CALIFORNIA: ANY EXCUSE TO STOP DEVELOPMENT

Environmental groups plan to file a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court today claiming that flood-control officials violated state law by allowing major levee modifications in San Joaquin County without considering the effect of global warming. The groups, led by the Natural Resources Defense Council, assert that the sea level rise associated with climate change could eventually overtop those levees, putting thousands of people at risk. The suit targets a permit approved June 26 by the state Reclamation Board that cleared the way for the River Islands project to build 224 luxury homes on top of a 300-foot-wide "superlevee" on Stewart Tract, an island in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Eventually, River Islands plans to build 11,000 homes on the island, which lies within the Lathrop city limits.

Barry Nelson, a senior policy advocate at NRDC, claims the board violated the California Environmental Quality Act by failing to examine how sea level rise will affect those levees. Other plaintiffs include the Natural Heritage Institute and the California Sportfishing Protection Alliance. "This (governor's) administration has made climate change a priority, but the Reclamation Board just hasn't read the memo, because they're still refusing to even analyze that issue," Nelson said.

The majority of the world's climate scientists agree that the Earth's temperatures are rising, and that human activities are partly to blame. Burning coal, gasoline and other fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which traps more of the sun's heat. Computer modeling by climate experts shows that this warming effect could raise California sea levels more than 2 feet by the end of this century. This would affect not just ocean-front communities, but also the Delta and its 1,100-mile network of levees. A study by the state Department of Water Resources last month estimated that a sea level rise of just 1 foot would likely flood the three westernmost Delta islands: Jersey, Twitchell and Sherman. Many Delta levees may have to be raised in response to sea level rise. But higher levees were not part of the Reclamation Board's discussion about River Islands.

Board member Butch Hodgkins declined to comment on the case Thursday, citing the threat of pending litigation. The board's attorney, Scott Morgan, and its president, Ben Carter, could not be reached for comment. Nor could River Islands Project Manager Susan Dell'Osso. DWR is working on two major studies that examine the future of the Delta in the face of climate change, partly in response to a directive by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has made climate change a priority and who appointed the current Reclamation Board. But it is still rare to see the threat of rising seas filter down to routine decision-making at any government agency.

Nelson said the lawsuit could change that. "This is potentially an important precedent because it is the Reclamation Board's job to protect Californians from flooding, and climate change has the potential to significantly increase flooding risk," he said. Jeffrey Mount, a former Reclamation Board member, said it is absolutely part of the board's job to consider sea level rise. Mount, a geology professor at UC Davis, co-authored a 2004 study that found a 2-in-3 chance for multiple levee failures in the Delta by the middle of this century. The cause: a combination of sea level rise, earthquakes and subsidence, the process in which soil loss causes the interior of Delta islands to slowly sink below surrounding water levels. "The decision that the Reclamation Board is making today may not be durable in the face of climate change," Mount said. "People should be factoring that into their thinking when they're building these projects."

Source





THE RENAISSANCE OF NUCLEAR POWER IN EUROPE

Soaring oil prices, uncertain Russian energy supplies and fears of global warming are fuelling a European and global nuclear renaissance just two decades after the Chernobyl disaster shook faith in atomic power. Fears of energy shortages appear to be trumping anti-nuclear sentiments - even in Germany despite its decision to close all nuclear power stations by 2021. Most surveys show a 50-50 split and some polls even show a majority of Germans in favour of nuclear power, compared to 65 per cent opposed after the 1986 accident. 'There's a lot more approval for nuclear power than there was 15 years ago,' said Christian Woessner, a spokesman for the German Atomic Forum, a pro-nuclear lobby group. 'We are at the start of a new investment cycle (in Europe.)'

Nuclear power is getting a hard second look not only because of oil prices and alarm over Russia's strong-arm tactics in cutting off natural gas to Ukraine last January. It also could provide a way to cut greenhouse gases blamed in part for global warming. Andris Piebalgs, the European Union Commissioner in charge of energy, says nuclear power needs to be regarded as part of an 'energy mix' to ensure security for the 25-nation bloc. 'The EU must continue to develop its expertise in the field,' insists Piebalgs.

Numerous European countries are already watering down or reversing laws intended to curtail or abolish nuclear plants. That means many of the 170 nuclear stations operating on the continent, up to the Russian border, will operate far longer than anticipated. Sweden, 47-per-cent dependent on nuclear power, has repeatedly delayed plans to shut down all its stations, extending some lifelines to 2050, well beyond a 2010 target date. 'Under Swedish law the plants cannot be closed until there is a viable alternative,' explains Woessner.

Switzerland, 32-per-cent dependent on nuclear power, has overturned a moratorium on new nuclear plants. Belgium, 56-per-cent dependent on nuclear power, has extended its phase-out period for at least another 20 years, although it is unclear if new plants will be built. 'There is a clear and visible change of mood - most governments and political parties are now seriously reconsidering nuclear power,' said an economist at the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) who asked not to be named.

That means new nuclear plants are again being built across Europe, mirroring trends in the US, where 14 new plants are planned after a 30-year hiatus, and China, where nearly three dozen are set to be built. New plants are slated to open in Finland in 2009; Romania in 2007, 2013 and 2014; and Bulgaria in 2013. The Czech Republic could build at least two more plants if needed.

The Baltic states, still not connected to the European electricity grid, are determined to pursue self sufficiency because they fear Moscow's political blackmailing tactics. Lithuania, supported by Latvia and Estonia, is expected to approve a new nuclear station to replace the Chernobyl-type reactor at Ignalina by 2015. Part of the current plant was closed in 2004 and block two will be shut in 2009. Lithuania is 71-per-cent dependent on nuclear power.

Even Ukraine, home to the ill-fated Chernobyl plant and 50-per- cent dependent on nuclear power, is considering a big expansion in the field. Although critics note that Kiev's financing remains totally unclear, the government says it wants to build up to 20 new nuclear power stations.

France, which generates a whopping 78 per cent of its electricity from nuclear power, under President Jacques Chirac wants to build third and fourth generation plants to keep its position as the world's top civil nuclear power. A new reactor is slated to open in 2012 in the northern town of Flamanville. In addition, France is home to an international effort to build the world's biggest experimental fusion reactor. The International Thermonuclear Reactor (ITER) - which is supposed to produce less waste and be safer than normal nuclear plants - has support from the EU, US, China, India, Japan, Russia and South Korea.

France also provides a lightning rod for environmental protests over nuclear waste, a hotly contested issue at Germany's Gorleben facility, for example. It has a reprocessing industry that not only handles waste from abroad, including Germany and Japan, but also helps fund the French nuclear programme.

Britain, after years of backing away, appears poised to join the trend and increase its 20-per-cent dependence on nuclear power. Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to to call on private energy companies next month to build the country's next generation of nuclear stations. However, Europe's largest economy - Germany - is still holding off. Chancellor Angela Merkel and her conservatives support nuclear power but, under the government's grand coalition accord with the Social Democrats (SPD), the ban on new plants and a phase-out of 17 generators by 2021 remains. But that could change if Merkel is re-elected at the head of a centre-right government without the SPD in coming years.

Source





TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE AND CLIMATE CHANGE

Excerpt from "Energy Economics"

On the sources of technological change: Assessing the evidence

By: Leon Clarke, John Weyant and Alicia Birky

Abstract

This paper uses a selective review of the economic literature on technological change to support four points that are important for interpreting and incorporating technological change into formal models of energy and the environment. The review (1) supports the notion that no single source dominates the process of technological change. It supports roles for R&D and learning-by-doing within an industry, as well as for spillovers from other industries engaged in both of these activities. The literature also (2) supports a strong role for spillovers; (3) indicates that these spillovers are often indirect, requiring own-industry activities to utilize; and (4) indicates that simple experience curve calibrations often used in formal models likely include a range of sources of technological change in addition to learning-by-doing, some of which might not be induced by the sorts of policies typically considered in the climate context.

1. Introduction

A range of studies have demonstrated that technological change can reduce the costs of stabilizing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (GTSP, 2000 and Weyant, 2004). Influencing the rate and direction of technological change has become a cornerstone of government policies toward climate change (see, for example, Abraham, 2004). Not surprisingly, renewed policy interest in technological change has been accompanied by increased interest in more effectively representing the process of technological change in computer-based models of the economic, energy, and other interactions that underlie the emissions of greenhouse gases (henceforth referred to as "formal models").1 Enhanced representations of technological change, along with enhanced interpretation of these representations, can increase the policy-relevance of modeling exercises.

The fundamental challenge modelers face in this regard is that of meaningfully representing a variegated and interacting set of sources of technological change in simplified modeling frameworks. Technological change is a multi-faceted and complex process. It arises from a variety of interacting activities, including publicly funded R&D, privately funded R&D, and learning-by-doing. In addition, much of the change in technologies relevant in the climate context may arise through spillovers arising from activities undertaken in largely unrelated sectors. Models that miss critical pathways or ascribe influence inappropriately could potentially arrive at erroneous, incomplete, or misleading policy conclusions.

A companion to this paper (Clarke et al., in press) explores the question: what approaches are used in formal models to represent the sources of technological change and what do these approaches correspond to in terms of real-world sources of change? That paper puts forth a framework for linking the representations in formal models to the real-world sources of technological change, which we will briefly preview in Section 2.2 as a means to motivate the central issues of this paper. The framework is based on understanding (1) the activities that are used in models to drive technological change, with the two primary options being R&D and production or use of a technology, and (2) the "location" of these activities, either within the industry in question or outside the industry in question, with extra-industry activities being equated with spillovers.

This paper raises the follow-on question: how important are the different sources of technological change? A best case basis for answering this question would be a set of comprehensive studies that consider all the possible sources in concert, balancing them against one another and exploring their interactions in the sort of mathematical fashion that is needed to support computer-based modeling. While the empirical economic literature on technological change is extensive, it does not include such comprehensive analyses. Instead, it includes a multitude of partial analyses, each considering one or several aspects of the question.

In this paper, we will selectively draw on this literature to emphasize four points that, while they are not a full answer to the driving question, we believe are critical to interpreting and representing technological change in formal models. First, there is ample evidence that a range of sources - learning-by-doing, R&D, and spillovers - all play roles at different times and for different technologies. Further, there is little compelling evidence that one or two sources are dominant. In fact, one of the fundamental lessons of the empirical literature on technological change is that single-source or simplistic, additive models of technological change can be misleading. Second, studies suggest that spillovers account for a substantial component of technological change. This provides an important counterpoint to modeling efforts in which all change arises through own-industry effects, and it provides a justification for exogenous specifications of technological change in some cases. Third, studies also suggest that spillovers are often "indirect" - rather than directly influencing change, they create a pool of opportunity that can be exploited by activities undertaken in the home industry. This implies that modeling the interactions between own-industry effects and spillovers is an important area for model development. Finally, while statistical studies indicate a robust correlation between production and technological change, there is little evidence that this correlation is primarily a function of learning-by-doing. Factors such as R&D and spillovers play an important role in technological change and therefore in these correlations, particularly over long time frames and broad technology definitions. Consequently, simple experience curve studies should be interpreted and applied with caution.

The remainder of this paper proceeds as follows. Section 2 summarizes the material in Clarke et al. It provides a brief background discussion of R&D, learning-by-doing, and spill overs, and it summarizes the framework for classifying sources of technological change. Section 3 presents the selective literature in support of the four main points. Section 4 provides closing thoughts.

[...]

4. Summary

The objective of this paper has been to comment on the question: how important are the various sources of technological change? We have selectively reviewed the economic literature on technological change to put forth and provide support for four general points that we believe are important for interpreting and incorporating technological change in formal models.

(1) Our review supports the notion that no single source dominates the process of technological change. The literature supports roles for R&D and learning-by-doing within an industry, as well as for spillovers from other industries engaged in both of these activities. In particular, (2) the literature supports a strong role for spillovers; (3) it indicates that these spillovers are often indirect, requiring own-industry activities to utilize; and (4) it indicates that simple experience curve calibrations likely include a range of sources of technological change in addition to learning-by-doing.

The lesson from these observations is to be cautious in interpreting the policy conclusions of models that assume only a single source of technological progress or that neglect critical factors such as spillovers. This includes virtually all formal models in use today, implying a need both for more comprehensive treatments of technological change and more research to understand the nature and magnitude of any distortions of policy conclusions from models with limited representations of technological change. It is not possible to fully represent the process of technological change, just as it is not possible to fully represent the complete set of economic forces that influence decisions made by those whose behavior is represented in formal models. However, it is productive to continually move toward more complete representations of technological change and to understand the effects of limited representations.

We close by noting that, from a broader perspective, the importance of extra-industry sources of technological change calls for a broad view of the climate change technology development enterprise. Applied energy R&D and technology deployment are not the only long-term means of supporting climate change technology development. The value of a broad and robust technological and scientific enterprise, including goal-driven basic research, should not be ignored. Our selective review finds no strong evidence to indicate that this broader enterprise is of lesser importance over the long term than are applied energy R&D and the deployment of newly emerging technologies.

More here




Greenie-inspired land-use restrictions under fire in Australia

State governments must release more land or housing affordability will remain a problem, Prime Minister John Howard says. Mr Howard said state governments are using the housing development process as a money-maker. "The cost of land is the problem," Mr Howard told the South Australian Liberal Party annual general meeting in Adelaide today. "Until state governments around Australia start releasing more land and stop using the development process as a method of raising revenue, we are going to continue to have a problem with the affordability of housing.

"I don't suggest that interest rates are irrelevant, not for a moment. "But if we are to have a proper debate about the cost of housing, state governments have got to face the need to release more land." Mr Howard said security for families depended on good job prospects and housing affordability. "Having interest rates at a low level are important to that," he said. "But even more important is to make sure that the ordinary economy of supply and demand are in better balance than they are at the present time."

He said unless state governments addressed the issue "we will continue to have this difficulty with the affordability of housing". "I do worry about that," he said. "I worry about the affordability of housing for young Australians, it's all right for those of riper years but it's not good for young people. "It's very important we give attention to this issue and it's very important we have an honest debate and an honest discussion about the fundamental causes of the problem."

Source

***************************************

Many people would like to be kind to others so Leftists exploit that with their nonsense about equality. Most people want a clean, green environment so Greenies exploit that by inventing all sorts of far-fetched threats to the environment. But for both, the real motive is to promote themselves as wiser and better than everyone else, truth regardless.

Global warming has taken the place of Communism as an absurdity that "liberals" will defend to the death regardless of the evidence showing its folly. Evidence never has mattered to real Leftists

Comments? Email me here. My Home Page is here or here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

*****************************************