DarkSyde's brilliant diary
Shattered Skies, Dark Future, as comprehensive as it is, barely scratches the surface of what's in store for future generations.
I will not try to match his thoroughness, but instead show you a single example of how President Bush, his advisors, and sophomoric policies of cronyism are gouging wounds that will take generations to heal. And perhaps cost many lives.
We should we give Florida to Fidel Castro. Because in a century it'll likely be an island chain, no closer to the US mainland than Cuba is right now. And I've assumed we'll throw in Jeb Bush as part of the deal.
The President isn't required to be a scientist, so in 1976 Congress established the
Office of Science and Technology Policy to:
"advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs."
In a capitalist society, science and policy are almost always at war. But this adminstration's war on science has turned into a massacre of the truth as well as funding. Out of 72 positions at the OSTP, 16 are vacant including 1 of the top 3 spots.
The Director of the OSTP, Dr. John H. Marburger, III, is a bone fida scientist with a Ph.D. in applied physics from Standford University. His education, however, makes it far more reprehensible that he is a snakeoil salesman.
In an article entitled "The U.S. Climate Change Vision" Marburger, the Science Advisor to President George W. Bush hawks the following plan:
"The Methane to Markets Partnership is an action-oriented initiative that will reduce global methane emissions to enhance economic growth, promote energy security, improve the environment, and reduce greenhouse gases."
The Methane to Markets Partnership is an extraordinary example of how scientists can abuse information to swindle the public.
First, here's the pitch:
The Methane to Markets Partnership is an international initiative that focuses on advancing cost-effective, near-term methane recovery and use as a clean energy source.
Now, let me show you the con (from the "Frequent Questions" page).
--
--
1. What is methane?
Methane is a hydrocarbon that is a primary component of natural gas. Methane (CH4) is also a "greenhouse gas [GHG]," meaning that its presence in the atmosphere affects the earth's temperature and climate system.
Remarkably, this is all true. Including the admission by the EPA that global warming is real. Doh! Quick, somebody cache that page!
2. Why is there concern about methane emissions?
Methane is 23 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide...
Also true. I didn't bother to look up "23" but it's in the ballpark
5. Why concentrate on actions to capture and use methane as an energy source?
...First, because methane is both a potent GHG and has a short atmospheric lifetime, methane reductions can produce significant near-term results.
Now THAT is a boatload of crap. Remember the hydrologic cycle from grade school? Water evaporates into the atmosphere, rain comes out of the atmosphere...well, same thing with all gases, including methane and carbon-dioxide.
Compared to carbon dioxide, methane does have "a short atmospheric lifetime:" about 10 years vs. about 100 years for CO2. All this fancy talk means is that if you go up on your roof and fart (methane), that fart will stay in the atmosphere for about a decade. Where I come from, that's some damn good farting.
On the other hand, if you chug a Mountain Dew, then go up on your roof and belch (CO2), the remnants of that belch waft around for about a century. Heh...cool.
OK, back to the sleight of hand.
Why is removing the gas with the shorter lifetime a good idea?
It isn't. Think of it like this: ebola kills someone in about 2 weeks while HIV/AIDS can hide for decades. So someone with ebola only has a week or so to give it to someone else. HIV/AIDS, OTOH, can spread far and wide before anyone notices.
So, should we 'cure' ebola first because of the "significant near-term results?" Or should we first address HIV/AIDS because of the devasting long-term consequences? (psst...pick the second one).
To the 4 of you who've stayed with me this far, here's what's really going on.
5. [cont.]
In addition, methane is the primary constituent of natural gas. Thus, the collection and utilization of methane provides a valuable, clean-burning energy source that improves quality of life in local communities and can generate revenue and improve living standards.
Truly unbelievable and unconscionable. Where to start? Here's a good place: this initiative uses your tax dollars to help energy companies get natural gas, that they can then sell to you for a profit. Neat, huh?
But here's the kicker, here's the big disception that should stick in the throat of any scientist with even an ounce of decency:
methane provides a valuable, clean-burning energy source....
LIAR, LIAR, PANT'S ON FIRE!
Glance back at question 1. "Methane is a hydrocarbon." Yup. And "hydrocarbon" is just a fancy name for "fossil fuel." Clean? If you mean no soot or ash, then yes. If you mean "help the environment," ABSOLUTELY NOT.
If you don't know this already, learn it as if your life depended on it, because it may.
When you burn a hydrocarbon -- ANY hydrocarbon -- you ALWAYS produce two things: carbon-dioxide and water vapor.
So, to answer the first 3 comments, who will no doubt ask for a summary, here's the Methane to Market Partnership in a nutshell:
-- Collect short lifespan methane before it goes into the atmosphere.
-- Turn it into 'natural gas' and sell it.
-- Burn 'clean' natural gas as fuel.
-- Convert all the short lifetime methane into long lifetime CO2 and pump it into the atmosphere.
-- Make a profit while enhancing global warming. Sit back and watch the glaciers and ice sheets melt.
-- Pat yourself on the back for giving the Florida Archipelago to Castro. Drink a toast in fond memory to Jeb Bush.
But don't worry. This is just a stop-gap in the run-up to nuclear energy.