Good news for those for and against building offshore wind farms in scenic locations: An MIT engineer has come up with a solution to putting those pesky wind turbines in places where they’ll alter views from the coast. He proposes building floating wind turbines which could be placed a hundred miles out to sea, too far to be visible from land. Current turbine designs must be anchored to the ground, requiring them to be placed in shallower waters where they interrupt the smooth ocean horizon. The new turbines would be built on buoyant platforms tethered to the ocean floor, so they could be placed in deeper water where there is plenty of wind and space, and not much in the way of million dollar real-estate. So, rich people in New England, give this man money. Once again, an argument against renewable energy has been removed. Why not make it happen?

I recently saw a talk by Andrew E. Dessler, author of The Science and Politics of Global Climate Change. Dessler discusses the arguments for and against taking actions to reduce green house gas emissions. He provides evidence showing that most people who value their credibility will not argue against the proven facts that the earth is warming and that some of the change is human-induced. Instead they will argue that, given the uncertainty of the situation, the nation cannot reasonably take actions to prevent emissions.

One of the best arguments cites The One Percent Doctrine, a book by Ron Suskind named for Dick Cheney’s declaration that “We have to deal with this new type of threat in a way we haven’t yet defined. . . . With a low-probability, high-impact event like this . . . If there’s a one percent chance that Pakistani scientists are helping al Qaeda build or develop a nuclear weapon, we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response.” Therefore, if there is a one-percent chance of a nuclear attack, we should take action.

So, what are the chances that the global climate is warming? The chances (discussed by Dessler) are far greater, perhaps 20 to 50 percent. The dangers of global warming have been shown: wildfires, droughts, extreme weather events. Why, then, is the US government not taking action to prevent these disasters?

One problem is that the public doesn’t feel a sense of urgency to prevent global warming. People are more concerned with the immediate dangers of other threats, such as avian flu or terrorism. Someone suggested that the dead polar bear should be the mascot to get the public thinking about the dangers of global warming. It seems that Greenpeace has. Perhaps it would be more effective if it went something like this:

This polar bear died from:
a) terrorism 
b) avian flu 
c) gay marriage 
d) flag burning 
e) global warming 

It might be more accurate to say that the polar bear died from poor leadership by our short-sighted politicians.

Wal-Mart is starting a campaign to be more eco-friendly. This could be considered green-washing, but it comes from a greater understanding of a new reality: Global warming is bad for business. And companies can save money by being green. So hate them or not (just don’t love them), but they are market leaders and this could represent a turning tide in sustainable business.

Check out this excellent column on the greening of Wal-Mart from the San Francisco Gate. Just remember, Wal-Mart will always be the devil: “[Wal-Marts] are the George Bushes of the retail world - drunk with power, cheaply made and full of crap.”

In electronics, small is the new big. With the rising cost of fuel (and the inevitable warming of our planet), could small be the next big thing in automotive trends? Check out the new CLEVER vehicle (the acronym stands for Compact Low Emission Vehicle for Urban Transport). It is 1 meter wide, fully enclosed and can seat the driver plus one passenger. As a bonus, it runs on compressed natural gas (CNG). And it looks like something out of some sweet anime future world. Who wouldn’t want one?

The production of plant-based (vegan) foods produce significantly lower amounts of greenhouse gases than other diets. The average American diet produces an extra 1.5 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gasses. (Since methane and nitrous oxide are produced at lower levels but are stronger greenhouse gasses, they are normalized to carbon dioxide). Interestingly, both red meat- and fish-based diets were the worst greenhouse gas producers. This is mainly because many fish are harvested in a non-sustainable manner. See article.

I love this study! We all knew that vegetarianism is best for the planet, but now here is quantitative evidence that meat-based diets have a significant impact on climate change.

Another factoid in this article, did you know that the average American consumes 3,774 calories a day! Jesus F. Christ, no wonder we’re fat! On that note, I imagine that the effect of the vegan diet on greenhouse gas emissions is even larger, because this study assumes that all diets contain 3,774 calories. I seriously doubt that most vegans eat that much, unless they’re eating raw sugar and french fries all day. (I mean, you do see some fat vegans from time to time.)

Lately, I’ve been thinking of cutting out bread and cheese, which would make me essentially vegan (and hopefully 5-10 pounds lighter). This is just another great encouragement to eat fewer animal-based foods!