Click on the headline (link) for the full text.

Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage

We're gonna need a bigger boat
The Independent and the Edge Foundation via Gristmill
London's Independent newspaper asked climate scientists to answer a simple question: should humanity "prepare a 'Plan B' to curb the worst effects of global warming?" Well, ask 40 eggheads a question, and you'll get a very diverse set of responses. Geo-engineering is the answer! No, focus on carbon sequestration. Wrong again, it's all about adapting to the new climate reality!

Meanwhile, the mysterious Edge Foundation released its annual question for 2009, asking smart folks of all disciplines to name what new idea or technology will "change everything." Responses range all over, but there are a few climate-related responses, including British novelist Ian McEwan's prediction that solar technology will really take off and Stanford climatologist Stephen H. Schneider's guess that rapid melting of Greenland's ice sheets will wake up the world to the need to take concerted action on curbing C02 emissions.
(2 January, 2009)
All links to the original articles are posted on gristmill. KS

It will take more than goodwill and greenwash to save the biosphere
George Monbiot, The Guardian
For a while it seemed that Shell had stopped pretending. The advertisements that filled the newspapers in 2006, featuring technicians with perfect teeth and open-necked shirts explaining how they were saving the world, vanished. After being slated by environmentalists for greenwash, after two adverse rulings by the Advertising Standards Authority, Shell appeared to have accepted the inescapable truth that it was an oil company with a minor sideline in alternative energy, and that there was no point in trying to persuade people otherwise.

The interview I conducted with its chief executive, Jeroen van der Veer, broadcast on the Guardian's website today, contains what appears to be an interesting admission. I asked him whether Shell had stopped producing ads extolling its investments in renewable energy. Van der Veer does not express himself clearly at this point, but he seems to admit that his company's previous advertising was not honest.

"If we are very big in oil and gas and we are so far relatively small in alternative energies, if you then every day only make adverts about your alternative energies and not about 90% of your other activities I don't think that - then I say transparency, honesty to the market, that's nonsense." So, I asked, Shell did not intend to return to that kind of advertising? "Probably not," he told me. "I'm very much: keep your feet on the ground, tell them who you are and explain why you are who you are."
(6 January 2009)
The link to the interview is here. KS

The third degree
Andrew Dessler, Gristmill
A friend of mine from college emailed me the other day and expressed some skepticism about the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming. It occurred to me that it would make a good topic for my next post.

So here is the reasoning that has led me to conclude that business-as-usual carbon dioxide emissions will lead to temperature increases over the next century of around 3 degrees C.

First, it has been known for over 150 years that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will increase the temperature of the planet. In fact, the very small number of credible skeptics out there, such as Dick Lindzen and Pat Michaels, are on record agreeing that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will warm the planet. What they argue is that the warming will be very small. More on that later.
(5 January 2009)