Welcome to the IDT Energy Blog

ABC News quotes NASA administrator Michael Griffin:

“I have no doubt that a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth’s climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn’t change. I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take.”

The masses are mad!!! Should Griffin, as a public representative of NASA, be keeping his opinions to himself, or is it legitimate for him to express his take on global warming, even if it flies in the face of NASA’s official line?

According to the AP:

“European light-bulb makers said Tuesday they want to phase out the standard incandescent light bulb in eight years, replacing it with more eco-friendly, energy-efficient lamps.

The switch could lead to significant reductions in carbon dioxide emissions from domestic lighting, and savings of $9.4 billion for European consumers, said the European manufacturers. The group includes General Electric Co., Havells Sylvania, and Philips.”

It’s interesting that the proposal comes from industry insiders and not as a concerted governmental effort. The article mentions that the proposal has huge environmental gains for everyone, and results in financial savings for consumers, but fails to mention what business benefits the manufacturers enjoy. These are businesses, after all…

According to the New York Times:

“President Bush, fending off international accusations that he was ignoring climate change, proposed for the first time on Thursday to set ‘a long-term global goal’ for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and he called on other high-polluting nations to join the United States in negotiations aimed at reaching an agreement by the end of next year… The proposal, delivered in a speech at the United States Agency for International Development here, reflects the difficulties the Bush administration is facing in grappling with climate change as the scientific consensus has continued to build in favor of action to control the buildup of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere.”

The reactions:

“The speech was greeted with intense skepticism by environmental advocates and some European officials.
Some critics accused Mr. Bush of trying to hijack continuing environmental talks like those under the Kyoto treaty by substituting his own program, which even if successful would not bear fruit until he is about to leave office in 2009.
And, they said, the president delivered no clear statement on what steps the United States would take to limit emissions over the next 10 to 20 years, while he was working on long-term goals for the next 50 years and beyond.”

And where does this leave the Kyoto Protocol? A complement to Bush’s plan, or a competing force?

The jury is not yet out. This speech indicated a willingness to start looking at real numbers and concrete plans. Let’s hold the skepticism till we see what is on the table.

All joking aside, according to this TreeHugger article, the environmental damage of working from home may outweight the benefits (full story here).

EcoGeek comments on the New York Times piece about yellow cabs going green:
“Holy Moly. I guess these are the kinds of things you have to do quickly if you want your city to produce 30% less carbon in a mere 30 years. Bloomberg’s plan will see a 20% increase in hybrid taxis every year for the next five years.
The current standard taxi, the Crown Victoria, gets about 14 mpg in the city. It’ll be replaced by a wide variety of new taxis, from the smaller Prius, to the Ford Escape hybrid SUV. 13,000 Taxis is a lot to replace, but apparently a 20% per year churn is about what taxi companies deal with in New York, so, basically, every new cab they buy will have to be a hybrid.”
Will cab fare prices go up as a result?
Will people use more public transportation or walk as a result?
What do you think?

Rob, in his blog “The Mind of a Madman,” shares his issues with BP’s move from serious, reflective ads concerned with the future of the environment, to cartoon kids having fun filling their cars up with gas and whistling (see below).

I disagree. Since the ads a company produces are not necessarily indicative of their real values anyway (ever heard of “greenwashing”), I would not get all hot and bothered by a change in marketing direction. My guess is that their level of commitment, whatever that may be, has stayed consistent, despite the shift in tone in their ads.

The increased temperature of the ocean could lead to some serious storms in the coming year. Watch the video from NBC to see what the experts think is coming up, weatherwise.

Is British humor an oxymoronic expression?

This clip of Ali G on the environment should convince you that it is not. Good send up.

Energy saving tips from Lauren Graham and Alexis Bledel, Gilmore Girls style, complete with mother daughter witty repartee. Lauren Graham’s ideas for saving energy as a hotel owner, such as telling guests that their soap is certified pre-owned and recycling the parsley garnish which no one eats anyway, are good for a chuckle or two. I like the idea of using humor rather than alarmist tactics to get across the idea of making a change or two.

Thanks, Ecorazzi , for the heads up.

With “Going green as their final gift to the Earth” as the subject of the May 14 “American Morning,” CNN cited lower prices and environmental concern as the main reasons peoeple choose green funerals.

BMI has the whole story, including the take of former Los Angeles Times Syndicate environmental columnist Mark Harris, who strongly advocated green burial in his book, “Grave Matters,” and spoke about why green burials are better than cremation:

“…the cremation process, albeit less intrusive to the environment than the standard burial, requires electricity and natural gas to be used and also releases mercury into the atmosphere.

‘If you’re driving someone’s ashes a thousand miles from home to scatter them in pristine forestland or air-freighting a body to a distant natural cemetery for shrouded interment there – as has happened – you’re certainly negating much, if not, all, of the benefit to the environment you gained from choosing an earth-friendly funeral,’ said Harris.”

I think this is taking the environmental impact concern a few steps too far. What is a person cries more at a green burial than at a cremation and uses more tissues? What if people fly or drive to see the burial of a loved one whereas they’d skip traveling for a cremation?

It’s great to think about how what we do affects the environment. It’s weird to factor in so many possbilities, particularly when it comes to presumably sacred rituals such as burials.