Driving Missed Daily: London to Edinburgh by electric car

According to the BBC, it “took 4 days, some serious thermal underwear, and copious amounts of waiting” to make the journey from London to Edinburgh (405 miles) by electric car (Mini adventure: how far can electric car go?). Such a trip should take seven to eight hours when driving a car powered by gas.

Christoper Booker asks, why not reinstate stage coaches? “[I]n the 1830s, a stagecoach was able to make the same journey in half the time, with two days and nights of continuous driving.” If the idea is to lower our carbon footprint and become more pastoral, why not indeed?

When I was a kid, gas (petrol) stations were not plentiful in some places, so it was common to see one or two five-gallon Jerry Cans filled with gas strapped onto the rear bumper of a car. Given the lengthy recharge times for electric (versus 3-5 minutes for refilling a gas tank), batteries should be interchangeable. You could strap seven or eight of them to your bumper, pull the spent one out, pop a fully-charged one in and you’re good to go. Larger cars and SUVs would take more batteries. A trailer might haul the spare batteries for long cross-country trips in the United States.

What do you think? Will stagecoaches or electric cars replace gas/diesel powered cars and trucks?

Undercover cop goes native

Mick Hume over at Spiked-online has a thoughtful post on the “shocking” revelations that a British undercover cop, Police Constable (PC) Mark Kennedy has gone native and offered to give evidence for the defense.

Which aspect are we supposed to be most shocked by? The fact that the
police are so paranoid they have spent a fortune infiltrating a
conservative little group of eco-activists whose idea of radical protest
was normally to climb some trees, cranes and chimneys? Or that a group
of allegedly ‘hardcore’ eco-activists could be so easily taken in by a
cop poseur who apparently held no strong political views, but did just
happen to have a van and plenty of money he was keen to devote to
protests? Or that the state is now so lacking in institutional coherence
and loyalty that it cannot stop its top trained agents deserting the
Crown for a ramshackle green outfit?

Why should PC Kennedy have seen siding with the greens as a betrayal at all, given that so much of respectable and mainstream opinion in the UK sympathises with the aims of the eco-activists today, if not always with their tactics? Little wonder perhaps, as other activists have noted, that he seemed so enthusiastic about the protests and later so upset at having helped get them arrested.

Despite their self-image as radical harbingers of change, these
environmentalist protestors espouse essentially conservative and
conformist views about the need to curtail economic growth and impose
austerity…

PC Kennedy and his tribe yearn for a day where change doesn’t move so fast and they will live in harmony with their world. Good luck with that. In the name of a predicted threat one hundred years off, they want to make coal more expensive and raise the price of electricity, hurting the least able to afford higher bills.

Every day seven billion of us get about the business of living. Simple survival is priority one for our bottom billion. In the name of a predicted threat one hundred years off, PC Kennedy and his tribe fret over humankind’s 2% contribution in the total carbon cycle and hurt those most in need by promoting the idea of growing our fuel instead of growing food.

If this affair has highlighted the basic conservatism of the radical green groups’ politics, it has also pointed to the problems created by the incoherence and elitism of their organisation.

Can anything go right this year?

GDP (PPP) Per Capita based on 2008 estimates h...
GDP (PPP) per capita Image via Wikipedia

Haiti still reels from its earthquake from one year ago, Darfur and Somalia fester, the Korean peninsula appears to be close to war, unemployment near 10% has become endemic. Problems, crises, tragedies. Can 2011 be anything but a repeat of 2010?

Over at the Rational Optimist Blog, Matt Ridley reminds us of the accomplishments of 2010:

According to the IMF, away from Europe and North America, the world was booming this year. Asia has grown by 7.9%, South America by 6.3%, Africa by 5% and the Middle-east and North Africa by 4.1%. China and India, with 40% of the world’s population, achieved roughly 10% growth between them. Moreover, this boom, because it is happening in poor countries, is rapidly reducing both poverty and inequality.

Despite the Great Recession, the per capita GDP of the average human being – that is to say, the value of goods and services that she consumes in a year – is now just over $11,000, up from about $8,500 (in today’s dollars) at the start of the century. If it continues to increase at this rate of just under 3% a year – as it has more than done for 60 years – then by the year 2050 the average citizen of Earth will be earning and spending over $30,000 a year in today’s money, roughly the same as the average American spends today. By 2100 she will be spending nearly $150,000 a year, or five times what an American now consumes.

This is almost unimaginable. Try to get your heads round the prospect of Africans and Afghans having the disposable income of today’s Americans within the lifetime of your own children, let alone grandchildren. If it seems fanciful, consider this. If my great grandfather had made a similar forecast in 1910, based on the then growth rate of the world economy, then even assuming he would not have predicted two world wars and a Great Depression, he would still have hugely underestimated the average income of today.

He also reminds us that people will be people; there will be wars and other tragedies difficult to bear. Yet, “it is unlikely that the great existential threats that each generation so warmly clutches to its pessimistic bosom will blow away this inexorable boom.”

At this dark, cold, austere moment, take a little cheer from the question: what could go right?

Matt Ridley’s whole piece can be found here: Reasons to be cheerful.

Weekend postcard: the outer bank islands of North Carolina

I have friends in Great Britain and Europe who are living under mounds of snow. And with summer 22 weeks away, it seemed like a good time to make the rash prediction that summer will return to the northern hemisphere. Corolla is near the North Carolina- Virginia state line and possesses some great beaches made for relaxing.

In the picture, the water temperature for the Atlantic Ocean is about 74F (23C) and the air temp is in the middle 80s (29-31C). C’mon spring!

Should the FDA require DHMO to be listed on food labels?

 

dihydrogen monoxide
Would you drink Dihydrogen monoxide? (Image by helen sotiriadis via Flickr)

Dihydrogen monoxide (DHMO) is used in the production of genetically modified crops. It is also used as a food additive and preservative. Every year people die from accidents involving DHMO, including DHMO poisoning. Some have died from as little as one drop. Additionally, the burning of hydrocarbons (e.g., wood and fossil fuels) releases DHMO into the atmosphere where it is a powerful greenhouse gas, more powerful than carbon dioxide.

The government and food companies will tell you that DHMO has been used for years, is perfectly safe (Chemicals are part of life; they are the building blocks in fact), and does not need regulation. Yet, given these facts, shouldn’t companies be required to place DHMO on their food labels?

Actually, no, although every fact presented to you is true, it is designed to mislead you. In fact, DHMO is relatively safe. Dihydrogen monoxide, (two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom) is normally written as H2O: water.

Think about spin such as DHMO when you hear that genetically engineered crops have not been proven safe. As an example, you will hear about a Cornell University research study that was reported as a note in Nature in June 1999. You will read things similar to “The Nature study was published after several Bt-corn varieties had been approved by the EPA and over 20 million acres of Bt corn were planted in the United States.” (source: Union of Concerned Scientists website) The preliminary research found that monarch butterflies died from eating pollen from corn that has been modified to produce Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt toxin). Monarchs lay their eggs on milkweed that grows in the Midwest where the corn grows. That is true. The European corn borer and monarch butterfly are members of the Lepidoptera, and though Bt is harmless to humans (indeed it is used by organic farmers as a pesticide because it is a naturally occurring soil bacterium) it is toxic to lepidopteran insects. Pollen from the Bt corn could fall on the milkweed which could sicken or kill monarch caterpillars. Again, true.

What is missing is perspective and balance. No crop is grown without the farmer (organic or conventional) using a pesticide. The better targeted the pesticide, the less harm that occurs to non-targets plants and animals. While it is true that Bt pollen poses a small risk to monarchs, organic farmers use Bt sprays, would monarch caterpillars be any less at risk from organically grown corn? No, the monarch would still be sickened or killed by organic growing methods. Additionally, other insects would be at risk too.

Less pesticide use is a result of growing Bt corn. According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency pesticide use has decreased about 33% since Bt corn was introduced.
For more about Bt corn and the monarch study go to: http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/br/btcorn/index.html#bt3

A no CARB diet

California has created a market out of thin air. On December 16, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) endorsed (by a vote of 9-1) the cap-and-trade regulation with the goal of reducing California’s greenhouse gas emissions under Assembly Bill 32, the Global Warming Solutions of 2006 law. The regulation limits emissions from sources responsible for 80 percent of California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The plan hopes to establish a price signal to drive long-term investment toward “cleaner” fuels and more efficient use of energy.

“This program is the capstone of our climate policy, and will accelerate California’s progress toward a clean energy economy,” said CARB Chairman Mary D. Nichols in a CARB press release. “It rewards efficiency and provides companies with the greatest flexibility to find innovative solutions that drive green jobs, clean our environment, increase our energy security and ensure that California stands ready to compete in the booming global market for clean and renewable energy. The cap-and-trade program provides California with the opportunity to fill the growing global demand for the projects, patents and products needed to move away from fossil fuels and to cleaner energy sources.”

Right after monkeys fly out of her butt.

According to CARB’s press release, “The cap-and-trade program and the other measures to reduce greenhouse gases provide a model for action that can be used at the federal, state and regional levels. As climate policies are being addressed worldwide, California’s early actions are positioning its economy to reap the benefits on the world stage and are catalyzing action throughout the country and the world.”

Really, “a model”?

Perhaps, but CARB and Chairman Nichols seem out of touch or unaware of the example of the Danish carbon emissions registry which has so far cost treasuries in Denmark and other European countries some 5 billion euros (about US$7 billion). (Source: PBS. Carbon Carousel: European Market a Haven for Tax Fraud) At its zenith the Danish carbon registry had 1256 registered traders, most of them fake. As the Telegraph reported, “the attraction of carbon permits is their intangible nature, so there is no need physically to ship goods across borders. All is done at the click of a mouse.” And, so far, legitimate carbon exchanges such as the Chicago Climate Exchange and Montréal Climate Exchange “have proven to be lackluster at best and dismal failures in general. Carbon prices are nearly $0 per ton.

As for “green jobs”? A Spanish study of Europe’s effort at creating green jobs did two analyses. The study show that the economy loses over two jobs for every green job created. “[T]hrough the use of both methods we have reached a similar conclusion: for every green job, we can be highly confident that 2.2 jobs are destroyed elsewhere in the economy, to which we have to add those jobs that the non-subsidized investment would have created.” Subsidies and taxes cost money, and that money comes from salaries saved.

The regulation will cover 360 businesses representing 600 facilities and is divided into two broad phases: an initial phase beginning in 2012 that will include all major industrial sources along with utilities; and, a second phase that starts in 2015 and brings in distributors of transportation fuels, natural gas and other fuels. Electric utilities will be given allowances and they will be required to sell those allowances and dedicate the revenue generated for the benefit of their ratepayers and to help achieve AB 32 goals. By the end of the program in 2020 there will be a 15 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions compared to today, reaching the same level of emissions as the state experienced in 1990, as required under AB 32.

There are also provisions to develop international offset programs that could include the preservation of international forests. A Memorandum of Understanding has already been signed with Chiapas, Mexico, and Acre, Brazil, at the Governor’s Global Climate Summit 3 to establish these offset programs. Such provisions drew praise from some, “The Pacific Forest Trust commend the California Air Resources Board for all the extraordinary and pioneering work they have done to craft this blueprint for California’s market-based system addressing climate change,” said PFT President Laurie Wayburn. “This truly is a historic moment. It’s exciting to see California leading the way yet again with a robust cap and trade program that creates incentives for U.S. landowners to conserve and steward our forests as a vital climate defense.”

Carbon trading looks like a bad idea whose time has come. As Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament puts it, “Carbon trading is wrong on so many levels…many studies have shown that plans to slash fossil fuel use, even if fully implemented, would have a trivial impact on the trajectory of climate – perhaps a tenth of a degree by 2100. And that assumes carbon dioxide really is the driving force in climate change. If it’s not, we get zero benefits, at a huge, economically devastating, wealth-redistributing price tag…[and] most of the authoritative economic studies on carbon trading demonstrate clearly that its costs always greatly exceed any conceivable benefits.”

CARB’s cap-and-trade regulation will either drive the development of green jobs or drive business out of California.