Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)
Using Predictions to Plan: Case Study – La Nina and the Missouri River (1)
Back in November I wrote an entry on whether or not we could use the prediction that we would have La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 to anticipate, for example, whether or not there would be a another historic flood in the Upper Missouri River. A little personal micro history: During August of 2011, I was at a meeting of a panel which is writing a report on climate modeling. That meeting included climate-savvy water managers talking about the information from climate models they might find usable. During the meeting on the news, there was the story that seasonal forecasts predicted there would La Nina conditions in late 2011 and early 2012 ( Climate Prediction Center Monthly Outlook). I asked people at the meeting how they would use this information in their planning for 2012. To be fair, this question was out of the blue, but I had this idea that this seasonal prediction was definitive information when compared with the information that comes from century-long projections from climate models. The century long climate predictions might provide information that some characteristics of El Nino and La Nina will change. With adequate analysis of this information, interpretation of the information, and then guidance or translation of this information, then informed decisions about, for example, reservoir design might be made. But I was curious, given a forecast for a particular season, what would you do?
I have introduced a lot of terms in that paragraph. I will define some of them.
First for those who need information on El Nino and La Nina, these are names given to two parts of an oscillation observed in the tropical Pacific Ocean. In the El Nino phase, the eastern Pacific, off of Peru for instance, is warm. La Nina is the opposite, the eastern tropical Pacific is cold. This is our best known example of behavior where the atmosphere and ocean behave in concert together – and we have proven that we can predict it. (NOAA LaNina Page, El Nino @ Wikipedia) We have known for some time that these changes in the Pacific cause or influence preferential weather patterns in other parts of the world. This excites people about being able to do seasonal prediction. In this case there is some oceanic forcing of the weather – or perhaps, when the ocean is considered part of the weather prediction problem, there is information about what the weather might be like for a particular season in a particular place. Concretely, for example, when there is an El Nino, people who worry about floods in California go on high alert (for example).
Translation and guidance - There is a lot of information that comes out of a weather and climate model. All practitioners of modeling know that you can’t simply read off the temperature in Des Moines 9 months from now, much less 90 years in advance. But there is the real possibility that there is usable information in the models if 1) we understand the mechanisms that are responsible for, say, stream flow in the Iowa River, and 2) we have an understanding of the ability or inability of the model to represent those mechanisms. That is, if we can find the right knowledge, often a matter of finding the right people, then we can put together this knowledge in a way that is usable. This is what I mean by translation. It is the translation of knowledge from one discipline expert to another in a way that makes that knowledge usable. That is, to provide guidance. (Lemos and Rood on Useful and Usable)
OK – going down that path I introduced another term that I think demands more explanation. Mechanisms – when we look at a specific event like the 2011 Missouri River flood, we look for what factors come together to cause the flood. In the article that was referenced in the November blog, it was pointed out that there was an extraordinary snow cover on the Great Plains, and then a lot of rain on that snow, that caused melting, and collectively the accumulation of a lot of water that had to go downstream. So in this case, by mechanisms I mean what caused the event to happen. Perhaps the most important mechanisms that a climate model must represent to be usable for regional problems are those mechanisms that provide water to that region.
I am never quite sure if my style of writing is clarifying or just more confusing, but I get enough positive feedback that I think I clarify points for some – so I hope that the way I laid out this basic information makes sense. One more term - What I want to do is to translate information from observational studies and model predictions and make that information usable by someone. From my teaching the last 7 years, I have concluded that it is this translation of information that is the most essential missing ingredient in the usability of climate knowledge. There is a LOT of information and knowledge, but it is not easy to use.
So in this entry, I want to start the process of information translation. I warn in advance that this is a hazardous path. I am going to look at a few papers, in sub-disciplines of weather and climate, in which I am not expert. Hence, I am likely to make some mistakes, and I am hoping that doing this in public, motivates corrections of those mistakes. I take off down this path, because another thing I have discovered in the past seven years is that people who are not consummate experts in a subject are analyzing information and solving problems all over the world. And, I presume to imagine that I am more expert than most, and I presume to believe people when they tell me that I am reasonably good at translating information across discipline interfaces.
So I all start the analysis– and this is not irrelevant. I flew over a swath of the Great Plains last week, and I was struck by the lack of snow. I read Jeff Master’s blog on the extreme state of the Arctic Oscillation. At the beginning of every problem I collect information. This information inventory process is essential. With a little luck, you will find information that when all brought together can be synthesized into a solution strategy or at least contribute to informed decision making. In fact, I have tried to structure a template to problem solving for a project I am involved in, and it is here at glisaclimate.org. (What’s a GLISA?) I collected together a bunch of references that I thought might inform my translation. What, I am going to do now is extract the information from some of these references.
The first paper I am going to look at is by Bunkers et al. from the Journal of Climate in 1996. I chose this paper for a couple of reasons. First, a lot has been written that 2011 Missouri River flood had a La Nina influence. And, thinking about floods, one usually thinks about did it rain a lot? This paper is something of a sanity check, do we see changes in the rain in the Missouri River basin due to La Nina?
Bunkers et al. paper focuses on the “Northern Plains,” which is approximately North and South Dakota. The Missouri River and the Red River of the North are important drainages for these states, and they were in historic flood in 2011. The authors look at data as far back as the late 1800s. That is about as long as any record that we have in the United States. The short story of their findings is that they find that during El Nino, there is significantly enhanced precipitation in the months April through October that follow the onset of the El Nino. For the La Nina phase they find significantly less precipitation for the months May through August following the onset of La Nina. However, we cannot stop with the conclusion, El Nino = wet, La Nina = dry. El Nino and La Nina are often viewed as 2 year long events, and in the second year following the onset of El Nino it is usually a bit wetter than in years with neither an El Nino or a La Nina, but during April and May of that second year it is drier than average. The second year following the onset of the La Nina, it is in general dry. There is also temperature information in the paper, but I am going to keep my focus on precipitation for now.
Let’s recall the problem we are trying to address; namely, 2011 was a La Nina year with a huge flood on the Missouri River, and another La Nina is predicted for 2012, will we have a similar flood? One of the first things it makes sense to look at is the precipitation in the Missouri River basin. This paper looks at part of the Missouri River basin, and area where there were floods, and at least as far as La Nina is concerned we would expect less, not more, spring time precipitation. This seems contradictory to our 2011 experience.
Returning to the Bunker’s et al. paper, there are years when the relation described above did not hold. Bunker’s et al. extract seemingly robust signals, but there are exceptions to the rule. The exception to the rule requires us to consider the mechanisms that might be in play for a given year. We arrive therefore, at a problem of tailoring the information for a particular application. The relation that Bunkers et al. derived between El Nino / La Nina and precipitation in North and South Dakota is quite strong. So if you look at a climate model and it tells you that there will be more or less intense El Nino and La Nina cycles a century from now, the long-term water planner for Fargo might be able to anticipate the water system needed for her grand children. The statistical information might be enough – might, it requires more thought. For a particular season, however, we can’t use this information in isolation. It is just part of the portfolio.
So we have a sanity check that tells us that, indeed, there is documented variability of precipitation in the Missouri River basin, correlated with La Nina. But, at first blush, the La Nina variability in this region is towards drier conditions. We also, know, that what determines a flood is far more complex than “it rains a lot.” So while looking at the paper above gives us some good information, it motivates me to step back and think about all of the pieces – or mechanisms – that might work in concert to produce a flood. And it motivates me to seek whether or not such events are happenstance, or whether we can use our knowledge to anticipate, better, such extreme events. This series of blogs will go on for a while.
Figure 1. Characteristic position of wintertime jet streams during La Nina. From ClimateWatch Magazine: “The jet streams are high-altitude, racing rivers of air that can influence the path of storms as they track over North America from the Pacific Ocean. The jet streams meander and shift from day to day, but during La Niña events, they tend to follow paths that bring cold air and storms into the Upper Missouri River Basin. Map based on original graphics from NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center. Adapted by Richard Rivera & Hunter Allen.”
Pilot Project on La Nina and the Missouri River Basin.
Link to webinars.
Reader Comments
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index
This is not an answer for you but, at what percent of area do you need to see to become concerned? Also, how much do the anomalies have to be before you become concerned?
It's amazing all of that red in the Arctic area where we have almost no temperature readings.
Collared polar bears transmit the data. ;-) We are running low on transmission stations using these.
Many millions of square kilometers--and, more importantly, the place where all the ice is kept.Wait. I'm confused. Denialists claim over and over that land-based thermometers don't work--they're sited wrong, they're incorrectly calibrated, magical fairies render them useless--saying instead that only satellite readings are accurate (See: Spencer, Roy), and therefore scientists don't really know what the temperature is. Yet when satellite readings are nearly the only thing available--as in the Arctic and Antarctic--denialists claim that the lack of land-based thermometers means scientists don't really know what the temperature is.
Which is it?
You must understand the whole of life, not just one little part of it. That is why you must read, that is why you must look at the skies, that is why you must sing and dance, and write poems and suffer and understand, for all that is life.
J. Krishnamurti
Tokyo, Jan. 23 (Jiji Press)--Tokyo Electric Power Co. on Monday reported an increase in radioactive materials leaking from damaged nuclear reactors at the Fukushima No. 1 power plant.
The total amount of radioactive cesium that leaked from the containment vessels of the No. 1 to No. 3 reactors reached 70 million becquerels per hour, up 12 million becquerels from the December level, the power firm said.
It seems that radioactive dusts were stirred up because plant workers went inside reactor buildings and removed rubble, TEPCO officials said.
The outcome was reported to the second meeting on medium- to long-term measures toward decommissioning of the damaged reactors held between the firm and the government on Monday.
Last month, the leaked amount was put at 10 million becquerels each for the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors and 40 million becquerels for the No. 3 reactor.
500 years ago we invented the printing press.
100 years ago we began driving automobiles.
50 years ago we invented the computer.
40 years ago we landed on the moon.
The speed of change is rapid. Population, computing power, speed of transport, the sheer amount of known information, and most other things that involve humans, are all increasing at an accelerating rate. The rate at which they are increasing is increasing. We are all part of it, with younger people thinking nothing of it, and the elderly commenting on it, but generally handling it okay.
But if we were to transport King Arthur to modern-day New York he'd most probably pass out from trying to grasp what was happening. But can it stop, slow down or reverse.
No, for that is not in our nature.
Amount of time and C02 generated by your rant.
Dec 26, 2011 ... Server farms are necessary to keep the ever growing internet running, ... each kilowatt-hour of electricity generates about 1.3 pounds of CO2....
www.tech2date.com/keeping-large-server
well now, that is about a ton of CO2.
Maybe you could take the A out of GW. The first step is always the hardest.
Just kiddin, we know you keep all that data stashed in your noggin.
Why would the naysayers care what the amounts are?
Here is is:
Link
BTW your billion dollar losses to prove AGWT, is a shame as pointed out earlier but with any good story why let facts get in the way. A good example I hope a large tornado never hits Cowboy Stadium because it would not have to hit anything else and it would be well over 1 billion in damage. Old Texas Stadium value (cost) today with inflation 190 million new Cowboy Stadium value (cost) today 1.33 billion. Come to think of it your right it is all AGW.
No, if CO2 wasn't a greenhouse gas, no one would care about Exxon (et al). They would be a great company. Similarly, if cigarettes didn't cause cancer and lung disease, no one would care. They would all be in the same class as all the other large companies that distribute goods and make a profit, from Apple to Samsung to Boeing to Nike.
Unfortunatly, Oil is destroying the world and not only do they not care, they are actively trying to use disinformation, bribes to politicians (PACs, etc. in America) and unfair business practices to prevent the rise of competitors.
If, Exxon looked at the data and said, "yes CO2 is a problem, we are sorry, we didn't know but now we do and we will change", I would be a big fan of theirs. However, they can't do that and so they continue with the public campaigns of disinformation, etc. that asre so sucked up by a percentage of the population. That is the problem.
Again, denialists can't have it both ways, claiming that station data are wrong because of siting*, calibration, sparsity of coverage, etc., while also claiming that satellite data are wrong because of--well, who knows why. So I repeat: which is it?
* - And, no, doofuses like Anthony Watts can't blame station data at the poles on air conditioners, asphalt runways, the urban heat island effect, and so on. Maybe Inuit hunting fires? The hot breath of polar bears? Baby penguins playing a prank?
Flooding is biggest climate risk to UK, report says
26.01.2012 05:31:17
Source: Reuters
Flooding will be Britain's biggest climate risk this century, with damage set to cost as much as 12 billion pounds ($18 billion) a year by the 2080s if nothing is done to adapt to extreme weather, a report said on Thursday.
British summers are forecast to get hotter, while winters will get milder and wetter. New government-funded research has identified the top 100 effects of climate change and their expected impact on Britain and magnitude over this century. The "Climate Change Risk Assessment" found that if no further action is taken to address climate change, annual flood damage to buildings could reach between 2.1 billion and 12 billion pounds, compared to current costs of 1.2 billion pounds. "If I had to pick one particular issue, the flooding issue is the most dominant," said Bob Watson, chief scientific adviser at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and one of report's authors. Britain is already at risk of extreme weather. In 2007, summer floods cost over 3 billion pounds and disruption from snowfall last year cost 600 million pounds a day over a several-day period. More intense bursts of rainfall in summer and longer rainfall in winter will cause more floods, worsening damage and disruption to infrastructure and property. Over the longer term rising seas will bring coastal flooding, Watson added. Annual insurance payouts and premiums will rise significantly, and more properties will find it harder to get insurance and obtain mortgages, the report said. The government is spending 2.1 billion pounds on flood defenses over the next four years, but this represents a cut in funding of around 27 percent, the chairman of the environment agency said when the spending budget was announced in 2010. Despite this, Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman said the government could still ensure more homes are protected from floods. It hopes to protect 145,000 households by March 2015.
HEATING UP
The report identified other risks including hotter summers, which could bring 580 to 5,900 extra deaths a year by the 2050s. The number of days in an average year when temperatures go above 26 degrees Celsius could be 27 to 121 in London by the 2080s, compared to 18 now, the report said. However, the total number of premature deaths could be offset by milder winters which would avoid some 3,900-24,000 deaths a year by the 2050s. "Cold spells will not disappear, though on average there will hopefully be less of them," said Watson. Energy demand for air conditioning will rise in the summer but heating demand will fall in the winter, which could reduce costs by over 1 billion pounds a year by mid-century. Agriculture and forestry will also be affected. Droughts and some pests and diseases could increase as a result of warmer weather, which could reduce timber yields and quality and drive up timber costs by the 2080s. On the plus side, sugar beet yields could rise by up to 70 percent and wheat yields by as much as 140 percent by mid-century due to longer growing seasons if water and nutrients are available. "A warmer climate presents opportunities to grow new crops such as soya, sunflowers, peaches, apricots and grapes, while new markets may open up overseas for British grown produce," the study said. Peter Mallaburn, climate policy expert at Leicester's De Montfort University, said the report showed Britain's lack of preparedness. "We need a coherent strategy to sort out this mess. Let's hope that this report acts as a wake-up call," he said. The government said it will use the study to form the basis of a national adaptation plan, due to be published in 2013.
The full report is available at ccra.defra.gov.uk/
Personal comment: Have they considered that bulge of fresh water in the Arctic and other fresh melt water from the GIS that could slow the Gulf Stream? It appears not.
Thanks for your input. I disagree a little with you about whether we should be doing something or not but before we get to that point.... a gift:
a pair of paragraphs
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
a brace of breaks:
<br> <br>
hmm... much harder than I actually though to do that :)
Exxon is not evil because it makes a profit. Exxon, to some degree, can be a victim of the oil cartels and speculators as well. Usually, however, they benefit far better than the consumer at the pump. Exxon's driving force is to make profits for the share holders. Corporations, by law, must maximize the profits for the share holders. This will force them to try to discredit anything that would show they do harm. ... They do a very good job of this.
ROI is dependent upon how much money you put up and how much money is returned back to you. Some companies will show a much greater ROI by putting up far less money than other entities that seek a common goal. You each acquire the same benefits even though one has put up much less money than the other to obtain the goal. The only real problem is to assure that enough overall money is given to obtain the goal. The company that put up the least amount of money may actually benefit even more than the company that put up the largest amount of money.
Speculation could be seriously curtailed simply by requiring a 20% delivery of what they buy.
You are correct, nymore. I could set myself up to where I do not need to buy gas simply by going all electric. I am still effected by rising fossil fuel prices because EVERYTHING is shipped. I see price increases simply because shipping costs go up and I pay more at the store. So, until enough of the billions of other people go electric, the fossil fuel industry OWNS us.
Until technology can come up with a better way to store power you will always use fossil fuels to generate power as there is no way now to provide base power load with green energy. We could build nukes to solve these problems
http://www.monbiot.com/2012/01/26/imaginary-frien ds/
Uh, miss the point much? A 'great company' is still a company. These problems you mention are local problems. that doesn't mean the companies are good morally or that the problems are acceptable but they are still local problems. Exxon et al are in an industry to destroy the earth. I am absolutly sure that Exxon has all the other problems mentioned above in addition to the earth destroying one.
Very interesting Patrap. Thanks.
We are on the brink of possibilities that will make us literally unrecognizable to ourselves and those possibilities will be realized, not in the next thousand years but in the next 20 years because the acceleration of invention and novelty and information transfer is at this point so rapid…
SWIPA
SWIPA Executive Summary Report
December 2011 AIRS CH4
compare it with December 2010
AIRS, the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder on NASA's Aqua Satellite
Daily Earth Maps from AIRS
Aqua and the Afternoon Constellation - The A-Train
Good afternoon, sir. I trust that all is well?
I will readily agree with you that our need for fossil fuels will not end within the next 20 years. I believe that this has more to do with a lack of political will than it has to do with the technology available. Certainly, our technology can be and will be improved upon but, we have sufficient technology available to us now. What we seem to lack is the political will to begin implementing it. I think our national security will depend on us moving off of fossil fuels. Sooner, rather than later.
I am still hoping that we can make great insteps towards using nuclear fusion. Nearly all of answers, in one little package. ... Well, we would still have a need to explain Justin Beiber. I am not certain that science has an answer for that one. ;-)
I agree with you if there is a better way I am all for it. Even the great James Hanson says it is not feasible right now. It is these people who say just get rid of oil are fools. They must not know how much oil makes their modern life possible. Products such as life saving drugs, modern fertilizers, modern plastics, modern machines and on and on. If we just take away oil these will be the same hypocrites claiming how unjust it is that 100's of millions are now dieing early, crop production way down, no modern products and on and on.
They remind me of those who would complain about losing their freedom while at the same time complaining about how that freedom is provided or possible.
Real leaders lead by example not complaining that is how it works.
This is for all the hypocrites out there if you hate oil companies and their products so much do not use them or anything derived from them. There problem solved if I see you can do it maybe I will to.
By MARI YAMAGUCHI Associated Press
OHI, Japan January 26, 2012 (AP)
International inspectors are visiting a rugged Japanese bay region so thick with reactors it is dubbed "Nuclear Alley," where residents remain deeply conflicted as Japan moves to restart plants idled after the Fukushima disaster.
The local economy depends heavily on the industry, and the national government hopes that "stress tests" at idled plants — the first of which is being reviewed this week by the International Atomic Energy Agency — will show they are safe enough to switch back on.
But last year's tsunami crisis in northeastern Japan with meltdowns at three of the Fukushima reactors has fanned opposition to the plants here in western Fukui prefecture, a mountainous region surrounding Wakasa Bay that also relies on fishing and tourism and where the governor has come out strongly against nuclear power.
"We don't need another Fukushima, and we don't want to repeat the same mistake here," said Eiichi Inoue, a 63-year-old retiree in the coastal town of Obama. "I know they added stress tests, but what exactly are they doing?"
"I oppose restarting them," he said.
Other residents said that economic realities made the plants indispensable, including Chikako Shimamoto, a 38-year-old fitness instructor in Takahama, a town that hosts one of the region's nuclear plants.
"We all know that we better not restart them," Shimamoto said. "But we need jobs and we need business in this town.
"Our lives in this town depends on the nuclear power plant and we have no choice," she said.
On Thursday, an IAEA team visited a plant in the town of Ohi to check whether officials at operator Kansai Electric Power Co. had correctly done the tests at two reactors. The tests are designed to assess whether plants can withstand earthquakes, tsunamis, loss of power or other emergencies, and suggest changes to improve safety.
Their visit, at Japan's invitation, appeared aimed at reassuring a skeptical public that authorities are taking the necessary precautions before bringing nuclear plants back on line. After the visit, IAEA team leader James Lyons said its assessment would be released at the end of the month but deciding whether to restart the reactors was up to the Japanese goverment.
Some experts are critical of the stress tests, saying they are meaningless because they have no clear criteria, and view the IAEA as biased toward the nuclear industry.
"I don't view their evaluation as something that is trustworthy or carries any weight," said Hiromitsu Ino, professor emeritus at the University of Tokyo and member of the Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency's stress test panel.
The government idled most plants for mandatory tests and maintenance after the Fukushima disaster. Currently, only four of Japan's 54 reactors are operating. If no idled plants get approval to restart, the country will be without an operating reactor by the end of April.
Before the March 11 earthquake and tsunami that led to the Fukushima crisis, nuclear plants generated about 30 percent of the country's electricity. To make up for the shortfall, utilities are temporarily turning to conventional oil and coal-fired plants, and the government has required companies to reduce their electricity consumption.
Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda has promised to reduce Japan's reliance on nuclear power over time, but it still needs some nuclear power until next-generation sources are developed.
In Fukui, 13 reactors at four complexes are clustered along a 55-kilometer (35-mile) stretch of coast with snow capped mountains facing the Sea of Japan. It's known as "Gempatsu Ginza," a phrase that roughly translates to "Nuclear Alley."
Only one of the 13 reactors is still running. The rest have been shut down for regular inspections required every 13 months. To start running again, they must pass the stress test.
Another hurdle will be gaining local support for the plants to restart. While local consent is not legally required for that to happen, authorities generally want to win local backing and make efforts to do so.
Fukui Gov. Issei Nishikawa, however, says he will not allow a startup of any of the prefecture's commercial reactors.
And the city assembly in Obama — a town that briefly enjoyed international fame when it endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 U.S. presidential race— has submitted an appeal to the central Tokyo government to make Japan nuclear-free.
But officials in Mihama, another town that hosts a nuclear plant, have expressed support for the town's three reactors also operated by Kansai Electric, also called Kepco.
Fukui is a largely rural area, traditionally focused on fishing and farming, but it has a significant textile and machinery industry, and boasts of being a major producer of eyeglasses. Its nuclear power plants supply approximately half of all the electricity used in the greater Kansai region, which includes Osaka and Kyoto.
Several towns' fortunes are tied closely to the nuclear industry.
Community centers and roads are paid by the government subsidies for hosting the plants. Closing the plants not only means losing jobs for thousands of workers, but hardship for stores, restaurants and other service industries.
Many of those interviewed had family members, relatives or friends with jobs at the plants, and some refused to give their names due to fear of repercussions.
Noda has said the final decision on restarting nuclear plants would be political, suggesting that the government would override any local opposition if Japan's energy needs become dire.
Naozane Sakashita, a taxi and bus driver, said his salary had decreased "substantially" after the Ohi and other plants went offline.
"I think these idle plants should resume as soon as their safety is confirmed," he said. "Our jobs and daily life are more important than a disaster that occurs only once in a million years."
Still, he said he is concerned about the safety of the plants because his son works as a control room operator at the Takahama plant.
"If our economy prospers without compromising our safety, of course it would be best to live without nuclear energy," he said.
Bingo, electric cars will outmode all others once the they go faster and farther on a quickly renewable power
storage system, for flying cars we'll need to wait for anti-grav (dark energy)I'm afraid.
In light of the ongoing offshore oil drilling disaster in the Gulf of Mexico Greenpeace is demanding that President Barack Obama cancels Arctic drilling plans and calls for an offshore moratorium.
The Deepwater Horizon accident has resulted in eleven lives lost, countless of animal lives affected and an oil spill that is growing in size every day. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have concluded that around 5000 barrels of oil is leaking every day from the destroyed oil rig managed by BP. According to reports the oil spill has tripled in size during these past days.
While touring the area at risk from the oil spill Obama blamed the “unprecedented environmental disaster” on BP while saying they “will be paying the bill”:
“Let me be clear: BP is responsible for this leak. BP will be paying the bill,” said Obama as he visited the area and pledged a “fully coordinated, relentless relief effort” in the region where the coastlines of four Gulf states are being menaced. [...]“We a dealing with a massive and potentially unprecedented environmental disaster,” Obama said.
And why shouldn’t they? After all BP is the third largest global energy company and the 4th largest company in the world. Reuters also reports that:
“The spill has also forced Obama to suspend politically sensitive plans to expand offshore oil drilling, unveiled last month partly to woo Republican support for climate legislation, one of the U.S. leader’s priorities.”
And following this suspension on offshore oil drilling Greenpeace Executive Director, Philip Radford said that while Obama’s announcement was “a welcome first step” it isn’t enough:
Link
Obama Administration Announces New Gulf Oil Exploration Deal
U.S. to lease out 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling
By Jason Koebler
January 26, 2012 RSS Feed Print
The Obama administration announced plans Thursday morning to lease out 38 million acres of the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling and exploration in hopes to increase domestic oil production.
According to the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the areas to be leased out could hold 1 billion barrels of oil and 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. They'll begin taking bids on June 20, according to a Department of the Interior announcement.
[Should offshore drilling be expanded?]
"Expanding offshore oil and gas production is a key component of our comprehensive energy strategy to grow America's energy economy, and will help us continue to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and create jobs here at home," Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar said in a statement.
The announcement makes good on Obama's State of the Union remarks. "Over the last three years, we've opened millions of new acres for oil and gas exploration, and tonight, I'm directing my Administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources," he said Tuesday. Obama is set to speak in Nevada to discuss the deal.
“The President’s announcement today, while a welcome first step, does not go nearly far enough. The only way to prevent human, economic and environmental tragedies like the BP Deepwater Disaster is to re-enact the moratorium on offshore drilling and to replace dirty dangerous fuels with clean energy.”
“If we cannot handle a spill in the Gulf of Mexico, imagine the impact even a small spill could have in the remote, pristine waters of the Arctic”, Radford said in a statement.
Greenpeace also notes that on April 2nd, just days before the BP Deepwater Spill began, President Obama said:
“It turns out, by the way, that oil rigs today generally don’t cause spills. They are technologically very advanced.”
Link
I am sorry to hear that you are bit under the weather sorry, could not resist ;-). I hope that you are doing better soon.
You are correct and oil does not just give us fuel for our cars. Oil is but one the fossil based fuels and is not as "dirty" as coal. The tar sand oils will cloud this point. We still need to make a stronger commitment to get off of oil as soon as possible. As of yet, there are no serious moves to do so. I am certain that the first country to do so has helped assure its own future cost controls and international security. I would prefer that the country to do this first would be the U.S.A.. We are probably the most at risk country by not doing so. At risk, in the sense of our quality of life and national/international stability.
I find it hard to call those that still find a present need for their personal oil consumption use as being a hypocrite. As I stated, should I make the move to all electric then I am still consuming oil when I buy a product that is manufactured with or shipped using oil. The efforts of the individual are small. The greatest effort the individual can do is to consume less, conserve what you consume and recycle what you discard. Another thing that runs contrary to the individual approach is the planned obsolescence of most manufactured products today. When you couple that with having to buy assembled modules as compared to buying the individual components that comprise the modular constructed piece. An example will be that I once was able to buy the bearings and races for my car axle. Now, I must by the assembled hub that has the bearings and races already installed. What a waste of time, energy and money! The only ones that benefit from this approach is the manufacturers. Until there is a real and strong effort to do these things in a different and better way, then it is rather pointless to call anyone a hypocrite, concerning their use of oil. So far, try as you might, you cannot restack the deck to give yourself your favored outcome.
Few sane people believe we can simply slam the door on using fossil fuels. It's not going to happen. But it's one thing to admit that we're stuck with fossil fuels for the time being while we rapidly work developing alternatives because we realize those fossil fuels are neither sustainable nor economically/environmentally viable. But it's quite another to fund a huge campaign against science and scientists in the hopes that by doing so we can delay any move toward those alternatives for as long as possible, thereby maintaining the astronomically profitable--but environmentally and ethically insane--status quo.
What part about that comparison escapes you?
The co-founder and CEO of America's most valuable company (as of today) was a long-time partaker in "illegal (hardcore) drugs"--namely LSD--yet I'd say Steve Jobs set an excellent example for kids to follow. (In fact, Jobs himself stated on many occasions that his success wasn't despite his drug use, but partly because of it.)
I'm certainly not advocating the use of illegal pharmaceuticals here--there are many obvious downsides to using them--but perhaps some mind-expanding substances might be just the thing to sweep the cobwebs of ignorance, provincialism, and denialism from the heads of some. Maybe?
It is not so much oil or fossil fuel companies that stop these grand ideas you have it is Environmentalists. I welcome hydro power but we can't build dams, huge wind farms oh we can't have those either they kill raptors and birds, huge solar farms oh can't build those some little desert animal will be harmed, We could build nukes no can't do that either. If they get approval then we have to fight like hell to get a transmission line built to the grid because of more environmental damage.
If you really want to be honest which I doubt you can do to your own bias, it is not people like me who stop these projects it is people like you.
There is a document under seal somewhere that guarantee's dat I do believe.
If you begin to understand what you are without trying to change it, then what you are undergoes a transformation.
Jiddu Krishnamurti:
The great Steve Jobs while he had many wonderful ideas his use of suppliers that use child and basically slave labor and are highly polluting is very much less than honorable. You may want to read the two articles in the last week from the old gray lady (The New York Times) and get back to me about this fantastic guy and company.
Viewing: 201 - 251
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 — Blog Index