In the Vicinity of Beijing's 4th Ring, or More Properly, What America Should be Shooting For

I think what was most disappointing was simply the quality of the questions students asked during the Q&A. The first one was “In your dealings with President Obama, what have you found to be his best quality?” And it was simply downhill from there. Now, if this man was addressing a group of third graders, that question might have been appropriate (maybe), but among a group of college students and academics it’s simply absurd. Consider the situation. Here you are, a college student (or professor, or whatever), with an opportunity to discuss anything, from the anemic job market, the depressed housing market, a rapidly nuclearizing Iran, a debt-to-GDP ratio north of 100%, or the impeding collapse of the post-World War II world order, and you essentially ask, “Why is the President soooooo awesome?” I think this little episode perfectly encapsulates what is wrong with American higher education today. Instead of thinking critically about events around it, the academy is so radically self-absorbed and out of touch and so obsessed with its own ideology, it’s simply laughable. Is this really all that the best and brightest of North Carolina is capable of? Maybe it was a fluke, or maybe some rogue from Duke snuck in, but it was kind of embarrassing.

Secretary Donovan, when he wasn’t answering inane questions from the audience, also did a fair amount of pontificating. Apparently, the administration is convinced that we can educate ourselves out of this recession. If only we spend (a lot) more on higher education and push as many people as we can through the system, we’ll all be happy again. Color me a skeptic, but the plan he described, where the federal government subsidizes education through new tax credits, etc., guarantees low-interest loans for all comers, and then requires those borrowers to make only bare minimum payments on those loans, seems awfully similar to American housing policy circa 2008 (which incidentally, HUD bears a lot of responsibility for). I suppose if the idea is to create a giant education bubble, such that when it pops, everyone forgets about the housing problem because the education bubble is so much bigger, then this is a great idea. But if the idea is to generate genuine economic growth, this is certainly not the way to go.

And what’s a State of the Union talk without some mention of trains? Aren’t those things amazing? If only we had more of them, those pesky Chinese wouldn’t even be able to touch us. Actually, the best part of the Secretary’s little speech was when he was talking about China’s impressive infrastructure and how the Chinese are just light-years ahead of us in this regard. He clearly has no idea what he’s talking about. If he did know what he was talking about, he would know that, even in the (very crowded and polluted) major cities (i.e. places like Beijing), you can’t drink the tap water or flush toilet paper because the sewer systems are so old and so out of date. He would also know that electricity is also a problem, and that you actually have to buy surge protectors to insulate your electronic goods from regular power surges. Indeed, even China’s much lauded trains aren’t much to write home about. When they’re not falling off bridges, many of China’s trains are (very) overcrowded, smelly, and generally a very hellish experience. And their highway system isn’t anywhere nearly as well developed as ours. Now, don’t get me wrong, China’s quite a charming place, but the U.S. is definitely winning the infrastructure game.

Shiny!

There was also a fair amount of green energy hype. The Secretary informed us that while there might be a few Solyndras along the way (who doesn’t mind a little government corruption after all), we can’t expect the government to make the right choice every time when it comes to deciding which business to support. This, of course, is the whole point! The government can’t make these decisions, because they are infinitely complicated and not something that some bureaucrat hiding in the basement of a federal building can make. Such choices are properly left to the market, which is a better evaluator  of risk and profit than the government will ever be. When the government tries to make these decisions, you end up with Solyndra. Solyndra isn’t merely a side effect of government intervention in the market, it is its natural conclusion.

All in all, this event was pretty disappointing. The questions were childish, and we got the same old, same old from the administration. It’s simply too bad that what could have been a really interesting event on the future direction of the country devolved into a Why Barack Obama is the Greatest Thing Since Baked Bread event.

However, a rather gruesome video making the rounds of the internet is causing me to re-evaluate my assessment of the global warming movement. The video, entitled “No Pressure”,  was produced by the group 10:10, one of those international global warming outfits. According to their website,

10:10 is a global campaign to reduce carbon emissions by 10% in a year- starting in 2010. Any person, family, business, school, or other organization can cut 10%- and by working together we can make sure our actions count.

Given their desire to live my life for me, they’re just like any other environmental group. Yet, there’s this “No Pressure” video. In the video, various types of carbon-reduction strategies are promoted to “save the environment.” However, those who are unwilling to adapt these strategies or otherwise change the way they live are summarily executed. Even school children who refuse to live their lives according to the mandates handed down by this group are blown to bits. Even the woman who does the voice-over for the video is blown up at the end of the video, because she does not demonstrate a commitment to change her life. Those who agree to adapt their lives, are of course spared.

But what message does this send? Do what we say or we’ll kill you? Is there not something a bit Hitlerarian about this video, a purging of those who refuse to conform? To me, it seems like the Green version of “kill the infidel.” Just how widespread is this feeling in the Green movement? I find it shocking that such a mentality even exists, but how many people out there would just like to kill skeptics like me who refuse to conform their lives to a standard developed by people who have shown a considerable disregard for truth? According to the group, the video was supposed to be “funny.” But under what circumstances is the savaging of another human being funny?

In the past, I have been bemused by Greens’ attempts at using polar bears, etc. in attempts to play to people’s emotional side in trying to make their point. Again, not evil, just wrong. But I think it is clear that the No Pressure video is not only wrong, it is pure, unadulterated evil.

All of this has combined to take the wind out of the sails of those demanding we “do something” about global warming.

In spite of this, if Mr. Horner is correct, eco-alarmism is far from dead. The vested interests that hyped global warming alarmism, from coal companies to former (and current) communists to the town of Carrboro, will not pass silently into the night.

Polar bears may no longer be the poster child of eco-alarmism, but similarly charismatic fauna can readily be found. This time, coral reefs are the ones in danger due to the folly of man—not from global warming, but from ocean acidification, the next big eco-threat.

As CRDaily readers, you are already, generally speaking, among the most well-informed readers around, but a brief explanation of the science would, I think, be helpful (In any case, I hope it will make my Chemical Oceanography teacher happy).

This is basically how it works: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (see figure 1.a), whether it is naturally occurring or emitted from your tail pipe, is in equilibrium with dissolved CO2 in the ocean (fig. 1.b). The more CO2 in the air, the greater the amount dissolved in the ocean (think of a 2-liter bottle of soda—let it equilibrate with the air long enough and it loses its fizz—in this case, the reverse would happen).

Carbon dioxide dissolved in water can combine with a water molecule to form carbonic acid (fig. 1.c). Carbonic acid, being an acid, has a tendency to dissociate with one or more of its hydrogen atoms (fig. 1.d and 1.e), increasing the acidity of the total solution (in this case, the ocean is the solution) and lowering its pH.

Acidity, for the non-science majors, is basically a measure of the concentration of protons (H+ ions) in solution compared to hydroxide ions (OH-). The acidity is usually reported as pH, the negative log of the proton concentration; lower pH means more acidic, and higher means a more basic solution.

If I’ve lost you, let me summarize: CO2 + H2O –>  carbonic acid (H2CO3), making the ocean more acidic, making life more difficult for corals, which require a more basic pH to survive.

However, ocean acidification due to carbon emissions may be less of a threat than some alarmists have suggested. As Mr. Horner pointed out, carbon dioxide levels have been much higher in the past (about ten times higher for much of the Mesozoic era), and the fossil evidence suggests that corals were still able to survive.

Also, if you were looking forward to bathing in a fizzy ocean, I’m sorry to disappoint you, but that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon, either. Atmospheric carbon is just not going to reach high enough levels anytime soon, although it is certainly fun to imagine (the fizz part, not the dead corals).

Consider the first scene where the man is arrested for requesting plastic bags at the supermarket. This past spring the General Assembly considered a bill that would have banned the use of bags statewide, while imposing a rather hefty fine on those who persisted in using them.

And then there’s the shot where they arrest the man for throwing away batteries. Incidentally, a law in California prohibits the disposal of common batteries. And for those of you who thought composting was optional, think again. Then there’s the shot where the man is arrested for using the wrong light bulbs and the ban on the disposal of plastic bottles, already mentioned on this blog. The ad also highlights the preferential treatment given to “green” cars and mentions the growing popularity of Styrofoam bans.

On first glance, the ad comes across as funny and harmless. It is an ad after all. However, a closer examination, given the facts mentioned above reveals a more disturbing trend in the green movement, an increasing tendency to regulate and codify a certain life style. That this fact is now beginning to be reflected in commercial advertising further underlines the point.

What is perhaps most interesting is the closing scene of the commercial, where the Green Police proceed to arrest the two local policemen. Over the past few years, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has grown into an extremely powerful regulatory and enforcement agency. With its recent attempts to impose a cap-and-trade scheme on the country over the objections of Congress, the EPA has reached a new peak that allows it to run over state, local, and (apparently) federal governments. This new understanding is reflected in the ad, where the Green Police (read EPA) arrest the two local cops for using Styrofoam cups.

In short, the green movement has reached a dangerous level of absurbidity, with the events in the commercial closely mirroring those in real life.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1IZfXW2vg

Why does some university in the United Kingdom matter? Because its findings and mathematical models were incorporated into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) report, the climate change believer’s Bible. And guess what? The IPCC won half the Nobel Peace Prize along with Al Gore in 2007. Not that there is anything wrong with that. But, I think it is safe to say that the IPCC is not chuck-full of “global warming skeptics” (said in a WFB voice — just to annoy them).

Anyway, those hackers have made my week. Nay! They have made my year. In their own words: “We feel that climate science is too important to be kept under wraps. We hereby release a random selection of correspondence, code, and documents. Hopefully it will give some insight into the science and the people behind it.”

Indeed.

I tell you, what a grand time I’ve had. My feelings of doom have literally reversed. I now harbor feelings Americans associate with lazy Sunday afternoons. It seems the climate change hysteria-mongers have entered into a trail of faith; a season of heaviness you might say. What a pity.

Sure, a few influential scientists don’t seem to care much for dissent, and sure, maybe they are manipulating data to make themselves appear correct, but who cares? Answer: Australia. Or at least some in Australia’s Liberal party.

Apparently five Liberal menbers of parliament (MPs) have resigned over their party’s insistence upon bringing an American-like cap and trade bill to a vote without sufficient scrutiny. Those MPs insist that their constituents are the cause for their concern; the public wants further investigation into the tax “scheme” being considered. Anyway, the point is climate change legislation is causing political chaos. Thank God. I predict that the political turmoil in Australia is only a sliver of the world-wide fallout to come.

Don’t forget, so-called Climategate has major implications for the U.S. as well. You see, the White House Science Adviser, John Holdren, has his name in the sender-header on one of the emails involved. Congress (with cap-and-trade legislation hanging over its head) has begun investigations. This bodes the opposite of well for the forthcoming Senate vote.

Meanwhile, Copenhagen ain’t what it’s all cooked up to be. Sure, Obama is going to attend now. Whoop-di-doo. I think he was going to all along. Maybe there were some political compromises — maybe the UN agreed for this to be a “stepping stone to” rather than a binding treaty sort of thing. But, don’t let words like “meaningful” in the White House press release fool you, climate changers have failed. We’re all going to die now. Apparently Copenhagen was the “last chance” to “seal the deal.” Oh well, I guess not.

In conclusion, it appears that Al Gore may have to make a few less million dollars off of his scam in the few months to come than he otherwise might have. Me? I am just laughing myself to the bank thinking of all the taxes I won’t have to pay.

There are two main types of toilet paper: “soft” paper taken straight from trees and “recycled” paper derived from recycled newspapers, magazines, etc. The longer wood fibers in the virgin wood create the soft texture of the soft paper that is not possible with the shorter wood fibers in the recycled paper. In the process of making the soft paper, trees are felled and directly processed as toilet paper. This wanton destruction of trees, of course, is an issue for Greenpeace.

However, a reality check may be in order. Last year, the toilet paper and facial tissue industry made up 5% of the US forest-products industry. In the “away from home” market (public restaurants, gas stations, etc.), recycled paper comprised 75% of the market. In the “at-home” market, soft paper made up 95% of the market.

So, there is a significant demand for the soft paper. This is also a fairly lucrative industry. Last year Quilted Northern made $144 million off its Ultra Plush product alone. However, the Environmentalists would prefer to restrict your freedom and make the choice about what kind of toilet paper you buy for you. They are currently lobbying the industry to move completely over to recycled paper, cheating you the consumer out of your freedom to choose. Of course, all of this is being done in the name of “saving the environment.” We need to preserve these valuable “carbon scrubbers.” In the words of Obama, the toilet paper industry is contributing to the onset of an “irreversible catastrophe” that will result from the destruction of the world’s forest, an increase in pollution, fire and brimstone, etc.

What’s interesting is recent data from a study by the University of Helsinki that suggests that trees may in fact be contributing to air pollution. A reaction between the gases emitted from trees, nitrogen oxide, and sunlight creates lower-level ozone, a commonly recognized pollutant. This study may rehabilitate Ronald Reagan’s famous quote, “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”

So then, it appears that Greenpeace’s attempt to further restrict the market and control your life is in fact, based on faulty science. The science completely repudiates their main claim to directing your life. The Free Market and Science have spoken. There is a great demand for soft toilet paper, whose manufacture, at best, has a debatable impact on the environment. I, for one, am not willing to sacrifice my freedom to choose just to satisfy the whims of Greenpeace and its pseudo-science.

An array of tubes used to grow and harvest algae.

A start-up company called Sapphire Energy is working on methods of growing algae and converting it into biodiesel fuel. They say they can produce one million gallons of fuel annually by 2011 and one billion gallons by 2025.

According to Sapphire, biodiesel made from algae is chemically identical to crude oil. That means it can be refined to whatever standard is needed and then used in today’s vehicles without an special modifications. The fuel has already been used to power jet airplanes on test flights.

Algae-based biodiesel delivers 10 to 100 times more energy per acre than ethanol. Also, the algae is grown in transparent tubes which require only sunlight and fertilizer. These tubes can be placed on non-arable land so they don’t compete with food crops. An acre of agae tubes will be able to deliver 10 to 100 times more energy than ethanol. It also requires less water than corn. In addition, algae eats up a massive amount of CO2 during its growth (oceanic algaes are actually the main purveyors of photosynthesis on planet earth). This is enough to offset the amount of CO2 released by burning the fuel, meaning algal fuels are CO2-neutral.

Sapphire Energy’s main hurdle is convincing people to switch over to the new fuel. They aren’t getting any government subsidies, which means they won’t be producing fuel no one is buying. In order to get people to switch over to algal based fuels, they need to offer a fuel that will make them a profit while being more economical than gasoline, either by being cheaper or by being more efficient. That’s the only thing that will cause biofuels to become widely adopted.