http://onemansblog.com/2007/07/29/australian-comedy-the-front-fell-off/
Second video down. Funny.
It's been busy here. I haven't been slacking on blogging, per se - check out Alaska Conservation Voters' blog which is secretly maintained by yours truly - but my contributions to this blog have taken a mid-summer nosedive. No, it doesn't have to do with nonstop daylight and beautiful weather. Anchorage Daily News recently reported that this summer may be the coldest on record. It does have to do with the sense that summer's coming to a close; less than two weeks left for me and I am living up what I can. Also, my 'academic' blogwork (ie lots of research with casual delivery) has really taken place on the ACV blog since I started it.
Work:
1. The Alaska Conservation Alliance brochures I designed are about five feet away from me. There are 500 of them and I am proud of how they came out. I don't know about my future relationship with InDesign - there were many...trying moments in the creation of the brochure. I think there should be a way to just get my hands into the computer and directly move things around. But I suppose until high-tech manual collage is back in vogue/technologically possible I am pleased with my InDesign know-how and happy I had the opportunity to learn about it while designing something useful for ACA.
2. Friend to Friend has been more challenging as the summer progresses. I have a lot of 'yes' responses but an almost equal number of no-shows. Many people are on vacation. Still, we've probably sent out a grand total of 50 letters to potential donors through FtF participants. When we get new member envelopes in the mail I'm excited to see if 'FF' is marked on the donation slip and I really hope some will come back before the summer's out. I wonder if we would have a higher turnout in the winter when nobody wants to be outside/people feel more pressure to socialize and be active. I'm not sure, but I've enjoyed meeting the people who came in and I think they've been amused by me (intern, huh? From NYC? You like Alaska and want to come live here, eh? Have you heard about our winters?). Also, I have a much better way of delivering small speeches because of all the practice I had with the phone rap so thanks, Alaska - it'll be nice to have my shiny new presentation mode on hand for senior year.
3. Tabling for the Renewable Energy Fair - this will be my last day. There will be temporary tattoos, big new posters, brochures, a sign up sheet with numbers corresponding to free compact fluorescent bulbs. I would like to find a purple table cloth. I would like to find more volunteers.
NotWork:
1. Karen is away for a while and lent me her car; I've been going on all sorts of adventures (and my running's taken a subsequent hit. Will have to bounce back, carless, next week). Last weekend I went to Eagle River and Girdwood, during the week I meandered a bit around the Seward Highway - nice trails around Potter Creek, apparently they're closed all the time from the McHugh side though because of a lot of bear activity. Hmm. I went to Eklutna Lake, which is a surprisingly quiet place given how gorgeous it is. That can probably be said for much of Alaska though. This weekend I drove down to Homer and that was incredible. I think it beats Seward.
2. Pictures forthcoming.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
No Greenhouse Gas Regulations
Just a few days after the G8 summit in Japan, where President Bush agreed that the United States should reduce it's greenhouse gas emissions by 50% by 2050--and where he also signed off by saying: "Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter" and "then punched the air while grinning widely, as the rest of those present including Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy looked on in shock"--it has been announced that the EPA will not act to regulate greenhouse gases during the Bush administration.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA regulates greenhouse gases.
From the Washington Post:
"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.
...
"Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
This is despite the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the Clean Air Act requires that the EPA regulates greenhouse gases.
From the Washington Post:
"To defer compliance with the Supreme Court's demand, the White House has walked a tortured policy path, editing its officials' congressional testimony, refusing to read documents prepared by career employees and approved by top appointees, requesting changes in computer models to lower estimates of the benefits of curbing carbon dioxide, and pushing narrowly drafted legislation on fuel-economy standards that officials said was meant to sap public interest in wider regulatory action.
...
"Several EPA officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that throughout the process, White House officials instructed the agency to change their calculations with the aim of reducing the "social cost of carbon," a regulatory term that reflects the economic burdens stemming from greenhouse gas emissions.
Career EPA officials argued that the global benefits of reducing carbon are worth at least $40 per ton, but Bush appointees changed the final document to say the figure is just an example, not an official estimate. They prohibited the agency from submitting a 21-page document titled "Technical Support Document on Benefits of Reducing GHG Emissions" as part of today's announcement.
"The administration didn't want to show a high-dollar value for reducing carbon," said one EPA official, adding that the administration cut dozens of pages from a draft that outlined cost-effective ways to reduce greenhouse gases.
Some officials said the administration has also minimized the benefits of tighter fuel-economy standards by assuming that oil will cost $58 a barrel in the future, compared with its current price of $141.65. While the EPA calculated in a May 30 draft that stricter standards would save U.S. society $2 trillion by 2020, officials revised that figure last month -- using the $58 estimate -- to predict that they would save only between $340 billion and $830 billion.
...
Hutto, a former Cato Institute intern and Bush campaign volunteer during the Florida vote recount in 2000, whose grandfather patented at least seven piston inventions for the Ford Motor Company, has "an anti-regulatory philosophy and concern about what regulation means for the American way of life. He would talk, for example, about not wanting greenhouse gas controls to do away with the large American automobile," said the meeting participant."
------------------
I find it odd that large automobiles are more important to the American way of life, then, say, having a planet that is hospitable to life. I would think that latter would supersede the former.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Gov. Palin & Sen. Stevens: Tag Teaming
In what the Anchorage Daily News is calling: "a rare tag-team appearance with Gov. Sarah Palin", Ted Stevens has launched a "multi-pronged" (again in the words of ADN) plan to reduce energy costs in Alaska. Sounds promising, right? Multi-pronged--that probably means something other than betting on oil. I mean multi-pronged has to have multiple solutions. It has to.
Well, apparently, Stevens plan is to: 1. End oil speculation. 2. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 3. Give the state a third of off shore oil drilling revenue.
The only mention of some kind of alternative energy is that the revenue from the Arctic Refuge would go to development of alternative energy sources--which is, in some ways, interesting. It is estimated that it would be 300 billion over 30 years. However, as I pointed out earlier this week, that production would not start immediately and wouldn't peak until 2025, so that money would be a long ways off. By 2025 most technologies to harness renewable energy will not be considered "alternative". Europe, California, Japan, and even countries like China and Brazil are already funding and developing renewable energy technology. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. Portugal plans to produce 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Falling behind now would leave Alaska without a viable economy as the world begins to move from oil and gas to renewable energy. If Alaska wants to develop a sustainable economy, it must start now, not 15 years from now.
Ending oil speculation is starting to look like the new ending the gas tax. It seems that few people actually think that speculation is the leading culprit in skyrocketing prices. As the IEA points out: fast growing demand and finite resources are the driving force behind oil prices.
Number 3 has the same problem as number 2. A good idea 30 years ago, but a bit too late now.
So Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have created a multi-pronged plan that will: End speculation, which will probably do nothing. Continue the status quo of keep drilling. Begin substantial funding of alternative energy sources after they have become the new status quo 20 years down the line.
Well, apparently, Stevens plan is to: 1. End oil speculation. 2. Open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. 3. Give the state a third of off shore oil drilling revenue.
The only mention of some kind of alternative energy is that the revenue from the Arctic Refuge would go to development of alternative energy sources--which is, in some ways, interesting. It is estimated that it would be 300 billion over 30 years. However, as I pointed out earlier this week, that production would not start immediately and wouldn't peak until 2025, so that money would be a long ways off. By 2025 most technologies to harness renewable energy will not be considered "alternative". Europe, California, Japan, and even countries like China and Brazil are already funding and developing renewable energy technology. Sweden plans to be completely off oil by 2020. Portugal plans to produce 60% of its electricity from renewables by 2020. Falling behind now would leave Alaska without a viable economy as the world begins to move from oil and gas to renewable energy. If Alaska wants to develop a sustainable economy, it must start now, not 15 years from now.
Ending oil speculation is starting to look like the new ending the gas tax. It seems that few people actually think that speculation is the leading culprit in skyrocketing prices. As the IEA points out: fast growing demand and finite resources are the driving force behind oil prices.
Number 3 has the same problem as number 2. A good idea 30 years ago, but a bit too late now.
So Ted Stevens and Sarah Palin have created a multi-pronged plan that will: End speculation, which will probably do nothing. Continue the status quo of keep drilling. Begin substantial funding of alternative energy sources after they have become the new status quo 20 years down the line.
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
Harry Reid: YouTube Celebrity
Harry Reid had the most popular video on YouTube yesterday--and it is still in the top 5. In the video he says that "coal makes us sick". Apparently, somehow this is being pushed by some as proof of the Democrats being out of touch on energy issues, even though it is a fact that coal does make us sick.
In fact, coal does a lot more than make us sick--coal kills us. Every year 18,700 people die just due to respiratory diseases from coal dust. Then there is the mercury poisoning that comes from coal combustion and mining.
Incredibly, though, Sen. Reid bringing up the fact that there are large externalities associated with the use of coal as an energy source puts him out of though. The cost to burn coal is larger than people assume, that is what he is pointing out. Health costs for the countless people effected by coal production, environmental and building damage due to acid rain, the increasing concentration of green house gases, steadily rising mercury levels, and a whole host of other costs need to be considered when people claim coal is a cheap energy source.
In fact, coal does a lot more than make us sick--coal kills us. Every year 18,700 people die just due to respiratory diseases from coal dust. Then there is the mercury poisoning that comes from coal combustion and mining.
Incredibly, though, Sen. Reid bringing up the fact that there are large externalities associated with the use of coal as an energy source puts him out of though. The cost to burn coal is larger than people assume, that is what he is pointing out. Health costs for the countless people effected by coal production, environmental and building damage due to acid rain, the increasing concentration of green house gases, steadily rising mercury levels, and a whole host of other costs need to be considered when people claim coal is a cheap energy source.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)