The numbers are starting to look promising.
For years, the big criticism of alternative energy was cost: It was too expensive compared with energy based on traditional fuels like coal and natural gas. <...>
Now the equation is showing significant signs of change. Costs are falling for some alternative-energy sources, driven by new technology and renewed development interest.
And a boatload of VC funding is helping things along, we might add.
The supplement includes an article on Hal Harvey, the environment program director at the flush William and Flora Hewlett Foundation. (They can afford better photos of their staff, but I digress.) Regarding his investment strategy, the article explains:
...he looks for "pinch points" likely to promote technologies that will deliver the most "tons of carbon avoided per philanthropic dollar invested." <...>
"Two things matter: Coal and cars. Two countries matter: China and the U.S.," he says... "In that little matrix, there's only a handful of policies that are going to make any damn difference."
(For Harvey's take on Schwarzenegger's new energy proposals, see this NYT article.)
The increased receptiveness to alternative energy comes in the nick of time. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts to rest any doubts about the severity of the issue, as the New York Times headline so clearly declares: "Science Panel Calls Global Warming 'Unequivocal.'" This is pretty sensational stuff for the Gray Lady:
In a grim and powerful assessment of the future of the planet, the leading international network of climate scientists has concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and that human activity is the main driver, “very likely” causing most of the rise in temperatures since 1950.
They said the world was in for centuries of climbing temperatures, rising seas and shifting weather patterns — unavoidable results of the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.
Two days after the Times story appeared, CNNMoney.com ran a story about memos sent to scientists by The American Enterprise Institute offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in the IPCC report. According to the article, AEI is funded in part by Exxon Mobil (and its retired chairman sits on its board of trustees).
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."
The article reports that:
A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
Closing the loop here for now, it should come as no surprise that the Union of Concerned Scientists announced that an investigative report conducted with the Government Accountability Project (GAP) "has uncovered new evidence of widespread political interference in federal climate science."
"The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."
Two days after the Times story appeared, CNNMoney.com ran a story about memos sent to scientists by The American Enterprise Institute offering them up to $10,000 to critique findings in the IPCC report. According to the article, AEI is funded in part by Exxon Mobil (and its retired chairman sits on its board of trustees).
"The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change," said the memo, which was sent to a professor at Texas A&M University.
"We are hoping to sponsor a paper...that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model [forecasting] outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy..."
The article reports that:
A recent report from the Union of Concerned Scientists said Exxon spent $16 million between 1998 and 2005 funding 43 "organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."
Closing the loop here for now, it should come as no surprise that the Union of Concerned Scientists announced that an investigative report conducted with the Government Accountability Project (GAP) "has uncovered new evidence of widespread political interference in federal climate science."
"The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic," said Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program. "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."
No comments:
Post a Comment