I-66 "Spot Improvement" Underway

The "spot improvement" on westbound I-66 between the George Mason Drive and Sycamore Street is underway.

These spot improvements, which are essentially short-distance widenings have been the subject of great debate for more than a decade.  VDOT has long wanted to widen I-66 to three lanes in each direction; Arlington, smart growth and environmental groups have been strongly opposed.  The original agreement to build I-66 included an agreement to not widen the highway beyond two lanes in each direction.  VDOT has instead proposed a series of "spot improvements," which widen sections of I-66 to three lanes.  This section is called "Spot 1," and it has a page on the VDOT web site.

In February of 2009, the National Capital Region Transportation Planning Board voted to put these projects on hold,only to reverse itself the very next month.  Since then, there has been little to stop this project from moving forward, particularly because it has received earmarked funding from Congress that can be used for nothing else.

The contract was awarded in May, and construction has begun.  Here are photos:

I-66 looking westbound from Ohio St.
This one shows I-66 looking westbound from Ohio Street.  Note the (semi) vegetated median between the left shoulder and the Metrorail tracks.  That is being partially removed to make room for the additional roadway width.

The photo at the top of the post shows the demolition of the median next to the Metrorail tracks.
The Custis Trail passes under I-66 along this stretch of highway.  At the point were it crosses underneath there are three bridges: one for each direction of traffic and one for the Metrorail tracks.  The westbound bridge is being widened.  To accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic during construction, VDOT has constructed this structure for protection.  There have been occasional detours while work is being done here.  The detour is well marked and only slightly longer.

Once the bridge is widened, there will be less daylight at this point.  Although there is some relatively inadequate lighting now, it may need to be upgraded as part of the improvements.

The following information was mined from the project documents of the Constrained Long-Range Transportation Plan for 2030:

Do traffic congestion conditions necessitate the proposed project?  Yes
If so, describe those conditions: Recurring congestion
Is this a capacity-increasing project on a limited access highway or other arterial highway of a functional class higher than minor arterial? Yes

Please identify any and all planning factors that are addressed by this project:
  - Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency.
  - Increase the safety of the transportation system for all motorized and non-motorized users.
  - Increase the ability of the transportation system to support homeland security and to safeguard the personal security of all motorized and non-motorized users.
  - Increase accessibility and mobility of people and freight.
  - Promote efficient system management and operation.
a. Is this project being proposed specifically to address a safety issue? Yes
Briefly describe the nature of the safety problem:
Existing levels of congestion is exacerbated by the intense weaving and merging movements happening over a short distance along with inadequate sight distance. The recurring congestion and associated operational/safety effects poses concerns on the corridor’s ability to serve as an efficient emergency evacuation route.

The suggestion that this will improve the road as an emergency evacuation route is just silly.  The capacity of I-66 for evacuation will not be increased by adding a lane for a mile and a half.  This language is likely a holdover from the arguments used for widening the entire length of I-66 inside the Beltway.

Many people believe that once the "spot improvements" are all in place, the argument to widen the relatively short remaining sections will grow very strong, and VDOT will eventually prevail.  It will be interesting to see how long that takes.

(Cross-posted on Greater Greater Washington)

Monday What's on the Web: Jeff Masters

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
----------------------------
There is no better source for the latest on weather developments worldwide than Jeff Master's Wunderblog on the Weather Underground site.  He provides tremendous detail regarding tropical storms, heat waves, droughts and extreme weather of all kinds.

Last week on August 27 he reported the opening of both the Northwest and Northeast passages while also comprehensively covering all the hurricane, tropical storm and tropical storm precursor weather everywhere in the world.  It's from his blog that I learned 17 countries broke all time temperature records so far in 2010 (the 17 countries is a record)

His understanding of both weather and climate is impressive, and he is good at debunking poorly constructed climate skeptic arguments.  Here's a great quote from the same August 27 posting:

"Diminishing the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by calling attention to Antarctic sea ice gain is like telling someone to ignore the fire smoldering in their attic, and instead go appreciate the coolness of the basement, because there is no fire there. Planet Earth's attic is on fire. This fire is almost certain to grow much worse. When the summertime Arctic sea ice starts melting completely a few years or decades hence, the Arctic will warm rapidly, potentially leading to large releases of methane gas stored in permafrost and in undersea "methane ice" deposits. Methane is 20 - 25 times more potent than CO2 at warming the climate, meaning that the fire in Earth's attic will inexorably spread to the rest of the globe. To deny that the fire exists, or that the fire is natural, or that the fire is too expensive to fight are all falsehoods. This fire requires our immediate and urgent attention. Volunteer efforts to fight the fire by burning less coal, oil, and gas are laudable, but insufficient. It's like trying to fight a 3-alarm blaze with a garden hose."

His readership is enormous.  His posts receives thousands of comments every day.

Smart Grid Will Not Work at the Consumer Level

News about the "Smart Grid" is found everywhere.  A Google News search just now returned 1,053 references.  A regular Google search returns about 1.7 million references.  The new smart grid is supposed to bring enormous benefits to consumers, utilities and our environment.
(Photo by Duke Energy)

Right now our electrical grid is dumb.  No question about it.  As has been pointed out many times, the only way your utility knows if there has been an electrical outage is if you call them.  That is dumb.  Also, the utility does not know the demand on any particular transformer or substation until it becomes overloaded and maxes out.  That makes them over-invest in infrastructure and create inefficiencies throughout the system.  Making these parts of the grid smarter will yield tremendous benefits.  I am an unabashed supporter of implementing the smart grid between the transformer, substation, distribution and transmission systems to allow for smarter balancing of the system, for detecting system problems and for helping to manage the system overall.

But over and over the story I read about is that the smart grid will be deployed at the consumer level so that customers can have their various appliances managed to the benefit of the grid operator (Baltimore Sun, Business Week) .  For example, during times of high demand, your smart meter would turn your air conditioner up a degree or two.  It would also have your dishwasher only run late at night when demand is low.  Supposedly one would get a favorable rate or other incentive to do so.

I do not think this will happen.

Here's why.  Americans like two things more than saving a little money: simplicity and control.  Look at cell phone plans. Originally they differentiated between calls on nights and weekends and calls during working hours.  Texting was priced by the unit.  Web-based services were based on usage.  But more and more people have gravitated to the unlimited options.  Many of these people would probably save money on another plan, but they would rather know how much the are going to pay than worry about an anomaly that would cost them more one month.  In fact, most people will remember that one month when it cost $250 and not realize that averaging their bills out over the year would cost less than $129 per month.  No, they would rather not worry about the unexpected surprise.

Likewise with pay-per-view.  Most people subscribe to cable services based on their maximum viewing preferences.  They would rather have access to all the stations they "might" watch than have to think about paying a premium once in a while--even if it costs them more in the long run.

And so it will be with smart meters.  People will prefer plans with set rates or monthly amounts than variable.  The more complicated the pricing, the fewer people will want it--even if they are told it will save them money.  No one will go along with complicated, demand-driven pricing.  And no one will want the utility controlling when they can run their dishwasher or what temperature they set their thermostat.  No way!

So utilities can install millions of smart meters in people's homes, but they won't get the benefit they think they will.  It may still be a good idea, because the grid needs to be able to communicate with itself.  It will help with reliability, forecasting and data.  But it won't result in big changes in how consumers consume electricity.  They'll still opt for a simple, one-price system.

Our Camry hybrid (sixth post)

07_toyota_camry_hybrid_ag_14_544x40 We purchased our 2007 Toyota Hybrid Camry in March of 2007 and I have previously written about it five times (first, second, third, fourth, fifth postings). 

Now it's 3 1/2 years old, and we are still happy with it--notwithstanding the various stains that have appeared on the upholstery (not Toyota's fault).

Last winter it was time to replace the original tires.  During the Olympics there had been ads about certain tires that claimed they boosted fuel efficiency compared to standard tires.  Also, during the time I worked at EPA, I had a number of conversations about how EPA might help promote more efficient tires to the public.  So I was aware that not all tires are equal when it comes to fuel efficiency.  Tires have what is called "rolling resistance,"  a factor of friction with the road--lower rolling resistance equals less friction, which improves fuel efficiency.  ImageServlet[1]Since we had to replace our tires anyway, it made good sense to look into ways we could boost the fuel efficiency of our car even more, and save some money and emissions at the same time. 


Prior to buying our new tires, the highest mileage we had ever experienced for a complete tank of gas had been about 39 mpg (no--we don't track this ourselves with pad and pencil; the car displays it for us).  Since we bought our new Michelin Energy Saver tires, on two occasions we have exceeded 40 mpg for a full tank.  I don't know for certain if it is because of the tires, since there are a lot of variables associated with driving, but not much else has changed, so it seems plausible that they are contributing to the better mileage.

I also need to brag that once, shortly after I filled up, I drove about 5 miles, and at the end of the trip, my mpg display showed this:

58 mpg display on camry

58.7 MPG!!!!  Okay, so it was only for a few miles, but still.

Because our car already gets pretty good mileage, our annual savings will likely be only about 10-20 gallons, saving us $25 - $60 (or more) depending on gas prices.  If they last us five years, we will probably save at least $150.  If gas prices go back up to $4 or more, then our savings will be more--perhaps as much as $350.  In the end, the savings will completely pay for one or two of the tires, and reduce greenhouse gases by 1000-2000 pounds.

Because of where we live, we have now saved almost $4000 on taxes by owning this car.  There are a variety of local and state incentives you will want to consider if you are in the market for a new car.



Monday What's on the Web: WWF Climate Blog

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
----------------------------
For this Monday's "What's on the Web," I have selected WWF's Climate blog.  Beyond that, WWF has an excellent comprehensive section on their web site devoted to Climate Change.  It is well worth spending some time looking at.

The blog is found under the "Climate Change News" link, and it focuses primarily on bringing attention to the latest news on the climate change front.  Most posts include key links to other resources, which is a good way to expand your knowledge of other web resources (in addition to my Monday posts, of course).

Recent examples:

Sea Ice Extent Far Below Previously Recorded Levels in Northern Route of Northwest Passage

NOAA Joins NASA in Declaring that July 2010 was Warmest on Record for Northern Hemisphere

More Species Feeling the Heat

 

 

 

Efficiency is Stalled; Money is Sitting

The Washington Post reported yesterday that only 8% of the stimulus money that was targeted at energy efficiency has been distributed.  This is at least 18 months after the money was made available, so it really hasn't performed its function of "stimulating."  What's worse, though, is that this stimulus money was a really good idea.  It is supposed to:
  • Support local jobs and economies (energy efficiency jobs are always local)
  • Improve the efficiency of existing building stock
  • Reduce operating costs and utility bills, so that homeowners and building owners will have that money to use elsewhere in the economy
  • Provide the environmental benefit of burning less fossil fuels.
All of these great outcomes are being missed--mainly because of bureaucracy.  One of the biggest problems is that no one wants to send out money that might later be determined to have been misused.  I'm sure the Washington Post would have a big story if 80% of the money had gone out, but 5% of it had been fraudulently used.  It makes it virtually impossible to have these federal programs work.  The controls that are put in place keep the money from going bad, but they also keep a lot of the good money from getting out, too.


The other problem is that the money was layered.  DOE targeted the money to states and localities, who were supposed to develop plans for how to use it.  Many of those states and localities then hired consulting firms to help them develop plans.  Given the procurement process to get those contracts in place, time kept passing by--and it still is.

Also, a lot of the money was targeted in small amounts to small places, which seems nice and egalitarian.  Unfortunately, in small amounts, much of the money would end up getting pissed away just getting these places up to speed or putting in place the staffing or contractors who would be capable of doing the work.  I'll post another blog on this topic shortly.

So here we are--92% of the money is still lying around.  Used fairly intelligently it could make a huge difference.  Even if 5% got wasted, it's still worth getting out there.

Monday What's on the Web: NOAA's Annual Climate Assessment Report

Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web resources that are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
----------------------------
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is the main US governmental body that monitors our environment--particularly oceans and atmosphere as indicated in its title.  The National Climatic Data Center issues an annual climate assessment report (link).  It's latest report was issued a few weeks ago at the end of July.  It is a relatively technical report, but it is very comprehensive.  It does not mince words about the evidence for global warming.

"Numerous studies attest to the robustness of the global LSAT records and their nonreliance on individual stations (e.g., Jones et al. 1997; Peterson et al. 1999; Parker 2006; Parker et al. 2009; Menne et al. 2010). Evidence from recent reanalyses lends further support (Simmons et al. 2010).
The IPCC conclusion (Alley et al. 2007) that 'warming of the climate system is unequivocal' does not rest solely upon LSAT records. These constitute only one line of evidence among many, for example: uptake of heat by the oceans, melting of land ice such as glaciers, the associated rise in sea level, and increased atmospheric surface humidity (fig. 2.5). 

If the land surface records were systematically flawed and the globe had not really warmed, then it would be almost impossible to explain the concurrent changes in this wide range of indicators produced by many independent groups. The observed changes in a broad range of indicators provide a self-consistent story of a warming world. "

There are still some skeptics out there who dispute human-caused warming.  I doubt they have read this report and truly understand it's wide ranging evidence.  Perhaps they believe it is falsified information.  I've addressed that potentiality on two previous posts.

The Solution to the Pole Hogs

While in Barcelona recently, I had the opportunity to experience their metro system.  They have a simple solution to one of the problems often experienced by Metro riders in DC: pole hogs.  Some riders of the DC Metro will lean against the stanchions or otherwise make it difficult for several people to hold onto a single stanchion.  In Barcelona, many of the trains have these (see photo).  I wish I had taken a photo from farther away, because the top and the bottom of the stanchion are a single pole just like in DC, but the center section splits into three--allowing more people to comfortably hold on in the same amount of space.  This appears to be a solution that could be retrofit in existing cars by cutting out the center of an existing stanchion and welding on these midsection portions.

Photo by Jaume Meneses on Flickr
You can see another view of them in this photo to the right:

The Barcelona Metro also uses waiting time countdown clocks like the DC Metro. . .except theirs counts down to the second.  And they're pretty accurate, too.  This one shows the next train is expected in 1 minute and 41 seconds, which is pretty much exactly when it arrived:

How I Decide What to Pay Attention to and What to Ignore When it Comes to Climate Change Research

Recently a friend of mine brought this article (The Logarithmic Effect of Carbon Dioxide) that appears on the Watts Up With That web site to my attention.  His note to me read:

"I'm curious how you might react to the attached short article.  It was written to reach out to the average concerned non-scientific type about the illogic of the IPCC climate change models.  It did impact public policy in Australia. Do you understand what the author is trying to say?  It would seem fairly straightforward to a typical technical type but I'm afraid it would still cause someone's eyes to glaze over if they weren't a technical person.  This is probably a good part of the communication problem for a fairly scientific issue?"

It's an interesting question, and I agreed with him that technical papers in general are generally going to be ignored by the public and often will be misunderstood (and misreported) by the media.  However, science is a technical subject, and there is constant research going on, much of which is very important.

(photo by Leo Reynolds)
So how does one go about deciding what research to pay attention to?  Or how to sort through it all?  Here's how I do it.

1) Since I am generally not qualified to completely understand most technical papers, I leave it up to those who are.  That means I am more likely to take into account research that has appeared in  peer-reviewed publications such as Nature or Science.  That means qualified scientists have looked at the research and deemed it worthy of publication.  This particular paper has not been peer reviewed.  It may be the greatest paper ever written about climate change or total hogwash.  I'm not qualified to determine that, and I don't have the time to try to figure it out myself--even if I had the requisite knowledge. 

2) There are dozens of papers on climate change published every month--many more if we include blog postings by anyone who wants to post.  Some of them point to different conclusions than others.  In my mind, each one represents just a single data point.  Therefore I am not that interested in what any one particular paper might say, such as this one.  What seems to me to be more prudent is to see what the overall research points to--the overwhelming preponderance.  From everything I have seen over the last twenty years, the overwhelming preponderance is:
  • Greenhouse gases are being added to our atmosphere by humans at an unprecedented rate
  • These gases are causing our world to absorb more energy, making it warmer
  • The outcome of this rapid warming is detrimental to humankind and civilization
This particular paper addresses the second one of these, making the case that the warming will be much more mild than the peer-reviewed science indicates.  Fair enough.  That's one small data point (and a weak one, since the paper has not been peer reviewed) among many--most of which point to a different, more dangerous, conclusion.

3) Because there are bazillions of papers and postings and comments flinging around the Internet on this topic, I defer to the real experts--the scientists themselves.  However, I don't defer to any particular scientist, because any one person might have an agenda.  Instead I look for the most highly respected scientific organizations and see what they say.  Using this heuristic makes it easy.  Every single, well respected scientific organization in the world agrees with the three points above (or at least does not dispute them).  Every.  Single.  One.  Who am I to question the wisdom of the Royal Society, which was once headed by Isaac Newton and has included fellows like Michael Faraday, Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking?  Or the National Academy of Sciences, which was founded by Abraham Lincoln and has been advising our government for over 150 years?  It seems to me that listening to what they have to say would be a far more intelligent way to come to an understanding of the science than trying to figure it out for myself one paper at a time.  (If you think the scientists are all conspiring, read this previous post for my views on that.)

So in conclusion, I rarely try to dig into any particular scientific paper myself, since I'm usually not qualified to really understand how the science was determined (I do read the conclusions, however).  Then I wait to see what the highly respected organizations say--the ones that have generations of reputation to uphold--on the overall topic.  Should those organizations change their statements regarding the overall science of climate change, then I will most certainly sit up and take notice.  If however, they do not because of a single paper here or a blog post there, then I'll assume they have accorded that research its due and have determined that, by itself, it does not change the current overall understanding of the science.

Is the Future Here Now?

Weather and climate are not the same.  Sometimes people--skeptics and warmists alike--use the weather to "prove" the existence or non-existence of global warming.  That's hard to do, because extreme weather events--although they are affected by climate change--can happen anyway.  So if 1000-year floods start happening every 10 years, we know there are more of them due to climate change.  We don't know, however, which ones they are in particular.  Likewise with stronger hurricanes.  Climate is changing the intensity of tropical storm, making them stronger in general.  However, we can't say that any particular storm was different--just that the average intensity is stronger.

Scientists have been predicting significant changes in weather and other indicators as our globe gets warmer.  Things like more frequent droughts and heat waves, stronger storms, more precipitation in more severe events, larger and more wildfires, longer wildfire seasons, diseases and pests that expand their ranges and on and on.  There are plenty of books and articles with these scenarios.  (BTW - I recommend Joe Romm's Hell and High Water.)

Ten years ago these scenarios were presented as what the world would be like towards the end of the 21st century.  Unfortunately, it appears that the future is now.  To whit:



  • Seventy-five countries have set all-time high temperature records just in the last ten years.  That's five times the number that set all-time cold records.

    • Russia's devastating 2010 heat wave is the "hell" that Joe Romm writes about.  It's exactly the kind of scenario painted by climate change scientists: unbearable sustained heat, thousands of deaths, lung-choking pollution, unstoppable wildfires.
    • Pakistan's flooding of 2010 is the "high water" Joe Romm warns about.  Unprecedented rainfalls never experienced in recorded history killing thousands and causing billions of dollars in damage.  More ominously, the floods are having a negative political influence, helping the Taliban raise its influence in this unstable country (and nuclear armed, to boot).  This is the sort of "threat multiplier" climate change causes that our military has been warning about.
    • Large parts of Australia, particularly southeast Australia and Tasmania, have been in drought for thirteen years.  At some point one should stop using the word drought and just call it desert.
    • Locally in the DC area, this summer has been much hotter than usual, with a record-setting number of days above 90 degrees.  Global warming?  We can't know for certain if that's what is causing this heat, but the "loaded dice" of climate tell us that before long, DC will be like Atlanta.  And we're starting to get a taste of what it's like.
    • Pine beetles in the US and Canadian west have completely devastated millions of acres of pine forests--probably permanently.  In the past, these beetles were controlled by cold in the winter.  Now that the winters are not as cold, they are rampaging out of control, with no way to stop them.
    The examples of severe weather and changing climate are everywhere.  This handful of examples is a tiny sample.  Many advocates for action feel that it will take a crisis to get people to act.  This summer feels like a crisis already, but certainly our political leaders don't feel much inclination to act.  Sad.

    Monday What's on the Web: Deltoid

    Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
    ----------------------------
    This week's web resource is a blog called Deltoid.  It's written by a computer scientist at the University of New South Wales named Tim Lambert.  He writes a lot about global warming, but also touches on other scientific topics.  Many of his posts focus on debunking climate skeptics such as Christopher Monckton, Steve McIntyre and others, such as this post: I think that they might have to rename it the Monckton Gallop.

     One of the more interesting features of his blog is that he occasionally offers an open thread solely to allow commenters to hold an open debate.  Most of the open threads attract hundreds of comments (although admittedly most from a small committed group).  It's a good place to mine for arguments made on both sides.

    Day Thirteen (final day): Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    "13) Almost everyone wants to hear good news. They want to believe that dangerous global warming is a hoax. They, therefore, desperately want to believe the skeptics. This is a problem for all of us."

    I might suggest that not everyone wants to believe it's a hoax.  The good news I would like to hear is rather that there are some countervailing feedbacks or other factors that will lessen the impact of climate change.  Or that unintentional errors have been found that indicate it will not be the catastrophe that many scientists are predicting.  I think that if we learned it was an actual hoax, that would create problems for many other issues that are reliant on science.

    So, agreed that people want to hear good news.  Agreed that people don't want climate change to be as bad as predicted.  Agreed that hearing the bad news from the scientists is unpleasant.  Disagreed that people want to believe it's a hoax necessarily, but agreed that they would like to believe it won't be so bad.

    Agreed that this is a problem for all of us.

    If you would like to see any of the other posts in this series, search on the word Grantham for a list of all thirteen posts.
    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Day Twelve: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    "12) Almost no one wants to change. The long-established status quo is very comfortable, and we are used to its deficiencies. But for this problem we must change. This is never easy."

    photo by fouro on flickr
    Change is hard, as Mr Grantham points out.  It's hard even when the positive outcomes are apparent and the sacrifices are small or non-existent.  It's even harder when the outcomes are less clear and the apparent effort, cost or sacrifices seem large.  No wonder taking action on climate change is so difficult.  Also, throw in the fact that the changes require worldwide cooperation to at least some degree, an enormous variety of differing interests, possible threats to the well being of some industries and politics and it's easy to see why action is not taking place.

    Unfortunately, I do not have good answers for how to get people of governments to take action.  I suppose if I did, I would have more influence that what I am able to exert with this blog.


    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Day Eleven: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    (from Wikimedia)
    "11) Why are we arguing the issue? Challenging vested interests as powerful as the oil and coal lobbies was never going to be easy. Scientists are not naturally aggressive defenders of arguments. In short, they are conservatives by training: never, ever risk overstating your ideas. The skeptics are far, far more determined and expert propagandists to boot. They are also well funded. That smoking caused cancer was obfuscated deliberately and effectively for 20 years at a cost of hundreds of thousands of extra deaths. We know that for certain now, yet those who caused this fatal delay have never been held accountable. The profits of the oil and coal industry make tobacco’s resources look like a rounding error. In some notable cases, the obfuscators of global warming actually use the same “experts” as the tobacco industry did! The obfuscators’ simple and direct motivation – making money in the near term, which anyone can relate to – combined with their resources and, as it turns out, propaganda talents, have meant that we are arguing the science long after it has been nailed down. I, for one, admire them for their P.R. skills, while wondering, as always: 'Have they no grandchildren?'"

    Thank you, Mr. Grantham.  There is little I can add to this.
    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Day Ten: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    One of the nuttiest skeptics - Christopher Monckton
    "10) Conspiracy theorists claim to believe that global warming is a carefully constructed hoax driven by scientists desperate for … what? Being needled by nonscientific newspaper reports, by blogs, and by right-wing politicians and think tanks? Most hard scientists hate themselves or their colleagues for being in the news. Being a climate scientist spokesman has already become a hindrance to an academic career, including tenure. I have a much simpler but plausible “conspiracy theory”: that fossil energy companies, driven by the need to protect hundreds of billions of dollars of profits, encourage obfuscation of the inconvenient scientific results."

    It is amazing how often one reads on the web that people actually believe that global warming is some elaborate hoax.  Arrhenius predicted that the atmosphere would warm by adding more carbon dioxide way back in the late 19th century.  Aha!  But have you ever seen Arrhenius and Al Gore in the same room at the same time?  Conspiracy!!

    Mr. Grantham's opinion that perhaps the people and industries with billions of dollars on the table would be more likely to bend the truth seems way more plausible.

    I have two previous postings on this same topic:
    Explain me to me
    Scientists are corrupt (say the deniers)


    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Day Nine: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    "9) Also, I should make a brief note to my own group – die hard contrarians. Dear fellow contrarians, I know the majority is usually wrong in the behavioral jungle of the stock market. And Heaven knows I have seen the soft scientists, who lead finance theory, attempt to bully their way to a uniform acceptance of the bankrupt theory of rational expectations and market efficiency. But climate warming involves hard science. The two most prestigious bastions of hard science are the National Academy in the U.S. and the Royal Society in the U.K., to which Isaac Newton and the rest of that huge 18th century cohort of brilliant scientists belonged. The presidents of both societies wrote a note recently, emphasizing the seriousness of the climate problem and that it was manmade.  Both societies have also made full reports on behalf of their membership stating the same. Do we believe the whole elite of science is in a conspiracy? At some point in the development of a scientific truth, contrarians risk becoming flat earthers."

    Just like Jim Inhofe, the last flat earther--according to the Washington Post last year.  There is not a recognized scientific society left on the planet that is not on board with climate change--or at least not taking the opposing point of view--as pointed out here.


    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham, a contrarian, is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Day Eight: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    "8) A special word on the right-leaning think tanks: As libertarians, they abhor the need for government spending or even governmental leadership, which in their opinion is best left to private enterprise. In general, this may be an excellent idea. But global warming is a classic tragedy of the commons – seeking your own individual advantage, for once, does not lead to the common good, and the problem desperately needs government leadership and regulation. Sensing this, these think tanks have allowed their drive for desirable policy to trump science. Not a good idea."

    Some have written that climate change is the "ultimate tragedy of the commons." (Peter Jumars, Jeffrey Simpson and others).  Many of the think tanks mentioned above take an anti-science viewpoint on climate because of their ideological stance. In the end, though, should climate change be as severe as seems likely if we continue on our current path, then more oppressive government is almost certain to be the outcome.  People will be clamoring for governments to save them from the effects of storms, floods, droughts, etc. as well as protect them from the political chaos that is likely to result.  Not only that, but once it's clear how bad it's going to be, the only possible realistic, good response is for governments to get stronger and work more closely together.  So those opposed to a worldwide government are more likely to get one if the climate goes all weird on us.  Ironic, eh?


    For more on that, read The Weather Makers by Tim Flannery, particularly Chapter 33 - 2084: The Carbon Dictatorship.


    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Day Seven: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    "7) The biggest cost of all from global warming is likely to be the accumulated loss of biodiversity. This features nowhere in economic cost-benefit analysis because, not surprisingly, it is hard to put a price on that which is priceless."

    This is one of the greatest weaknesses of economics.  In general, when economics has trouble placing a value on something, it just assigns it a value of zero.  Nothing skews the results more than that.  In this case, biodiversity is valued at essentially zero in economic analyses, but its actual value is incalculably large.  Talk about a discrepancy!  E.O. Wilson's book, The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth may not be the best book on this topic, but it comes from one of the greatest minds to ever think about biodiversity. . .or nature in general, for that matter.


    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]

    Monday What's on the Web: The Urbanophile

    Every Monday I highlight other bloggers or web contributors who are making important or interesting contributions to climate, sustainability, transportation or market transformation. Check back each week for another installment.
    ----------------------------
    The Urbanophile is an award-winning blog that focuses on cities--understanding how they work and providing ideas and thought leadership on ways to improve them for the 21st century.  It is written by Aaron M. Renn, who's short bio reads: "Aaron M. Renn is an opinion-leading urban analyst, consultant, speaker, and writer on a mission to help America’s cities thrive and find sustainable success in the 21st century." (Full bio here.)

    He lives in the Chicago area and likes to focus on what he calls America's "everyday" cities--often in the Midwest.  His ideas would be considered progressive urbanist, and they jive well with the focus of this blog--transformation to a more sustainable world.

    Some recent posts include (warning: some of his posts can be very long and detailed):

    Commuting Market Share is the Wrong Way to Judge Transit
    From a guest blogger, Randy Simes: Cincinnati's Dramatic, Multi-Billion Dollar Riverfront Revitalization Nearly Complete
    Buffalo, You are Not Alone

    You may follow the Urbanophile on Twitter also.

    Day Six: Everything You Need to Know About Global Warming in Thirteen Days

    "6) Pascal asks the question: What is the expected value of a very small chance of an infinite loss? And, he answers, “Infinite.” In this example, what is the cost of lowering CO2 output and having the long-term effect of increasing CO2 turn out to be nominal? The cost appears to be equal to foregoing, once in your life, six months’ to one year’s global growth – 2% to 4% or less. The benefits, even with no warming, include: energy independence from the Middle East; more jobs, since wind and solar power and increased efficiency are more labor-intensive than another coal-fired power plant; less pollution of streams and air; and an early leadership role for the U.S. in industries that will inevitably become important. Conversely, what are the costs of not acting on prevention when the results turn out to be serious: costs that may dwarf those for prevention; and probable political destabilization from droughts, famine, mass migrations, and even war. And, to Pascal’s real point, what might be the cost at the very extreme end of the distribution: definitely life changing, possibly life threatening."

    Not only are the costs very reasonable, but the first half or so of the emissions reductions we need to make here in the US can be done so at a profit.  It's my opinion, in fact, that by the time we make those investments and start reaping the benefits, that technology improvements and overall shifting of the economy to cleaner business will make a lot more of the emissions reductions profitable, too.  And. . .if we take into account the value of some of the other things Mr. Grantham mentions above, like increased domestic employment, reduce dependency on energy in general and foreign energy specifically, and decreased pollution--then the positive returns are even greater.
    ----------------------------------------------
    [This one of a series of daily posts I am drawing from Jeremy Grantham's Summer 2010 Investment letter.  Mr. Grantham is on the Board of Directors of GMO LLC, a global investment firm with over $100 billion under management.  Mr. Grantham takes a large, worldview perspective on investments--with an eye toward long-term trends.  He is right-on about the impact of global warming.]