Thursday 24 January 2008

Piles of coal, battling windmills, and political leaders descend on college campuses.
In Springfield, Mo., college students are about to see quite vividly how much energy they consume. Piles of coal will be on display in proportion to what's needed each day to power their dorms, computers, and dining halls.

At Radford University in Virginia, students may stumble upon a mock fight between a windmill and a smokestack (costumes courtesy of the campus Green Team).

At the University of Vermont in Burlington, audience members will be encouraged to bike or walk to a one-woman show in which the fictional first lady calls for a boycott against sex until the nation starts a serious dialogue about climate change.

The creative tactics are designed to draw students into a series of events this coming week known as Focus the Nation: Global Warming Solutions for America. Organizers bill the culminating day, Jan. 31, as the largest teach-in in the nation's history, drawing parallels to the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s and '70s. More than 1,500 institutions, most of them colleges and universities, will host classes, documentaries, performances, energy-saving competitions, and discussions with political leaders.

Eban Goodstein, the man behind the mission, speaks about it urgently: "What our kids have to do is truly heroic," he says. "If they're going to stabilize the climate for their children, they have to rewire the entire planet with clean-energy technology."

Rewire the entire planet foreign policy, yes you could certainly say that.  How about that.

http://frepubtra.blogspot.com

.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
http://www.ipcc.ch/index.htm

American Association for the Advancement of Science
(i.e. The guys who publish the Journal of Science, the most highly syndicated peer reviewed physical science journal in the world)
http://www.motherjones.com/blue_marble_blog/archives/2007 ...

US National Academies of Science
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Ene ...
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx? ...

The Academies of Science of 21 nations
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8Statement_Ene ...
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13619
United States
United Kingdom
Germany
Japan
Canada
China
France
India
Russia
Italy
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Indonesia
Ireland
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
South Africa
Switzerland

All these major businesses
http://www.us-cap.org/
Alcan Inc.
Alcoa
American International Group, Inc. (AIG)
Boston Scientific Corporation
BP America Inc.
Caterpillar Inc.
Chrysler LLC
ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
FPL Group, Inc.
General Electric
General Motors Corp.
Johnson & Johnson
Marsh, Inc.
National Wildlife Federation
Natural Resources Defense Council
The Nature Conservancy
NRG Energy, Inc.
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
World Resources Institute
Xerox Corporation

United States Pentagon
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/20 ...
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903 ...
http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.pdf

Exxon Mobil (Although one would imagine this is only because their hand was forced)
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_speeches_2007021 ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/14/business/14exxon.html?p ...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16593606/

And a whole other list:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm

like the military industrial complex supporting AGW, that sure convinces me.  Grey, do you always believe everything you read without thinking?

Well there's a difference between military profiteers, and those that are actually going to be putting the necks of their own people on the line.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news ...

   There are some lovely people who believe in the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny, Santa Claus and trickle down economics (now how did that last one get on the list?).

   Irrationality isn't always about good or bad, it's about the ability to recognize reality, understand science, and see clearly.  Oh, wait, that was rationality.  Hmmmm...

patrick in Beijing

The AGU has believed that climate change is real for many years.  The latest statement, to which Andrew refers, is actually a reaffirmation and update of an earlier statement from December 2003.
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_chang ...

To quote the latest update: "An additional global mean warming of 1°C above the last decade--is far beyond the range of climate variability experienced during the past thousand years and poses global problems in planning for and adapting to it.  Warming greater than 2°C above 19th century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity, and--if sustained over centuries--melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea level of several meters."

Posing problems in planning for and adapting to?  Yes, if warming 1°C above present.
Disruptive?  Yes, if warming exceeds 2°C.  
Several meter sea level rise?  Yes, if sustained over centuries
Disastrous?  Cannot find this word.
Tipping point?  Cannot find these words.

Sounds like a level headed assessment by a group of scientists and engineers that believe "the human footprint on Earth is apparent".

BTW, the original AGU statement was drafted by Marvin Geller, John Christy and Ellen Druffel.

As Andrew knows, one of the three authors is also on Inhofe's list, and is quoted in this report as having said, ""I don't see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as `plant food,'"

Max

"What we've found consistantly, is that in a great part of the planet, that the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see at the surface region."

Which pretty much a straight up lie on his part.

http://greyfalcon.net/christycorrection.pdf
http://greyfalcon.net/christy
http://greyfalcon.net/trends.png
http://greyfalcon.net/trends2.png

Let me get this straight.

Are you calling John Christy a liar?

Regards,

Max

You quoted John Christy as saying:

"What we've found consistently, is that in a great part of the planet, that the bulk of the atmosphere is not warming as much as we see at the surface region."

You also said: "Which pretty much a straight up lie on his part."

Sorry, Greyfalcon, but it's not Christy that's lying.

Since 1979 when satellite readings started, the record shows:

Hadley surface record shows a linear increase of around 0.17 degrees C per decade. (GISS record is essentially the same)

UAH satellite tropospheric record shows an increase of 0.14 degrees per decade.

Hmmm...  Looks like Christy is right and you got that one wrong.

Regards,

Max

You asked of Alan Siddons:

"Where did Dr Dessler state that climate is static? Could you provide a quote?"

In context, whether the wise doctor did, or is alleged to have said that, is quite irrelevant.  The fact is that Mann et al produced a lovely graph that cancelled the MWP and the LIA, and made the millennial climate look flat (almost static) until the recent warming.  Thus the IPCC seized this as Manna in the 3AR, to show falsely that the current warming is unprecedented.  Since Andrew and all you faithful regard the IPCC to be the gold standard of scientific truth, Alan's comment is appropriate.  Just take it in context....go-on try hard!

In April 2007 James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, presented to the US House of Representatives a study showing that greenhouse gases emitted by human activities have brought the Earth's climate close to critical tipping points, with potentially dangerous consequences for the planet.
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/testimony_26april2007.pdf

He predicted that a global temperature increase of 1 degree Celsius above today's level, which he equated to an increase of atmospheric CO2 from currently around 380 to 450 ppmv, would represent a dangerous "tipping point", from which the planet could likely not recover.  In moving beyond his area of expertise, which has to do with temperature impact of greenhouse gases and development and application of global numerical models for the purpose of understanding current climate trends and projecting humans' potential impacts on climate, he predicted that there would be extinctions of many animal species.  Sea levels would rise dramatically as major ice sheets broke up suddenly, presenting a major calamity for humanity itself. Among his proposed solutions: a "carbon tax".

In a more level-headed commentary, John R. Christy, director of the Earth Science System Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has said it is possible increased warming will be offset by other factors, such as increased cloudiness that would reflect more sunlight. "Whatever happens, we will adapt to it," Christy said.  Christy is also quoted as having said, ""I don't see a catastrophe developing from our emissions into the air of what should be correctly identified as `plant food,'"

This tipping point debate has stirred controversy within the administration; Hansen has claimed that senior political appointees are trying to block him from sharing his views publicly.

But judging from the many media reports that are quoting Hansen's dire predictions and his own prolific publications and blogs on his "tipping point" theory, it appears he is not being "muzzled" at all.  In fact, the volume of rhetoric coming out of Hansen exceeds the volume from Christy by about 20 to 1.  So much for being "muzzled".

In commenting on Hansen's increasingly shrill forecasts, many critics have said that these are in direct contradiction with the vast majority of the scientific reports cited in the IPCC report, and that the rhetoric in the global warming debate is being ratcheted up until it, itself, is dangerously close to reaching a tipping point, where disaster predictions become so exaggerated and bizarre that people begin to see that they are no longer credible.

A good analogy to this tipping point can be seen in a dump truck of manure.  As the truck starts to tilt the bed, the manure at first does not move.  It some point the critical "tipping point" is reached when the whole load of manure comes rushing out of the truck.

It looks like this is what is happening in the global warming debate today.  We are being inundated not by the predicted high sea levels (which have been imperceptible so far) but by the manure from Hansen and the media that has reached the "tipping point".

Max

Manacker then claims arrogantly that he understands the scientific process and fails to mention or understand that his arguments are the antithesis of science.

You are doing a great job defending the "science" on climate change.

Max

Sorry, Greyfalcon, but it's not Christy that's lying.

Since 1979 when satellite readings started, the record shows:

Hadley surface record shows a linear increase of around 0.17 degrees C per decade. (GISS record is essentially the same)

UAH satellite tropospheric record shows an increase of 0.14 degrees per decade.

Hmmm...  Looks like Christy is right and you got that one wrong.

Why are you quoting the pre-2005 version of the study? (i.e. the one which Christy admitted is incorrect)

Last I checked, the dark blue line is the revised version of the UAH study.
http://greyfalcon.net/trends2.png

I notice that you have abandoned any attempt at scientific debate, and are more recently attacking the right of free speech to those that disagree with your imprinted version of science.

You also describe such people in various insulting ways, and seem to get quite emotional when it is indicated to you that you have been wrong on some scientific issues that you have previously been emphatic about. Apparently too, you like teasing the trolls.  I refer to various threads where you have issued forth.

A simple case in point was when you insisted repeatedly that IPCC 2007 had a cut-off for inputs in 2005.  When Manacker showed you that there are a host of papers from 2006 in the said report, no matter, you are right and he is wrong. The cut-off was in 2005, despite the evidence PROVING that to be wrong.

Thus you posted a falsehood intending to provoke a response.  According to one cyber-dictionary, this defines YOU as a TROLL.  Should we tease you? no, you are probably adequately "confused" already.  Black Wallaby

You wrote: "Why are you quoting the pre-2005 version of the study? (i.e. the one which Christy admitted is incorrect)?"

Looks like you got it wrong again.  So far you are 2 for 2 on this subject.

I am not quoting any study. I am just referring to the official temperature records as published by NSSTC, NCDC and Hadley.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/n ...
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/an ...

You should do your homework before you shoot from the hip, Greyfalcon.

Keeps you from shooting yourself in the foot.

Regards,

Max

Since Manacker appreciates it so much I'll keep them coming. I'm sure that will make her happy.

Black Wallaby:
"Apparently too, you like teasing the trolls.  I refer to various threads where you have issued forth."

I don't recall writing any such statement. Black Wallaby must have me mistaken for someone else.

"Since Manacker appreciates it (ad hominem outbursts) so much I'll keep them coming. I'm sure that will make her happy."

A correction:  if Manacker were a "her" it would have to be "ad feminem" outbursts.

But keep them coming, in any case, because they do truly make me happy.

Regards,

Max

Behind the tipping point prediction
Unswerved by those who question it
Lies the greenhouse warming fiction
Loved by those who earn from it.

Straightforward are the ones who preach it
High and true are their ideals
Inciting panic as they teach it
To one and all their creed appeals.

"Its also fun to taunt them, and its not like the NFL where you can draw a penalty for it!"

I take it that you agree with the rest of my post including that the MS Works dictionary defines YOU as a TROLL?

The billionaires are already looking ahead with pleasure to the coming of the first trillionaire among us.

The color of the clouds on the far horizon are ominously turning from white to black. At least to me, some kind of impending ecological collapse or else calamitous economic disaster appears to loom in the offing.

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population, established 2001
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/

Hi Greyfalcon,

Andrew Dessler has made a convincing argument in his lead article that climate change is real without offering any practical solutions.

I realize that Bjorn Lomborg has been the bane of the AGW orthodoxy since he wrote his book "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which made the case that there are more pressing problems facing the world today than global warming.  This book unleashed howls of outrage from "mainstream" scientific journals and journalists, some of which accused him of "scientific dishonesty".

His recent follow-up book, "Cool It", did not do much to endear him to those that support drastic policy measures such as taxes for stopping global warming.

Lomborg is not a "climate change denier" as some may have labelled him.  He has been quoted as saying: "We should take climate change seriously.  It is a big problem. It's only one of the big problems that we'll face throughout the 21st century, but it is a big problem."

While one can agree or disagree with Lomborg's analysis on priorities, there is no doubt that he is no dummy and has done some serious thinking about the many problems of today.

A few weeks before the recent Bali climate conference Lomborg wrote an op-ed on the failure of CO2 targets to bring desired results.  His article proposed an alternate solution.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...

His premise is that the focus on rapid reductions in CO2 emissions has not succeeded in the past and is unlikely to do so in the future.  The 1992 Rio commitments to reduce emissions by 2000 were overshot by 12%.  The 1997 Kyoto commitments to reduce emissions by even more by 2010 are likely to be missed by an even larger margin of 25%.  His analysis: "Making ever stronger promises on top of ever more failed promises is hardly the right way forward."

Lomborg proposes a revolutionary approach to solving the problem by getting binding commitments from all countries to invest a small percentage of GDP on research and development of non-carbon-emitting energy technologies.

In this plan the richer countries would pay the larger share and each country would be free to pursue its own direction in moving away from fossil fuels, be that energy conservation, renewable sources, nuclear energy, fusion, or other solutions.

Lomborg estimates that the cost today to cut one ton of CO2 is around $20, and this cost is too high for major CO2 emitting nations, such as China and India, to consider as they are placing their priorities on rapidly growing their per capita GDP through industrialization.  

Lomborg postulates that this proposal would therefore have the added benefit that it would not automatically allow certain nations, like China and India, to escape from global commitments to curtail emissions, but would include all nations. This has been a major stumbling block for getting the agreement from the USA.

He estimates that an investment of just 15% of what the currently proposed carbon taxes and cap and trade schemes will cost will increase by more than ten-fold the worldwide funding for research directed at moving away from fossil fuels and CO2 emissions.  He equates this with an investment equal to 0.5% of GDP.

This would reduce the effective "cost" of removing a ton of CO2 from $20 to $2, thereby making it affordable not only for the rich nations of the world, but for everyone.

This sounds like a good return on investment.

His strongest argument is that this proposal would be provide a more cost effective way to reduce CO2 emissions than Kyoto and that it would be politically easier to approve and implement.

Any comments on the logic of Lomborg's proposal?  (Please address the proposal rather than making "ad hominem" attacks to discredit the individual.)

Regards,

Max

1.  Quoting 'facts and figures' which can't be independently verified since most people don't have geology, meteorology, biology, et al in their curricula, requires a leap of faith which shouldn't be expected by glib protesters to convert adherents. Pictures are still worth a thousand words.

2.  Sure, CO2 is a normal, natural and necessary part of the atmosphere, allowing plant life to breathe and exhale the Oxygen we use as animals.  H2O is also normal, natural and necessary, but I remind all of you that you can drown in the middle of the vast Pacific Ocean or in an inch of water in your own back yard.  But you'll be just as dead in either case.

_

Even if they could collect the money. Coal Sequestration, BioFuels, Hydrogen, and Nuclear would likely eat up all of it if it was done that way.  (i.e. A big pile of money, without much to show for it)

There's no real impetus on actually creating emissions reductions.  And as MIT has pointed out, technology without a regulatory framework could even make things worse.
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/11/mit-study-rate-.h ...

Additionally, it doesn't really put any prohibition on things which will make our siutation even worse.  Like Coal-to-Liquids, or Clear Cutting Rainforrest.

Frankly it sounds effectively the same as what all right wing pundits say:
"Technology is the answer, but Regulation is evil!"

Effectively what it would end up being is that government would determine the tax (And collect too little)
And government would figure out how to spend it all (Without making any real results)

_

By comparison, Cap-auction-and-trade

1. Technologies would be given preference based on their Reductions/Cost performance
   
2. There actually would be a prohibition against dirty technologies.  (Especially if tariffs equivalent to the domestic market are involved with countries that are in noncompliance)
   
3. Scientists figures out the emissions reduction targets
   
4. The Market figures out all the pricing involved, and how to get there
   
5. Very little government involvement except for collecting money, and oversight
   
6. ^^ i.e. Each doing what they do best

Thanks for your fast response.

I see you favor the approach of "regulation to curtail emissions" rather than "incentive to develop new technologies" (i.e. the "stick" rather than the "carrot").

Which approach would be more effective? One is based on "positive" approach of providing incentives to encourage people to do the right thing; the other on the "negative" approach of policing people to discourage them from doing the wrong thing.  

Let's go through your points.

"Even if they could collect the money. Coal Sequestration, BioFuels, Hydrogen, and Nuclear would likely eat up all of it if it was done that way.  (i.e. A big pile of money, without much to show for it)"

I think the types of projects covered could be pre-determined, keeping out the "red herrings" but allowing each country to pick those areas within this pre-determined list, which make most sense for their economies.

Lomborg was talking about R+D for developing new technologies, so simply investing in existing nuclear technology could be excluded. While it does not generate any CO2, current nuclear technology is limited by reserves of uranium, which are estimated to be 35 million tons.  If the world doubles the amount of nuclear generation by 2025, this would mean a 3.5% per year growth.  At that growth rate, the world would use up the reserves shortly after 2100, so this is not the long-term solution.

This means we would need new technologies, such as fast-breeder reactors or totally new fusion technology.  Developing these new technologies could be included.

Wind/solar/waste currently represent just under 1% of total power generation worldwide.  With better R+D funding these could economically represent maybe up to 15% of the total in 25 years.  This could also be included.

Geothermal energy is currently limited by deep drilling technology and other practical problems.  It also represents just under 1% of total power generation today.  This could possibly be increased several-fold if the technical problems could be solved with R+D funding.

Conventional hydroelectric power is limited in growth, but the use of tides to generate power could be an option that could require some prior R+D to develop optimum solutions.

Brazil does a very good job with sugar cane ethanol as a motor fuel.  Currently corn ethanol in the USA is very inefficient (and may never become economically viable).  Biomass could be another story, provided the R+D effort is made to develop this alternate.

I agree with you that hydrogen as a motor fuel is probably not a good prospect, since there are too many real safety problems with hydrogen and the overall efficiency of converting electrical energy to a motor fuel is too low.  Fuel cells sound nice, but they will not solve the safety problem.

Whether or not net reforestation projects get funding could be considered, although this question could be handled in some other way to encourage reforestation and discourage deforestation.

To your point: "Frankly it sounds effectively the same as what all right wing pundits say:
"Technology is the answer, but Regulation is evil!"  

I don't think you can argue with the fact that technology is the answer.  

This has nothing to do with "right wing" or "left wing"; it is just common sense. Whether regulation is "evil" or not is a moot point; it just isn't the answer, since it will not solve any of the problems we face.

When you say: "Very little government involvement except for collecting money, and oversight", you must be kidding.  How many folks are currently working at the US IRS or the German "Finanzamt" "collecting money and providing oversight", but not providing any added value to the economy (and this in countries, where corruption is dealt with fairly harshly)?  This is the most inefficient way to channel money into real technical solutions for the problems we face.  And if the "oversight" is provided by the UN, it will become even more inefficient, as we have seen from past experience when UN bureaucrats and politicians are involved in shuffling large sums of money and a portion ends up in personal offshore bank accounts.  A bad solution.

"Scientists figure out the emissions reduction targets."  This is a real loose cannon. Which "scientists" and on what basis?  This puts scientists in the position of dictating policy - a very poor place for scientists.  Would you agree with John Christy or Richard Lindzen being the "scientists" that make this call?  Would I agree that it is James Hansen or Michael Mann?  Forget that one, Greyfalcon.  Scientists are not elected by the public and, as such, have no accountability to the public.  Keep them in their laboratories, where they belong, not dictating policy.  A really bad solution.

"The market figures out all the pricing involved and how to get there."  What market?  Last May the International Herald Tribune reported that the global market for greenhouse-gas emission permits more than doubled to $30 billion in 2006, as hedge funds and other new entrants tripled the European trading volumes (still in their infancy).  These hedge funds as well as the companies such as the one set up by Al Gore are going to make big bucks on this whole money-shuffling exercise, without reducing one gram of CO2 emission.  This would end up being pure "friction loss".

You have not been able to demonstrate to me that the "regulatory stick" (as espoused by IPCC and Al Gore) will provide the world a better long-term solution to this problem than the "technological carrot" (as proposed by Lomborg).

But I welcome your thoughts on my comments.

Regards,

Max

You are off by one million times. These are the fission-fuel reserves:

• Uranium: 40 . . . . trillion tons
  
• Thorium: 120-160 trillion tons

nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/UraniuamDistribution
nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/TheScienceOfNuclearPower#Energy_Lifecycle_of_Nuclear_Powe

Another Uranium source for Forsmark is the Rossing Mine in Namibia. A description of the operations of the mine is available here. The Rossing mine produced 3037 tonnes of Uranium in 2004, which is sufficient for 15 GigaWatt-years of electricity with current reactors. The energy used to mine and mill this Uranium was about 3% of a GigaWatt-year. Thus the energy produced is about 500 times more than the energy required to operate the mine.

http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/269259

THE CAPITAL TIMES, Madison, WI

OVERPOPULATION ISSUE OVERLOOKED BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

Rob Zaleski  --  1/25/2008

Black wallaby misunderstands. I have never characterized black wallaby as a troll, and I can't recall ever using that term on Gristmill. In addition, just because I wrote its fun doesn't mean I personally have fun taunting. Black wallaby is jumping to conclusions.

No, ad hominem refers to both men and women. Ad feminem is not a real term. If it is then "manacker" should be "womanacker". Manacker is not content to make up things about science, politics, economics and the comments on gristmill. Now manacker is making up her own vocabulary!

manacker:
"A poem for MarkUK and josullivan58"
Wow, manacker is composing poetry for me! What is that about? The next thing manacker will do is send me flowers.

Thanks for interesting info.

The report I cited on current proven and "reasonably assured speculative" uranium reserves is:
http://nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeAvailabilityOf ...  

This report says that these recoverable reserves were:
·    Proven: 4.7 million tons (as uranium)
·    Speculative: 35 million tons

The nuclearinfo report defines "reserves" as those that are "recoverable with current technology and for the specified price" (which the report defines as $US130/kgU).

As I understand it, the reports which you cite list the world's estimated total uranium available from all sources, but that most of these sources do not meet the definition from nuclearinfo, in that it will take new technology to recover uranium from them at an economically viable price.   Have I got this right?

The nuclearinfo report does say that with current technology, U235 is the only fuel for nuclear reactors, and this is only 0.72% of natural uranium, with the balance being U238.

Future technological developments could allow other nuclear fuels to be used, such as Thorium232, which is more abundant than uranium.

Future fast breeder reactors, also requiring new development work, could extend the life of the reserves by several hundred years. The report says "If reactors could be made to utilize Pu239 [plutonium], the potential of known reserves of uranium would be greatly extended since U238 could then be turned into a fuel."

The report say that the development of these new technologies would "provide enough fuel for many centuries of energy production".  You mentioned a "trillion years"; maybe it's only a "billion", but who cares?  It's a long, long time.

The point I made to Greyfalcon was that with current technology we have a limited supply of economically viable nuclear fuel (U235).  R+D efforts will be required to develop commercial reactors to extend our fuel reserves (adding thorium, fast breeder reactors, etc.).  New technology will also be required to commercially recover uranium at an economically feasible cost from many of the low grade sources mentioned in the first report you cited.

The second report you cited is very interesting.  It shows that there is a lot of R+D work going on today worldwide to develop more efficient reactors beside the few major developments mentioned in the nuclearinfo report.

On top of all of this there is potential new nuclear fusion technology.  What do you think of this as a long term alternate?

The R+D efforts required to develop all these new technologies could be partially funded by the proposed plan Lomborg describes.

(BTW your reference to the mine in Namibia and the numbers on the Forsmark power plant are interesting.)

From all the above it looks like we are not going to run out of electricical power in the foreseeable future.  

Let's just hope we can get electrical power and, with it, clean drinking water to the hundreds of millions of people in the world that do not have access to either today.  

Even though it is getting a lot less media attention today, this sounds to me to be a bigger problem than another 1 degrees C global warming over the next 50 or 100 years.

Regards,

Max

You guys have to keep a sense of humor in this whole AGW debate.  Don't take these things too seriously.  Some of the true AGW believers are such dour pessimists that they have completely forgotten how to laugh.

These poor, unhappy souls are giving us the same, dismal "THE END IS NEAR!" message like the old pessimistic fundamentalist religious doomsday crackpots that you sometimes see on street corners or in places like New York's Central Park or London's Hyde Park.

These are the honest, but relatively harmless, individuals.

Some of them truly believe we are headed for imminent disaster due to AGW because we have sinned, and that we must repent now and this is no laughing matter.

Then there are others who are using this whole hysteria and guilt trip to their own personal advantage, i.e. to keep the public in fear and guilt so they will support a desired political course of action, which will bring them personal benefit.

And then there are those who can keep their sense of humor through this whole circus.

And you can both relax, it will all blow over in a couple of years and we will have a new "THE END IS NEAR!" hysteria for the media and politicians to feed on.

It's actually quite funny, but you've got to keep your sense of humor.

Just a bit of friendly advice.

Regards,

Max

Sorry Jo', I don't know what came over me when I said that

She also wrote:
"No, ad hominem refers to both men and women. Ad feminem is not a real term. If it is then "manacker" should be "womanacker"."

Oh please, surely, should it not be Personacker?

She also wrote:
"A poem for MarkUK and josullivan58"
Wow, manacker is composing poetry for me! What is that about? The next thing manacker will do is send me flowers.

How about dinner, where do you live?
Oh BTW, did you notice that the first letter of each line if emphasized and read downwards provide an additional message?

One is that it tends to be off topic
Another is, that although many sympathise with your message, I think it is bewilderingly too difficult for the audience you are addressing.
Another is that I don't recall you suggesting what might be doable and useful.

What is your audience supposed to do here with your latest shout below?

OVERPOPULATION ISSUE OVERLOOKED BY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

I think you might do better at a broader Greenie website, where climate change is a lesser subject of debate.  For example, try GREEN OPTIONS and their associated sites

Several of us have mentioned the need for action to relieve the suffering of many millions in Africa as a much more important issue than the hysteria on AGW, and one such lengthy post directed to you was ignored by you in that part.  Incidentally, such improvements would likely eventually reduce the birth-rate

So what is your recommendation for Africa?
Let AIDS really take over and reduce the population?
Send the CIA in and assassinate the Pope, then make a profit selling condoms?

But as I say this is not the best venue to discuss these things

The ONLY reason I engage with people like you is because I have a sense of humor. There is no point in the debate with people like yourself. I figured that out a long time ago. It's just fun.

Deniers have no useful role to play anymore other than provide material for teaching people about inconsistent thinking and bad science.

Anyway, I'm sure you're a great guy and all. keep it up etc etc etc

No. It defines "Reasonably assured reserves (or proven reserves)". This is an industry term. Industry has no interest in proving reserves beyond what would be needed for a few decades. As soon as industry finds what it needs for the immediate future, it stops exploring. However, we know that finding more "reasonably assured reserves" at any time would easy, since uranium exploration is inexpensive in relation to oil exploration.
world-nuclear.org/info/inf75.html

From numerous published sources, the finding costs of crude oil have averaged around US$ 6/bbl over at least the past three decades. When finding costs of the two fuels are expressed in terms of their contained energy value, oil, at US$ 1050/MJ of energy, is about 300 times more expensive to find than uranium, at US$ 3.4/MJ. Similarly, the proportion of current market prices that finding costs comprise are lower for uranium. Its finding costs make up only 2% of the recent spot price of US$ 30/lb ($78/kgU), while the oil finding costs are 12% of a recent spot price of US$ 50/bbl.

By these measures, uranium is a very inexpensive energy source to replenish, as society has accepted far higher energy replacement costs to sustain oil resources.

Manacker wrote: it will take new technology to recover uranium from [the world's estimated total uranium available from all sources] at an economically viable price. Have I got this right?

No.

Please try reading the links again. Uranium mining is economically viable down to 1ppm -- which would provide an energy-return factor of 1.6, scaling current operations at the Rossing mine in Nambia -- using current technology. Therefore, current technology alone gives us an economically-viable uranium resource of 40 trillion tons. At an energy value that would put oil at $100, one kilogram of uranium is worth $1 million, and an average square meter of the earth's continental crust is worth $1 billion -- equal to a layer of pure solid gold, 6 feet thick -- just for the uranium and thorium it contains. Yet, mined uranium is sold today for only $20-$200/kg.

The price of mined-uranium could rise by more than a thousand-fold, and mined-uranium would still be economically viable.

Manacker wrote: there is potential new nuclear fusion technology.  What do you think of this as a long term alternate?

Technologies are easier to develop, the greater the power-consumption of society. If fission-energy is continuously ramped-up at a rate of 10-trillion-fold-per-millennium (3.04% per year), fusion should be fairly easy to develop 4 or 5 centuries from now. There would be no need for fusion until then, and it probably would not be competitive until then. Any present directing-of-resources to fusion research is therefore irresponsible.

If the energy-consumption-growth of Earth-based civilisation levels off several centuries from now, then there will be no need for fusion energy for several thousands or millions of years.

Manacker wrote: The report say that the development of these new technologies would "provide enough fuel for many centuries of energy production".  You mentioned a "trillion years"; maybe it's only a "billion", but who cares?  It's a long, long time.You mentioned a "trillion years"; maybe it's only a "billion", but who cares?  It's a long, long time.

The total amount of the resource matters, even if it seems to be very large, when considering an exponentially-evolving energy scenario. I calculated that the 200 trillion tons of currently-economically-viable uranium and thorium in the earth's crust would fuel our current nuclear-electric power level for half a trillion years (or a full trillion years, if we use Bill Hannihan's figures). If civilization ramps up its power-consumption at a rate of 20-fold-per-century (3.04% per year), then that same 200-trillion-ton resource will last only half a millennium.

Manacker wrote: fast breeder reactors

These have no relevance for the present century, and little relevance several centuries into an exponentially-evolving energy-consumption scenario. If and when they are needed, it will be apparent enough. They will also be easy to develop at that time, since (as will be the case with fusion) resources needed for such development will be far more available. As is the case with regards to fusion, direction of resources toward the development of breeder reactors any time in the present century is, and would be, irresponsible.

Manacker wrote: It shows that there is a lot of R+D work going on today worldwide to develop more efficient reactors

Such R+D work is irrelevant. What needs to be currently researched is how to get rid of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). If not for the NRC, nuclear reactors would be as ubiquitous, and evolve as fast, as automobiles.

Hey nucbuddy,

I got your point. Thanks for filling me in.

You wrote: "Technologies are easier to develop, the greater the power-consumption of society."

No argument on that observation; it has been confirmed by the historical record.  Many have argued that there would have been no atomic bomb (and end of WWII) by 1945 if there had not been a TVA with all its surplus electrical power.

You wrote: "If fission-energy is continuously ramped-up at a rate of 10-trillion-fold-per-millennium (3.04% per year), fusion should be fairly easy to develop 4 or 5 centuries from now. There would be no need for fusion until then, and it probably would not be competitive until then. Any present directing-of-resources to fusion research is therefore irresponsible."

This makes sense and I assume you are also including solutions to the problem of safe disposal of nuclear waste.

Are you saying the same for development of reactors that can use thorium or fast breeder reactors, or do these technologies already exist on a commercially viable basis?

And if I understand you correctly, the R+D projects that are now underway are primarily for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing costs, not for developing basically new technology.

So, from what you have written, it looks like the current nuclear power generation technology can take over all future growth of electrical power generation in the developed world for the foreseeable future and gradually start to phase out older, less efficient fossil fuel plants.  

With over 70% of its total power from nuclear plants, France has shown us that this can be done safely, cost effectively and efficiently.  No "China syndrome" or "Chernobyl" here.

This is good news.

With all this being true, I cannot understand why all the environmental activist and lobbying organizations that are trying to curb CO2 emissions have not jumped on this bandwagon.  It seems like a natural to me.  Do you have an explanation for this?

Do they really want to solve the problems of dependency on dwindling fossil fuel resources and CO2 emissions, or is there some other hidden agenda?

Some of these same "green" groups fought against nuclear generation in the past with their "China syndrome" scare campaign.  Are they now having a hard time changing stories to fit the new AGW campaign?

Why does IPCC not come out with a firm recommendation in support of nuclear generation for the bulk of all future power generation (at least in the developed world)?  

This all does not make sense to me.

Got any answers?

Regards,

Max

Looks like our discussion on Lomborg's proposal vs. the UN proposal has come to an end with neither of us having convinced the other, but let me throw this one at you, which is related.  It basically boils down to:  Andrew's statement that "climate change is real" is undoubtedly true, but is "climate change" relevant as one of the most important issues of our time, as some would have us believe?

I'll just toss out one example that puts this premise in question, for your comments.

All "extreme weather events" took around 20,000 lives per year over the period 2000-2006.  These included: droughts, floods, windstorms (tornadoes, hurricanes, cyclones), slides, waves/surges, extreme heat, extreme cold and wild fires.  This number has come down by a factor of ten as compared to the period 1900-1989, so it is highly unlikely that these deaths can be attributed to recent increased warming from anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_20.pdf

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that there are around 2.2 million per year worldwide who die from diarrheal diseases caused by poor sanitation and lack of clean drinking water.
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/diarr ...

The WHO also estimates that another 1.6 million annual deaths in developing countries are caused by indoor air pollution from solid fuels, where there is no access to electrical power for cooking.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/02/060215090413 ...

Together these two factors cause almost two hundred times as many deaths worldwide as all extreme weather events combined.

Now these are not in trendy spots like Europe or the USA, but hundreds of millions of people (maybe as many as a billion) in the poorer countries of this world lack access to clean drinking water and electrical power today.

To solve this problem there will need to be new water treatment and distribution systems as well as new power generation plants and distribution systems in these developing countries.  

To put this in perpective, the world average annual per capita power consumption is around 2,600 kwh.  The top 10 countries average 17,000 kwh (USA is #9 at 13,000 kwh).  The bottom twenty countries average only 140 kwh per person per year, and the very poorest are at around 30 kwh.  That's one-third as much electrical power as a single 60-watt light bulb would use over a whole year if it burned 4 hours per day.
http://www.csccc.info/reports/report_20.pdf

The average for all the developing nations, including giants such as China and India, has been estimated at less than 1,500 kwh today.  The most rapid growth in energy demand from 2004 to 2030 (2.5% per year) is projected for nations outside the OECD, compared with a growth rate of 0.6% per year in OECD energy use.  GDP in purchasing power parity terms is expected to increase by 5.3 % per year on average in non-OECD nations, as compared with an average of 2.5 % per year for the OECD economies.  So the good news is that "prosperity" is growing at a faster rate than energy demand in all economies, but particularly in the OECD nations.  Are energy conservation actions working in the industrialized world?  It sure looks like it.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

The report forecasts that coal's share of total world power generation use is projected to increase from around 50% in 2004 to 54% in 2030.  Nuclear generation is expected to decrease from currently 16% of the total to around 12%, as some EU countries start the politically mandated policy of phasing out existing nuclear plants.  This is not too good for the EU members' stated goal of reducing CO2 emissions, but fortunately France is not following this "phase out" policy, and will probably meet its CO2 goals.

But we are talking about the very poorest countries at the bottom of the list, which currently have per capita GDP of less than $1 per day.  Most of the growth in these countries will probably come from non-nuclear plants, primarily for political and security reasons, since many of these countries have unstable governments and some suffer from chronic tribal, ethnic or political warfare.

Some local power generation can come from diesel generators or "renewable" wind, solar and bio-mass generation and there may still be some potential hydroelectric projects, but the bulk will have to come from conventional power stations, most likely from coal-fired plants.

On balance it is clear that the higher CO2 emissions resulting from these new power plants will have a far smaller adverse affect on humanity than the benefit they will bring to these hundreds of millions of people that are deprived of clean water and electrical power today.

A computer model projected potential increase in extreme weather events from AGW is a "rich man's" problem that may cost a few thousand more lives worldwide some time in the future (although a direct cause-effect relationship is far from scientifically proven, and it may have no effect at all on climate-related deaths).  

Dying from polluted drinking water and indoor air pollution are a "poor man's" (and woman's) problems, which directly cause millions of deaths per year today (with a well-established and undisputed cause-effect relationship).

So let's get our priorities right.  If we take 75% of the money currently funding "climate research" and divert it into projects to provide clean drinking water and electrical power for these people, we will be doing far more to help humanity.

Climate scientists and others who earn from the current AGW industry will not like this proposal. There may also be those who argue that we should continue to let the people in these poor countries die, because this would help the global overpopulation problem, but this is a callous and inhumane argument.

What are your thoughts on all this?

Thanks for your input.

Max

1. He assumes Funding climate science/tech/policy is mutually exclusive to funding other humanitarian efforts.

2. Lomborg loves to focus his analysis only on the short term.  And if you do that, of course it's impossible for any long term issue to compare to a short term issue, IN the short term.

3. Especially when Lomborg assumes that climate change will have virtually no negative impact.

_

That said, have you had the chance to read through this webpage?

It goes over pretty much every point Lomborg puts forward, and counters it with a clear refutation.
http://lomborg-errors.dk

_

For instance his use of the IPCC Sea Level rise table as a corner stone of many of his arguements.

Meanwhile the IPCC points out:
"Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.  The projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, therefore the upper values of the ranges are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/11/18/123840/77

Went through the critique of Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist" on the site which you cited.

Only took the first twenty "critiques" of Chapter 1: "Things are getting better".

Out of these I found 6 listed under the category "FLAW".  On closer examination, 4 of these 6 were not refuted in the critique, but there was some objection to the wording used by L (examples: referring to equal "rights" for animals, rather than equal "consideration", use of word "categorically" where the critics found this was unjustified).  One FLAW was refuted with references (fertilizer use). Another FLAW was incorrectly refuted (no increase in hurricanes); L has been validated on this claim by reports, which the critics ignored.

So far the score is 5:1 for Lomborg.

Then there was one "ERROR" listed, where L wrote 1% of Indonesia forests had been destroyed and the critics referred to a report that states that this should have been 4 to 5%.
Assuming the critic's report is correct, L was refuted.

So the score is now 5:2 for Lomborg

Then there were 7 listed under "COMMENT".  Of these, 3 were simply "comments" (not refuting errors); 2 were statements by L that were questioned (without any facts to refute them),  1 was an objection to L's use of word "entirely" (without providing any specific references to refute this word).  One COMMENT quoted a WWF report that confirmed 1997 as record forest fire year.  Assuming this report is correct, L was refuted.

So the score is now 11:3 for Lomborg.

There were 4 listed under "GROUNDLESS DEROGATION".  In none of these was L refuted, but he was chided for his wording and criticized in one case for not providing detailed backup.

So the score is now 15:3 for Lomborg.

There was one listed as "UNDUE PRECISION".  Again, L was not refuted with any facts or counterclaims but was questioned for the precision of his sources.

So the score is now 16:3 for Lomborg.

A final critique was listed as "INCONSISTENCY".  L was not refuted but was critiqued for discussing "local" food shortages, when he should have discussed "global" shortages.

So the score ended up 17:3 for Lomborg.

I do not plan to go through the hundreds of other items in this critique, as I suspect the ratio will be about the same throughout.

This is a very weak critique of Lomborg's book that really does not say much.

Will get back to you on your other points.

Regards,

Max

Back to part 2 of my response to your blog on Lomborg.

You wrote: "He assumes Funding climate science/tech/policy is mutually exclusive to funding other humanitarian efforts."

I cannot chide Lomborg for his assumption that there is a finite amount of money available for doing things.  To put it in one pocket you have to take it out of another pocket somewhere.  An undue emphasis (by the media, by the governments, etc.) on a perceived climate crisis means that other crises are getting less emphasis and funding.

A good example of this is the budget of the USA.  The high level of emphasis and spending on the war in Iraq took away from spending on other (mostly domestic) programs and has taken away from future generations by running up record deficits; the counterargument that taxes could have been raised to cover the costs of the war just means that it would then have come out of taxpayers' pockets today rather than in the future.

You also wrote: "Lomborg loves to focus his analysis only on the short term.  And if you do that, of course it's impossible for any long term issue to compare to a short term issue, IN the short term."

I read both of his books and many of his published articles.  I do not see this purely short-term focus.  What I do see is an emphasis on solving problems that have real immediate consequences that can be well defined and which can be resolved by acting now rather than on those that may have long term consequences that are only vaguely defined and which can probably not be changed very much by actions taken today.

In other words, if you truly believe (a) that AGW is the most important problem of our planet today and (b) that we will face certain disaster in the near to intermediate future due to this problem if we do not take specific action today and (c) that we have defined the specific action required and (d) that if we do take this specific action today we can avert the disastrous consequences which will otherwise occur, then the time to act is certainly now, and all other programs become relatively inimportant.  

This would be true crisis management (a.k.a. "blood, sweat and tears"), such as the governments of the UK and USA were forced to do during WWII.

If you do not believe (a) through (d) above, which Lomborg plus many others in this world do not, then AGW no longer represents a greater challenge than many others out there today.

I would specifically exclude the related challenges of increasing energy efficiency, reducing waste, eliminating pollution, reducing dependency on a dwindling fossil fuel supply coming from politically unstable areas, etc.  Responding to these challenges may have an effect on AGW but they have justifications of their own, which have little to do with AGW per se.

Coming back to my earlier post, I also think it is difficult to argue that the AGW crisis which may be responsible for 20,000 deaths per year worldwide today (with a highly speculative cause and effect relationship) is more important than the crisis of no supply of clean drinking water and electrical power for hundreds of millions of people, which directly leads to the death of 3.8 million people annually.

It is all a matter of perspective and I think the AGW proponents have lost this perspective in trying to promote their favorite cause to the "greatest potential future disaster facing our planet".

Regards,

Max

One more point regarding Lomborg.  In your critique of his statements you said: "For instance his use of the IPCC Sea Level rise table as a corner stone of many of his arguments."  You cite a gristmill "what do we know?" reference that supposedly clears this up and hints at much higher sea level rise than that projected by IPCC.

Quoting from your gristmill  reference:

"Because understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited, this report does not assess the likelihood, nor provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise. Table SPM.1 shows model-based projections of global average sea level rise for 2090-2099. The projections do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedbacks nor the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, therefore the upper values of the ranges are not to be considered upper bounds for sea level rise. They include a contribution from increased Greenland and Antarctic ice flow at the rates observed for 1993-2003, but this could increase or decrease in the future."

This says there are "uncertainties" because the "understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited".

This is anything but a disaster prediction.  It is simply an admission that scientists do not know what is going to happen to sea levels.

But the weakest point in the above disclaimer is the statement that the projections for the future "include a contribution from increased Greenland and Antarctic ice flow at the rates observed for 1993-2003".

In SPM 2007 IPCC claims a net mass loss of Antarctic ice 1993-2003 due to anthropogenic global warming (AGW) with a corresponding rise in sea level over the same period (pp.5,7) equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period. The record based on 11 years of continuous actual measurements covering the same period shows no shrinking, but an increase with a corresponding lowering of sea level over the period. This report was ignored by IPCC.
http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.p ...

IPCC claims a net mass loss of Greenland ice 1993-2003 due to AGW with a corresponding rise in sea level over the same period (pp.5,7) equivalent to a sea level rise of 0.21 mm/year over the period.. The record based on 11 years of continuous actual measurements covering the same period shows no shrinking, but an increase with a corresponding lowering of sea level over the period.
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/esa-eas110 ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1115356v1

So the "rates observed for 1993-2003" actually showed net GROWTH of both ice sheets, based on the published reports cited above, yet IPCC claimed net LOSS in both ice sheets, and used this 1993-2003 "contribution from increased Greenland and Antarctic ice flow" in arriving at its "model-based projections of global average sea level rise for 2090-2099".

Hmmm...

This certainly does seem to confirm their statement that there are "uncertainties" because the "understanding of some important effects driving sea level rise is too limited".

But it does not in any way discredit Lomborg.

Regards,

Max

Looks like you have lost interest in our discussion on the relevance of climate change, Lomborg, etc.

But let's go back to Andrew's lead story:

"Climate change is real"

This has been true for our planet for billions of years, including major ice ages, periods much warmer than today, etc.

For a good snapshot of climate changes during historical times, read the chapter "Warming and Cooling in Human History" in the Singer/Avery book, "Unstoppable Global Warming".

For a good explanation why Earth does not resemble either Venus or Mars, read the chapter "Habitable Zones of the Universe" in the Ward/Brownlee book, "Rare Earth".

Good background info.

Regards,

Max

http://www.libertylounge.net/forums/18950-global-warming- ...

11 Retired US Military Admirals And Generals / C.N.A. Corp.
780 U.S. Mayors
A. O. Smith Corporation
ABB
ABN AMRO
ACE Limited
ADP
AIU
AK Steel Corporation
ALLTEL Corporation
AMR Corporation/American Airlines
AWG
AXA Insurance
Abbott Laboratories
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand
Academy of Sciences Malaysia
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy)
Accenture Ltd.
Aetna Inc.
Agnes Scott College
Air France
Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
Alaska Pacific University
Albion College
Alcan
Alcatel-Lucent
Alcoa
Allegheny College
Alliant International University
Allianz
Allstate Insurance Company
Altec Industries, Inc.
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Association of Blacks in Energy
American Chemical Society
American Electric Power
American Electric Power Company, Inc.
American Express Company
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American International Group, Inc.
American Meteorological Society
American Public University System
Ameriprise Financial
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
Anna Maria College
Antioch College
Antioch University, Santa Barbara
Antioch University Los Angeles
Antioch University New England
Apache Corporation
Applera Corporation
Arch Coal, Inc.
Archer Daniels Midland Company
Aristeia Capital
Arizona State University
ArvinMeritor, Inc
Asda
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP
Augsburg College
Australian Academy of Sciences
Australian Government Bureau of Meteorology
Avery Dennison Corporation
Avis Budget Group, Inc.
B&Q
BAA
BASF
BNSF Railway
BP America Inc.
Bainbridge Graduate Institute
Ball State University
Bard College
Bates College
Bayer
Bechtel Group, Inc.
Bellevue Community College
Bentley College
Berea College
Berkshire Community College
Berry College
Binghamton University (SUNY)
Birmingham-Southern College
Black Hills State University
Boeing Company
Boise State University
Bowdoin College
Bowie State University
Brandeis University
Brazilian Academy of Sciences
Bridgewater State College
Brink's Company
Bristol Community College
Broome Community College
Bryn Mawr College
Bunker Hill Community College
Business Roundtable
Butte College
CA
CIGNA Corporation
CSX Corporation
Cabrillo College
California State Polytechnic University, Pomona
California State University, Bakersfield
California State University, Chico
California State University, Monterey Bay
Calvert Group
Canadian Electricity Association
Cape Cod Community College
Caribbean Academy of Sciences
Carleton College
Carlson Companies, Inc.
Carolinas College of Health Sciences
Cascadia Community College
Case New Holland Inc.
Catawba College
Caterpilliar Inc.
Cedar Valley College
Center for Research on Environmental Decisions
Center for the Study of Science and Religion
Central College
Central Connecticut State University
Central New Mexico Community College
Central Washington University
Centralia College
Centre College
Centrica
Century College
Ceres
Ceridian Corporation
Chabot-Las Positas Community College District
Chandler-Gilbert Community College
Charles R. Drew University of Medicine & Science
Chatham University
Chemtura Corporation
Chevron
Chicago State University
China Renewable
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chubb Corporation
Citigroup
Claremont McKenna College
Clark University
Clemson University
Climate Group
Climate Institute
Climate Trust
Coast Community College District
Coca-Cola Company
Coe College
Colby-Sawyer College
College of Alameda
College of Charleston
College of Marin
College of New Jersey, The
College of Saint Benedict
College of Saint Rose
College of the Atlantic
College of the Holy Cross
College of the Menominee Nation
College of the Sequoias
Columbus State Community College
Community College of Denver
Community Research and Development Centre Nigeria
Con-way Incorporated
Concordia College-New York
Concordia University
Connecticut College
ConocoPhillips
Constellation Energy Group, Inc.
Convergys Corporation
Cornell University
Corning Incorporated
Council on Environmental Quality
County College of Morris
Covanta Holding Corporation
Crane Co.
Cummins Inc.
Dakota County Technical College
Davidson College
Deere & Company
Delaware Valley College
Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu
Delphi Corporation
Delta College
Department of Atmospheric Sciences at Texas A&M
Des Moines Area Community College
Deutsche Telekom
Dickinson College
Dillard University
Doosan Babcock Energy Limited
Dow Chemical Company
Drake University
Drury University
DuPont
Duke Energy,
Duke University
E.ON UK
EDS
EMC Corporation
EMEA
ETG International
Earth Institute at Columbia University
Eastern Connecticut State University
Eastern Iowa Community College Disitrict
Eastern University
Eastern Washington University
Eastman Chemical Company
Eastman Kodak Company
Eaton Corporation
Eckerd College
EcoSecurities
Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand
Electricity de France North America
Eli Lilly and Company
Emerson College
Emory & Henry College
Endesa
Energettech Austraila Pty Ltd
Energy East Corporation
Energy Holding Romania
Energy Industry Association
Engineers Australia
Eni
Environmental Defense
Environmental Protection Agency
Ernst & Young, L.L.P.
Eskorn
Exelon Corporation
ExxonMobil
F&C Asset Management
FMC Corporation
FPL Group
Fairfield University
Fannie Mae
FedEx Corporation
Ferrum College
Fitchburg State College
Florida Atlantic University
Florida Gulf Coast University
Florida International University
Fluor Corporation
Foothill-De Anza Community College District
Fort Lewis College
Framingham State College
Franklin & Marshall College
Franklin College
Franklin Pierce University
Freddie Mac
French Academy of Sciences
Frostburg State University
Furman University
General Electric
General Mills, Inc.
General Motors Corporation
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of London
George Mason University
Georgia Institute of Technology
Georgia Southern University
Georgian Court University
German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina
German Electricity Association
Gettysburg College
Glitnir Bank
Global Energy Network Institute, Iberdrola
Goddard College
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.
Goodrich Corporation
Goshen College
Goucher College
Grand Valley State University
Granite State College
Green Mountain College
Greenfield Community College
Guilford College
Gustavus Adolphus College
HSBC - North America
Hamilton College
Hampshire College
Harford Community College
Harman International Industries, Inc.
Hartford Financial Services Group
Haverford College
Haywood Community College
Heartland Community College
Hiwassee College
Hobart and William Smith Colleges
Hocking College
Holcim
Hollins University
Holyoke Community College
Home Depot, Inc.
Honeywell International, Inc.
Houston Community College
Howard Community College
Huertas Junior College
Humana Inc.
IBM Corporation
ING Group
ITT Corporation
Iceland GeoSurvey
Illinois College
Indian National Science Academy
Indiana State University
Indonesian Academy of Sciences
Ingersoll-Rand Company
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Institute of Construction Management & Technology
Institute of Medicine
Interdenominational Theological Center
Interface Inc.
Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change
International Gas Union
International Paper
International Power
International Textile Group
Iowa Lakes Community College
Ithaca College
JP Morgan Chase & Co.
Jackson Community College
James Madison University
Jewish Theological Seminary
John Lewis Partnership
Johnson Controls, Inc.
Johnson Matthey
Juelich Research Centre
Juniata College
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines
KPMG LLP
Kalamazoo College
Kankakee Community College
Kansas Wesleyan University
Keene State College
Kennesaw State University
Keystone College
LaGrange College
Labette Community College
Lafayette College
Lake Michigan College
Lake Washington Technical College
Lakeshore Technical College
Lane Community College
Laney College
Lee College
Lenfest Foundation
Lesley University
Lewis & Clark College
Liberty Mutual Group
Life University
Los Angeles Community College District
Loyola Marymount University
Luther College
Lynchburg College
MEDIAS-France
Macalester College
Madison Area Technical College
Maharishi University of Management
Manchester's Community College
Manchester Community College
Marsh & McLennan Companies
Mary Baldwin College
Marymount Manhattan College
MassBay Community College
MassMutual
Massachusetts College of Art
Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts
Massachusetts Maritime Academy
Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company
Massasoit Community College
MasterCard Incorporated
McDaniel College
McGraw-Hill Companies
McKesson Corporation
McLennan Community College
MeadWestvaco Corporation
Medco Health Solutions, Inc.
Medical University of South Carolina
Mercer County Community College
Merck & Co., Inc.
Mercyhurst College
Merrill Lynch & Company, Inc.
Merritt College
Mesa Community College
Messiah College
MetLife, Inc.
Metropolitan State College of Denver
Middlebury College
Middlesex Community College
Mills College
Minneapolis Community & Technical College
MissionPoint Capital Partners
Monroe Community College
Monterey Institute of International Studies
Montgomery County Community College
Moore College of Art & Design
Morgan Stanley
Morrisville State College
Motorola, Inc.
Mount St. Mary's University
Mount Union College
Mount Wachusett Community College
Munich Re
NGEN mgt II, LLC
NRG Energy
NYSE Group, Inc.
Naropa University
Nasdaq Stock Market, Inc.
National Academy of Engineering
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Sciences
National Aeronautics And Space Administration
National Centre for Atmospheric Science UK
National Council of Churches USA
National Economic Council
National Geographic
National Graduate School
National Grid
National Gypsum Company
National Power Company of Iceland
National Research Council
Nationwide
Natural Resources Defense Council
Navistar International Corporation
New College of California
New College of Florida
New Mexico State University
New York Life Insurance Company
New York University
NiSource
Norfolk Southern Corporation
Norfolk State University
North Carolina Community College District
North Central Michigan College
North Lake College
North Shore Community College
Northeastern University
Northern Arizona University
Northern Essex Community College
Northern Kentucky University
Northland College
Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company
Northwestern University
Nucor Corporation
Oberlin College
Ocean County College
Office Depot, Inc.
Office of Management and Budget
Office of Science and Technology Policy
Office of the Prime Minister of Papua New Guinea
Ohio University
Ohlone College
Olympic College
Onondaga Community College
Orange County Community College (SUNY)
Oregon Institute of Technology
Oregon State University
Owens Corning (Reorganized) Inc.
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
PPG Industries, Inc.
Pacific Lutheran University
Pactiv Corporation
Palau Community College
Palo Verde College
Park University
Paul Smith's College
Peabody Energy Corporation
Penn State Berks
Pennsylvania Consortium for Interdisciplinary Environmental Policy
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Pfizer Inc.
Pine Manor College
Pitzer College
Plymouth State University
Point Loma Nazarene University
Pomona College
Portland Community Co