Will Europe's next move be to try to capture the sun in North Africa?
Desertec: the renewable energy grab? Hamza Hamouchene How much space is needed for the sun to generate sufficient electricity for the entire demand of the world and EU? Yes, the graphic below is more or less accurate...
Assuming of course,lots of infrastructure and capacity for transport and storage existed - yet such plans are in the works for giant centralized solar plants in sunny places like Algeria. Thinking in terms of Mitchell's Carbon Democracy, would centralized solar generate any different kind of politics than centralized oil-rich authoritarian regimes?
Recall the political centrality of the idea of the "people" (pueblo). You should read the whole article, but this...
The political parties that directed Venezuela’s exclusionary electoral democracy prior to Chávez’s election in 1998 claimed to represent the pueblo as a national collectivity and to speak in the name of the pueblo. Chávez and the social movements backing him transformed the state's claim. They asserted that they themselves embodied the true pueblo: the non-elites, the poor, the indigenous, the revolutionary, and the defenders of Venezuelan sovereignty who had taken power and now spoke for themselves. In so doing, the Chávez regime cast the pueblo as active sovereign subject, rather than mere object of representation.
The noble, combative pueblo that Chávez celebrated was reimagined through the new place names, commemorations, and iconographies he helped create. Chávez dressed himself and these projects in the colors of the national flag and in symbols of a subaltern national history. In frequent speeches and chatty televised open meetings, he fashioned a discourse of the pueblo that was at once paternalistic and egalitarian.
These representations gained political salience as they acquired further material and social dimensions. In particular, the reorganization of the petroleum industry played an important role in redefining the pueblo. The national oil company, PDVSA, was charged with directing major projects designed to benefit poor sectors. This reorientation tied the shaping of an active pueblo to the creation of new forms of oil-rent distribution. What the poor had perceived in previous regimes as the trickle of oil rents from an indifferent state, appeared under Chávez as a gushing geyser.
Shell destroyed the Niger Delta, while making billions. Now it wants to drill in the Arctic. Seattle activists want to prevent their rigs from using Seattle's ports. A good cause for the climate. Best quote in this article: "values mean something"
And this is what we've been saying:
"There's a simple three-question test that could be applied to all such decisions; we could call it the "Yes, commissioner, Arctic drilling really is up to you" test:
1. Do you accept the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change?
2. Do you understand what scientists say about the impact that X action has on climate change?
3. Are you supporting X action in a meaningful way?
It's that simple.
It's also chilling - normal, nice, non-sociopathic people are confronted with the preposterous fact that they're partly responsible for a decision that will lead to immeasurable destruction: more droughts (ask the people of Sao Paulo or Syria if they think we should support Arctic drilling), vastly worse storms (ditto the people of the Philippines), likely famines and widespread extinctions."
On Nigeria: Lessons of oil wealth: corruption, authoritarian rule, militarization, neglected infrastructure and agricultural sectors, regional tensions. Elections delayed. Part of our daily commute. Democracy, Deferred: On Nigeria's Dysfunctional Election By the (Nigerian) author of the great book Americanah, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie
More on the whole 'solar activity might be the cause of global warming' myth. Just as we were discussing the the fact that greenhouse gases (primarily CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels) were the most significant cause of anthropogenic global warming… here is more news that raises questions about why WUSTL Engineering would give a platform to speculation that there is a serious debate about the causes of global warming. Note: There is not a serious debate. 'Solar activity' is an insignificant factor. The primary cause of human-induced global warming is the burning of fossil-fuels.
The story of 'solar activity' is what we refer to as "junk science." It is financed by the fossil fuel industry.
This is a useful reminder of how corporate money distorts and corrupts science (and the university). Washington University in St. Louis & WUSTL Engineering: You need to clean house. Respect and reputation spiraling downward for all who wave the banner of 'science' around here. Finding it hard to believe anything anybody has to say. Embracing junk science sullies all scientists.
For those 'real' scientists who keep quiet because they claim to be apolitical, your silence means complicity with the political distortion of climate research here on campus. Read the New York Times article on Willie Soon, junk scientist for hire and number one proponent of the myth that "solar activity" is the cause of global warming: Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher Sorry, NYT, since some readers may not get past your paywall, I have to paste it here.
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.
One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.
The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.
The documents shed light on the role of scientists like Dr. Soon in fostering public debate over whether human activity is causing global warming. The vast majority of experts have concluded that it is and that greenhouse emissions pose long-term risks to civilization.
Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.
Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.
“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”
Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known. But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by modern standards of publishing. “What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.
Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals.
“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,” Dr. Alcock said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”
Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian Institution, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard.
“I am aware of the situation with Willie Soon, and I’m very concerned about it,” W. John Kress, interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian in Washington, said on Friday. “We are checking into this ourselves.”
Dr. Soon rarely grants interviews to reporters, and he did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls last week; nor did he respond to an interview request conveyed to him by his employer. In past public appearances, he has reacted angrily to questions about his funding sources, but then acknowledged some corporate ties and said that they had not altered his scientific findings.
“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”
The newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.
Photo
Senator James M. Inhofe, Republican of Oklahoma, praising scientists like Dr. Soon.CreditCSPAN
Southern is one of the largest utility holding companies in the country, with huge investments in coal-burning power plants. The company has spent heavily over many years to lobby against greenhouse-gas regulations in Washington. More recently, it has spent significant money to research ways to limit emissions.
“Southern Company funds a broad range of research on a number of topics that have potentially significant public-policy implications for our business,” said Jeannice M. Hall, a spokeswoman. The company declined to answer detailed questions about its funding of Dr. Soon’s research.
Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oilrefining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.
As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust, an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, in Cambridge, Mass., is a joint venture between Harvard and the Smithsonian Institution, housing some 300 scientists from both institutions. Because the Smithsonian is a government agency, Greenpeace was able to request that Dr. Soon’s correspondence and grant agreements be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.
The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published astatement accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.
Dr. Alcock said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings.
Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States SenatorJames M. Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who claims that climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.
In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment.
As of late last week, most of the journals in which Dr. Soon’s work had appeared were not aware of the newly disclosed documents. The Climate Investigations Center is planning to notify them over the coming week. Several journals advised of the situation by The New York Times said they would look into the matter.
Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.
Dr. Oreskes, the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda.
“I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.
This illustrates the political struggle described by Zalik, the tactics of hegemony, the legitimization of coercion (violence) in defense of extractivism, and the increasing criminalization of all forms of opposition.
(Zalik, Anna (2011). "Protest as Violence in Oilfields: The Contested Representation of Profiteering in Two Extractive Sites" in S. Feldman, C. Geisler and G. Menon (eds) Accumulating Insecurity. Athens, University of Georgia Press. p 261-284.)
In a statement, Karen Hinton, a spokesperson for Donziger, said that DeLeon had provided no funds for two years, and that Donziger’s team welcomed the settlement, “because it will allow a significant stake in the winning judgment of the affected villagers to be used for clean-up of their ancestral lands rather than be paid to an outside investor.”
She also argued that “Chevron’s willingness to drop all of its claims against Mr. DeLeon for no financial consideration … reflects the company’s increasingly weak position in the overall litigation.”
Most proposals for carbon dioxide removal and reliable sequestration are far costlier than widespread deployment of renewable energy sources and other ways to reduce fossil fuel combustion.
This is straight out of the lecture and article (Zalik) from last couple of weeks: In what ways has legality been hijacked through industry influence in state legislatures? Read the dissenting judge's opinion (and know that there are reasonable judges out there):
"Justices Paul Pfeifer and William O'Neill each wrote their own dissents, also.
Pfeifer added that in his view the legislature left open the possibility of local input, while enacting a statute that covered what he described as the "big picture."
O'Neill's criticism was more direct, saying the state statute took away citizens' ability to regulate oil and gas drilling in their own backyards, regardless of how long their local zoning codes have been in force.
"Let's be clear here," O'Neill wrote. "The Ohio General Assembly has created a zookeeper to feed the elephant in the living room. What the drilling industry has bought and paid for in campaign contributions they shall receive.
"The oil and gas industry has gotten its way, and local control of drilling-location decisions has been unceremoniously taken away from the citizens of Ohio," he wrote. "Under this ruling, a drilling permit could be granted in the exquisite residential neighborhoods of Upper Arlington, Shaker Heights, or the village of Indian Hill -- local zoning dating back to 1920 be damned."
November 14, 2014 US House House 252-161 - Directs Administration to Proceed on Keystone XL The vote: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/house/2/519 The bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c113:H.R.5682: The story: House Passes Bill Directing Obama to Proceed on Keystone Pipeline November 18, 2014 Senate Vote 280 Senate 59 yes -41 no (bill fails)
Yes: MO Senator (coal D-MO) Claire McCaskill Yes: MO Senator (coal R-MO) Roy Blunt
The vote: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/113/senate/2/280 The bill: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-113s2280pcs/pdf/BILLS-113s2280pcs.pdf Jan. 5, 2015 US Senate (after new Republican majority takes over) S.1. Introduced in the Senate "Keystone XL Pipeline Approval Act" In an attempt to get the bill passed, amendments are encouraged. Jan. 21, 2015 US Senate Two votes on amendments declaring that humans are causing climate change are defeated. But, Rand Paul (R-KY) voted yes. Jan. 22, 2015 US Senate Amendment offered by Bernie Sanders (I-VT) defeated 56-42 "that declared that climate change is real, is caused by humans and wreaks devastation. The amendment also called on the federal government to lead the way in the national transition away from dependence on fossil fuels." (story) Amendment offered by Joe Manchin (coal D-WV) defeated 54-46 "that also declared human-caused climate change to be real and devastating, and urged the government to support research on technologies that would capture carbon emissions from fossil fuels." (story) Amendment offered by Roy Blunt (coal R-MO) defeated 51-46 called on the Senate to nullify a climate change agreement in Novemberbetween the United States and China in which both nations pledged to reduce their carbon emissions. (story) Amendment offered by Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) & Bernie Sanders (I-VT) passes 98-1.
Senate rejects that climate change is caused by humans, but accepts that climate change is real, but not a hoax. Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/23/us/politics/senate-rejects-human-role-in-climate-change.html
Climate science denier Jim Inhofe (oil R-OK), co-sponsored the amendment, but said it means little. "From the National Journal: "Inhofe said that he backed the amendment because the climate is always changing, adding that the only "hoax" is the idea that human activity can change the temperature of the planet at all." And, more from Inhofe on the amendment (source & his floor speech): "Climate is changing and climate has always changed and always will. There is archaeological evidence of that, there is biblical evidence of that, there is historical evidence of that. It will always change. The hopes is that there are some people who are so arrogant to think they are so powerful they can change climate. Man can’t change climate."
One member of the public with a choice response:
@jiminhofe Quit whoring for the oil companies and do something good for human beings for a change. — Grace Tenkay (@gracie28) January 21, 2015
Feb. 11, 2015 US House House votes to pass Senate bill (modified): 270-152
The vote: http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/114/house/1/75 The final bill (House and Senate): http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-114s1enr/pdf/BILLS-114s1enr.pdf The story: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/12/us/politics/house-passes-keystone-bill.html
- energy retrofitting in schools - consultation with "Indian Tribes"
Sec. 5: "It is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax."
-sense of the Senate, that Congress should approve a bill so that oil spill liability trust fund will apply to "bitumen" and "synthetic crude oil" -some "energy efficiency" measures -water heaters more efficient -building efficiency labeling to be better President Barack Obama: the "symbolism vastly outweighs the substance" ? Will wait to see impact on climate: Dept of State Review: would not worsen climate change. EPA report: would worsen climate change
Will wait to see what Nebraska court case on property rights says: Nebraska supreme court (appears to) rule in favor of pipeline.
Dear students: On Global Divest from Fossil Fuels Day (Feb. 14, 2015), Washington University's Record published this piece from the McKelvey Engineering School as their lead article: How Does Climate Change Impact You? The article discusses how faculty in various departments talk, think, and act on climate change and global warming. My thoughts: It is considered bad etiquette to critique the work of colleagues in the university, especially across disciplinary boundaries. However, on issues of national and global importance, with implications for the health and well-being of our children, and their children, one must make an exception. I see serious problems with the way the research is presented, and with the ways that some of the scholars themselves represent the challenge of human-caused global warming. First, those entrusted with scientific legitimacy and credibility should engage in clear communication of known facts. We have a huge problem with public knowledge - I refer to this as fossil knowledge - because of the ways that science is distorted by politicians, the media, and the fossil fuel industry. So, when scientific institutions themselves engage in distortion, both the institution and public knowledge are undermined. How does this work? We are engaging in willful distortion because "scientists" and "engineers" are not willing to state clearly what the science says. This includes positing scientific fact as an "issue" that is up to passion and debate. This is a standard for Fox News, not for a scientific institution. Consider the opening paragraph of the article:
To be sure, real scientists do distinguish between "climate change" and "global warming". (In fact, in the paragraph above, this is confused since the causes of climate change and global warming are in fact distinguishable). See sidebar (source). To blur and misrepresent these issues does no service to the public. The language used here is intentionally distorting and evasive. Much as with the tactics of opponents of scientific knowledge of evolution, here the issue of climate change is poorly described and labeled a "theory." In fact, we have a substantial set of facts and consensus on climate change and global warming. The issue of national and global concern today is global warming - caused by human burning of fossil fuels. Rather than muddle the questions, and their status, what we should be talking about is global warming. "passion on either side of the issue?" What issue? There is no either side to a scientific fact. Some politicians who do not believe in science may have an issue, but they are in a separate category. As for the "common man"…? There may be passion about what should be done, but to suggest that the facts are up for debate is absurd. "scientists, politicians, and the common man" These are separate categories of knowledge and each has separate ways of validating knowledge. Why blur them here? Among real scientists there is no significant debate about why we have global warming. Politicians debate because they operate ideologically, or because of financial interests of their donors. The common man has plenty of knowledge, but debates things thanks to this kind of miscommunication that distorts reality so as to reproduce ignorance. "man's contributions to the environment"? OK, gendered issues aside for the moment, why are we incapable of saying what these contributions are? Contributions? What kind of word is that? Man [sic] does not make contributions to the environment. People make contributions to charities. Fossil fuel emissions are not a contribution to the environment. Why can't the university simply say the truth? Try something this simple:
Global warming is real. Global warming is caused by humans. Global warming is having an impact on sea level, extreme weather, glacial melting, droughts, and human and animal habitats.
The primary cause of global warming is CO2 emissions, the most significant of the greenhouse gases, which trap heat in our atmosphere.
The most significant source of CO2 emissions is the burning of fossil fuels: coal, oil, and gas.
If we do not dramatically reduce our use of fossil fuels, global warming will worsen significantly in coming years.
On this there is no debate.
To say anything else is to engage in willful distortion. Willful distortion of scientific fact is unethical. We may debate how best and how fast we should reduce our fossil fuel use, but on the facts there is little room for debate. The "solar activity" mythBut it gets worse. Let us cast doubt on things (quote from the first professor featured in the article):
"Seem to agree"? No, they agree. "seems to be some disagreement over the causes?" There is no disagreement over the causes. Is this a "man-made phenomenon"? Yes, clearly. Attributable to solar activity? What? Say that again? With all due respect, we might acknowledge that many in the academy and among the "common man" are uninformed, due to no fault of their own if it is not their area of expertise. But would not the engineers and scientists charged with this feature alert the professor to the facts before going to press? Global warming - the warming that is of concern right now - has nothing to do with solar activity. Check with NASA: (http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/):
I find it troubling that we have to engage in such clarifications at an institution that professes to be at the forefront of scientific research on the challenges facing us. I won't get into the whole 'clean coal' thing. We've dealt with the myth of 'clean coal' here and elsewhere in this blog. Several of the faculty members in this article are doing important research on 'adaptation' to global warming. Some are studying impacts of pollution. Yet why are many, if not most, unwilling to articulate in clear terms why we have global warming, and how we might be able to address it by dramatically cutting our use of fossil fuels? And why should all of us not speak out? These are not ideological questions, this is about basic scientific truth. Are these misrepresentations insignificant or is our science compromised by our ties to the fossil fuel industry and money- or ideologically-driven donors? Do we believe in science, ignorance, or what? We appear to be seeing the effects of industry pressure compromising academic integrity of the university. If not innocent ignorance, it is willful distortion. And, if it is willful distortion it is a form of censorship of truth.
On the primary source of more CO2 in the atmosphere: human burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas):
Updated February 21, 2015: More on the fossil fuel industry funding of 'research' on 'solar activity': Turns out that the solar activity research is largely backed by the fossil fuel industry, as part of their wider campaign to confuse public knowledge so as to slow any public or governmental response. Start here: Feb. 21, 2015: "Documents Reveal Fossil Fuel Fingerprints on Contrarian Climate Research." Inside Climate News. That should take you to a story of bogus journals, oil-funded research, Chinese 'science journals', and Jan 22, 2015: "Factcheck: Scientists hit back at claims global warming projections are 'greatly exaggerated.' The Carbon Brief. Updated May 5, 2016: It seems that the US Chamber of Commerce has its hand in the university as well, which may explain the misrepresentations described above. We're watching WUSTL, in defense of the public trust.
