figures here come from Gallup polling over the past decade. Blue is dem, Red is GOP. Click to enlarge.]

That shouldn’t be too surprising, I guess, since the disinformation campaign aimed at blocking climate action comes primarily from the conservative movement itself: “A significant part of the U.S. conservative movement–made up of conservative foundations, think tanks, media, and public intellectuals–mobilized in the 1990s to challenge both climate science and climate policy.” For more on this, see Naomi Oreskes’ excellent lecture titled, “The American Denial of Global Warming.”

Needless to say, those denial sources have more credibility with conservatives, so it is only natural that so many Republicans have been duped. Indeed, some conservatives simply adopt the positions of conservative intellectuals without doing any thinking of their own (see “RNC Delegate Fredericks: “I am gonna go with Charles Krauthammer” on global warming“).

Is There a Scientific Consensus? Figure 3 shows another remarkable partisan divide. “Republican spokespersons and conservative commentators continue to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming by highlighting the views of a modest number of skeptic or ‘contrarian’ scientists who question the IPCC’s conclusions. One result is that in their efforts to provide ‘balanced coverage, U.S. media have given disproportionate attention to these skeptics, creating the impression of less scientific consensus on global warming than exists within the mainstream scientific community.” [Note: I don't like the term "consensus," as I've written. I prefer "understanding."]

To see just how remarkable the Figure 3 data is, compare it to Figure 1. In 1997, some 52% of Dems said the effects of global warming have already begun and 52% said most scientists believe global warming is occurring. In 2008, now 76% say warming had begun and 75% say most scientists believe warming is occurring. Makes sense. Dems believe most scientists.

As for Republicans, in 1997 some 42% said warming had begun and 48% said most scientists believe warming is occurring — a modest 6 point differential. By 2008, the percentage of Republicans saying the effects of global warming have already begun had dropped to a mere 42% (an amazing stat in its own right given the painfully obvious evidence to the contrary). But the percentage saying most scientists believe global warming is occurring had risen to 54% — a stunning 12 point differential.

In short, a significant and growing number of Republicans — one in eight as of 2008 — simply don’t believe what they know most scientists believe. That is quite alarming news, given that it is inconceivable the nation will take the very strong action needed to avert catastrophe unless it comes to believe what most scientists believe, namely that we are in big, big trouble and can delay no further (see “Desperate times, desperate scientists“).

Note to scientists: In the last decade, you apparently have become less convincing to Republicans than the deniers have been. They apparently have gotten better at messaging while you have perhaps gotten worse. The time to deal with that failure to communicate is yesterday!

What about the partisan divide over whether humans are to blame for most of the warming that has occurred? These results may be the most depressing of all:

Read more