Category Archives: Dolphin

Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

350.org

At the Guardian, Nafeez Ahmed, executive director of the Institute for Policy Research & Development, has an idea about what might be driving the massive expansion of the NSA’s domestic surveillance program that we’ve learned so much about lately. It’s not concerns about religious fundamentalists who hate America. Instead, he suggests, the government is worried about environmental activism:

But why have Western security agencies developed such an unprecedented capacity to spy on their own domestic populations? Since the 2008 economic crash, security agencies have increasingly spied on political activists, especially environmental groups, on behalf of corporate interests. This activity is linked to the last decade of US defence planning, which has been increasingly concerned by the risk of civil unrest at home triggered by catastrophic events linked to climate change, energy shocks or economic crisis — or all three.

Who would have thunk? It turns out the U.S. government is worried about climate change, after all. At least if being worried about climate change lets them use all their cool spy gear.

Across the government, security professionals are fretting about natural disasters and global oil shortfalls, Ahmed explains. The Department of Defense has written that “climate change, energy security, and economic stability are inextricably linked.” They’re nervous about what this means: What are people going to do when they realized they’re, to use the technical term, totally screwed? The Army’s Strategic Studies Institute has suggested that, in the case of a total freak-out, it might be necessary to “use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States.”

Who are those hostiles? Why, they might just be environmentalists.

The government tends to see environmentalists in one of two ways. They’re either harmless hippie treehuggers who can easily be ignored or dangerous eco-terrorists who need to be watched. The defense and intelligence people incline toward the latter view.

As early as 2008, DHS contractors were looking into environmental action and “labeled environmental organizations like the Sierra Club, the Humane Society and the Audubon Society as ‘mainstream organizations with known or possible links to eco-terrorism.’” And as Adam Federman has been documenting, law enforcement and corporations have been spying on environmentalists who are fighting against fracking and tar-sands development, even infiltrating direct action groups like the Great Plains Tar Sands Resistance.

This isn’t just a problem in the United States, as Ahmed points out:

[I]nternal police documents obtained by the Guardian in 2009 revealed that environment activists had been routinely categorised as “domestic extremists” targeting “national infrastructure” as part of a wider strategy tracking protest groups and protestors.

Ahmed’s article mainly establishes that the government has concerns about political groups of various stripes, and also worries about the effect of an oil shortfall on society — in other words, it’s pretty far from an irrefutable case that the NSA is primarily targeting environmentalists. But we’re just saying, if you signed up for any of Grist’s newsletters (thanks!), Barack Obama probably is reading your email. Say hi from us!

Source

Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks, The Guardian

Sarah Laskow is a reporter based in New York City who covers environment, energy, and sustainability issues, among other things. Follow her on Twitter.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Visit site: 

Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, Lasko, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the NSA surveillance program really about spying on environmentalists?

Coal shoulder: BLM sells controversial coal mining lease, but no one’s buying

Coal shoulder: BLM sells controversial coal mining lease, but no one’s buying

Kimon Berlin

Wyoming has enough coal trains for now.

Today the Bureau of Land Management in Wyoming held a sale for the lease of 148 million tons of coal on public land in the Powder River Basin — and received not  a single bid, a first in the state BLM’s history.

The sale was the first of two that the BLM had planned in the area over the next month, which combined would pave the way for the extraction of 316 million tons of Powder River Basin coal. Cloud Peak Energy had asked the BLM back in 2006 to open the site of today’s lease to mining, presumably to expand on its adjacent Cloud Peak mine. But today, the energy company decided it wouldn’t bid, and no one else stepped up (federal coal leases frequently see only one bidder). Here’s Cloud Peak CEO Colin Marshall in the company’s press release:

We carefully evaluated the estimated economics of this LBA [lease by application] in light of current market conditions and the uncertainty caused by the current political and regulatory environment towards coal and coal-powered generation and ultimately decided it was prudent not to bid at this time. … [W]e believe a significant portion of the BLM’s estimated mineable tons would not be recoverable by us if we were to be the winning bidder in the BLM’s competitive process. In combination with prevailing 8400 Btu market prices and projected costs of mining the remaining coal, we were unable to construct an economic bid for this tract at this time.

In other words, coal in this country is getting more difficult and costly to mine, domestic demand is falling, and Obama has directed EPA to crack down on emissions from coal-fired power plants. Even the coal industry’s hail-mary plan to stay profitable by pushing exports to Asia faces setbacks. We agree with Cloud Peak that starting up a whole new coal-mining operation is probably not prudent at this point.

The BLM’s coal-leasing process is already rife with problems: In June, an Interior Department inspector general’s report found that the BLM routinely underestimates the value of federal coal leases, failing to take into account the more lucrative Asian market. Taxpayers lose out on tens of millions as a result. But this time, even that hefty discount wasn’t enough to get Cloud Peak to bid.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Continue reading: 

Coal shoulder: BLM sells controversial coal mining lease, but no one’s buying

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Coal shoulder: BLM sells controversial coal mining lease, but no one’s buying

By 2050, flooding could cost the world’s coastal cities over $60 billion a year

By 2050, flooding could cost the world’s coastal cities over $60 billion a year

Oliver Rich

Hurricane Sandy was a wake-up call for New York City, one of the 20 cities expected to see the most damages from flooding.

In 2005, flooding caused $6 billion worth of damage globally. By 2050, we could be hit with 10 times that much in losses — and that’s only if the world’s biggest coastal cities make significant investments to mitigate risk. If we do nothing, costs could soar to $1 trillion.

These sobering statistics come from a new study in Nature Climate Change which identifies the 20 coastal metropolises that stand to lose the most when (not if) major flooding occurs in the future. Sea-level rise, subsidence (the land sinking), and increasingly strong storms — all related to climate change — increase the risk of flooding. But much of the growing price tag of future flood losses is thanks to the growing numbers of people crowding along the world’s coasts.

Time reports:

[T]he most immediate threat is the sheer increase in people—and their property—put in harm’s way in coastal cities. In the U.S. 87 million people now live along the coast, up from 47 million people in 1960, and globally six of the world’s 10 largest cities are on the coast. Of the $60 to $63 billion in flood risk the Nature Climate Change study estimates the world’s cities will face by 2050, $52 billion is due to economic and population growth—the rest is due to sea level rise and land use change.

The study looks not only at which cities will face the highest absolute costs as a result of increased flooding, but also at which will see the largest relative increase in average annual damages, and which had the highest losses as a percentage of GDP in 2005. In terms of absolute losses, Miami and New York — places with large populations and high concentrations of wealth — face the most risk among cities in developed nations. In fact, in 2005, New York, Miami, and New Orleans accounted for 31 percent of total damage costs across all 136 cities studied (perhaps Katrina had something to do with that).

This chart of relative increases in average annual losses (AAL) includes some places that may not be accustomed to thinking of themselves as particularly flood-prone, but are going to have to adapt fast: Houston and Tel Aviv, for instance, are facing at least a 50 percent increase in AAL, while Alexandria, Egypt, and Barranquilla, Colombia, could see 100 percent increases or more.

Nature Climate ChangeClick to embiggen.

When it comes to cities whose 2005 losses made up the highest percentage of their GDP, New York and Miami don’t appear in the top 10, but New Orleans is No. 2, joined by places like Guayaquil, Ecuador, and Abidjan, Cote d’Ivoire. While making aggressive adaptation moves — improving infrastructure, developing evacuation plans, establishing (literal) rainy day funds to prepare for economic rebuilding — will substantially lower future flooding losses, such measures won’t come cheap: The report estimates they’ll cost cities around $50 billion a year from now until 2050.

The extreme solution would be to start relocating everyone inland, reducing potential loss of life and property in flood zones. But what are the chances of getting all those coastal elites to move into flyover country? We’ll just keep pouring money into our pleasure boats as they sink.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Cities

,

Climate & Energy

Originally from:  

By 2050, flooding could cost the world’s coastal cities over $60 billion a year

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on By 2050, flooding could cost the world’s coastal cities over $60 billion a year

Tesla Model S rocks safety tests, gets highest possible score

Tesla Model S rocks safety tests, gets highest possible score

The Tesla Model S.

First the Tesla Model S got the highest score of any car Consumer Reports had ever reviewed, blowing testers away with its “innovation,” “world-class performance,” and “impressive attention to detail.” Now, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has awarded the car its highest rating possible, a five out of five in every category. (Note to luxury sports-car enthusiasts: Grist does not condone reckless driving no matter how high a car’s safety rating or how low its emissions.)

According to Tesla, “approximately one percent of all cars tested by the federal government achieve 5 stars across the board.” More from the company’s press release:

Of all vehicles tested, including every major make and model approved for sale in the United States, the Model S set a new record for the lowest likelihood of injury to occupants. While the Model S is a sedan, it also exceeded the safety score of all SUVs and minivans. This score takes into account the probability of injury from front, side, rear and rollover accidents.

The Model S achieved such a high score in large part because it’s an electric vehicle. The front of the car has only trunk space where a gasoline engine block would normally be, so it has a much longer “crumple zone” — the part of the car that absorbs impact in a head-on collision. And the battery pack’s location beneath the floor gives the car a low center of gravity that substantially lowers its rollover risk.

Then, of course, there’s the fact that the Model S doesn’t have a combustion engine (which carries the risk of, you know, combusting). Tesla says that none of its lithium-ion batteries have caught fire so far (though it admits that’s “statistically unlikely to remain the case long term”).

Aside from its out-of-reach price tag, the Model S is starting to sound like the best car on the market. Matt Yglesias points out that Tesla has more incentive than your typical car company to make that the case:

Because Tesla makes electric cars, anything that happens to the Model S isn’t just a car story. It’s a business story, it’s a politics story, it’s an energy story, it’s an innovation story, it’s an interesting story. …

Any failure they have will be a much bigger deal than a failure at a comparably sized car company would be. But conversely, any time they manage to excel at anything they can guarantee that it’ll get noticed. … “Our sedan is the safest car in the world” sounds boring. But when your sedan is also an all-electric vehicle that’s scored off-the-charts rave reviews in other respects, now you’ve got a nice feather in your cap.

Now, if they ever make a more basic version of the Model S that somehow drops into an accessible price range, I may suddenly find myself interested in car ownership.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Excerpt from – 

Tesla Model S rocks safety tests, gets highest possible score

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Tesla Model S rocks safety tests, gets highest possible score

Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet

Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet

Shutterstock

Yes, we know this isn’t a fracking pump, but it’s way prettier.

You know that domestic oil-and-gas boom that’s been sweeping the country for the past few years, turning places like Williston, N.D., into Sin City? Well, the party’s winding down — or maybe it was never that ragin’ in the first place. Oil and gas shale assets, possibly overvalued to begin with, are plunging in price thanks to an oversaturated market and wells whose production hasn’t always lived up to expectations.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports:

The deal-making slump, which may last for years, threatens to slow oil and gas production growth as companies that built up debt during the rush for shale acreage can’t depend on asset sales to fund drilling programs. The decline has pushed acquisitions of North American energy assets in the first-half of the year to the lowest since 2004. …

North American oil and gas deals, including shale assets, plunged 52 percent to $26 billion in the first six months from $54 billion in the year-ago period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. During the drilling frenzy of 2009 through 2012, energy companies spent more than $461 billion buying North American oil and gas properties, the data show.

Improvements in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques in the early 2000s made drilling possible in previously inaccessible areas. As more frackable shale deposits were discovered, energy companies snapped up property. But the boom started backfiring:

As overseas buyers moved in, booming production soon led to oversupplies, and gas prices plunged to a 10-year low in 2012, forcing companies to write-down the value of some of their assets. Companies were also hurt when some fields thought to be rich in oil proved to contain less than anticipated.

Shell downgraded the value of its North American assets by $2 billion last quarter, and announced that it expects drilling here to remain unprofitable until at least next year. Companies are cutting off drilling in fields where it’s not worth it and selling off properties.

As Philip Bump pointed out in Gristmill earlier this year, what’s happening with fracking is kind of the same as what’s happening to the coal industry — but on a super compressed timeline (think 10 years, not 100). What seemed like a bonanza just four years ago is already struggling to deliver.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

Source:  

Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet

Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet in price

Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet in price

Shutterstock

Yes, we know this isn’t a fracking pump, but it’s way prettier.

You know that domestic oil-and-gas boom that’s been sweeping the country for the past few years, turning places like Williston, N.D., into Sin City? Well, the party’s winding down — or maybe it was never that ragin’ in the first place. Oil and gas shale assets, possibly overvalued to begin with, are plunging in price thanks to an oversaturated market and wells whose production hasn’t always lived up to expectations.

Bloomberg Businessweek reports:

The deal-making slump, which may last for years, threatens to slow oil and gas production growth as companies that built up debt during the rush for shale acreage can’t depend on asset sales to fund drilling programs. The decline has pushed acquisitions of North American energy assets in the first-half of the year to the lowest since 2004. …

North American oil and gas deals, including shale assets, plunged 52 percent to $26 billion in the first six months from $54 billion in the year-ago period, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. During the drilling frenzy of 2009 through 2012, energy companies spent more than $461 billion buying North American oil and gas properties, the data show.

Improvements in hydraulic fracturing (fracking) techniques in the early 2000s made drilling possible in previously inaccessible areas. As more frackable shale deposits were discovered, energy companies snapped up property. But the boom started backfiring:

As overseas buyers moved in, booming production soon led to oversupplies, and gas prices plunged to a 10-year low in 2012, forcing companies to write-down the value of some of their assets. Companies were also hurt when some fields thought to be rich in oil proved to contain less than anticipated.

Shell downgraded the value of its North American assets by $2 billion last quarter, and announced that it expects drilling here to remain unprofitable until at least next year. Companies are cutting off drilling in fields where it’s not worth it and selling off properties.

As Philip Bump pointed out in Gristmill earlier this year, what’s happening with fracking is kind of the same as what’s happening to the coal industry — but on a super compressed timeline (think 10 years, not 100). What seemed like a bonanza just four years ago is already struggling to deliver.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

View post: 

Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet in price

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fracking frenzy slows as oil and gas assets plummet in price

Democrats will soon have a big, fat fight over fracking

Democrats will soon have a big, fat fight over fracking

Shutterstock

Most Democratic politicians say nice things about renewable energy and less-nice things about coal and earnest things about the need for climate action. But when it comes to fracking for natural gas, Dems and enviros are increasingly at odds.

Exhibit A: President Obama. He’s provided unprecedented support for clean energy. He’s making moves to curb pollution from coal-fired power plants. He’s saying climate change is a top priority for his second term. But he’s just fine with fracking. His administration has yet to impose any regulations on the process; it’s only offered weak draft rules so far. It recently approved plans for a third project to export fracked natural gas. Obama thinks natural gas is part of the climate solution, a bridge fuel that will help us make the transition from coal and oil to renewables, as he made clear in his big climate speech in June:

We should strengthen our position as the top natural gas producer because, in the medium term at least, it not only can provide safe, cheap power, but it can also help reduce our carbon emissions. …

The bottom line is natural gas is creating jobs. It’s lowering many families’ heat and power bills. And it’s the transition fuel that can power our economy with less carbon pollution even as our businesses work to develop and then deploy more of the technology required for the even cleaner energy economy of the future.

Even California Gov. Jerry Brown (D), a long-time booster of clean energy and climate action, is open to fracking.

But as anti-fracking activism heats up around the country, pro-fracking Dems might find themselves increasingly at odds with their base. As we near 2016, any Democrat who wants to replace Obama might have to start singing a different tune.

National Journal reports on the fracking fight shaping up within the Democratic Party:

Led by President Obama, most Democrats have tried to occupy a careful middle ground on the natural-gas industry that’s transforming the U.S. energy economy. But that balance might not last much longer, as environmentally conscious “fracktivists” look for ways to press their case that the potential for pollution outweighs the jobs created by the mushrooming shale-gas drilling industry. …

Some environmental leaders and so-called fracktivists are hopeful the party will turn against the industry. And they have some reason for optimism. Already, Democratic governors and presidential prospects Andrew Cuomo and Martin O’Malley have upheld moratoriums on the controversial process in New York and Maryland, suggesting the issue could emerge as a potent one in a presidential primary. And this summer, the Pennsylvania Democratic State Committee passed a resolution calling for all drilling to temporarily halt in the Keystone State. The resolution was nonbinding, but it was nonetheless significant in a state seen as ground zero for the country’s natural-gas boom and where Democrats have been friendly to the industry.

However, any political shift within the Democratic Party won’t come easily. And many party insiders and operatives think it won’t come at all—because the booming industry offers too many economic benefits to too many groups, including members of the Democratic coalition. … Among them are unions that stand to benefit from building the pipelines. …

“For the first time in my memory, you have a real live issue where environmentalists are lined up on one side, and pretty much the entire rest of the Democratic coalition is lined up the other side,” said Matt McKenna, an energy lobbyist for MWR strategies.

As National Journal suggests, watch Cuomo and O’Malley for signs of which way the wind is blowing.

And, of course, watch Hillary Clinton. In a speech on energy last year, she noted approvingly that “natural gas production is surging” in the U.S., but she hasn’t said much else lately that would give us any clues into her thinking. We’ll tell you when she does.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Politics

Link:  

Democrats will soon have a big, fat fight over fracking

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Democrats will soon have a big, fat fight over fracking

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Shutterstock

When it comes to climate science, the writing is on the wall.

Climate hawks are buzzing over leaks from the fifth big climate report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, due to be officially released in September. Spoiler: Scientists are pretty damn confident that we’re screwing up the climate.

An earlier draft was leaked in December by climate deniers trying to undermine the case for anthropogenic climate change. News of more recent leaked drafts comes to us from Reuters, which has no such agenda. Reuters sums up the report this way:

Climate scientists are surer than ever that human activity is causing global warming, according to leaked drafts of a major U.N. report, but they are finding it harder than expected to predict the impact in specific regions in coming decades. …

Drafts seen by Reuters of the study by the U.N. panel of experts, due to be published next month, say it is at least 95 percent likely that human activities — chiefly the burning of fossil fuels — are the main cause of warming since the 1950s.

That is up from at least 90 percent in the last report in 2007, 66 percent in 2001, and just over 50 in 1995, steadily squeezing out the arguments by a small minority of scientists that natural variations in the climate might be to blame. …

Experts say that the big advance in the report, due for a final edit by governments and scientists in Stockholm from Sept. 23-26, is simply greater confidence about the science of global warming, rather than revolutionary new findings.

Joe Romm at Climate Progress reminds us that the IPCC reports are generally conservative:

[The forthcoming report] is just a (partial) review of the scientific literature … [L]ike every IPCC report, it is an instantly out-of-date snapshot that lowballs future warming because it continues to ignore large parts of the recent literature and omit what it can’t model. For instance, we have known for years that perhaps the single most important carbon-cycle feedback is the thawing of the northern permafrost. The IPCC’s Fifth Assessment climate models completely ignore it, thereby lowballing likely warming this century.

Here’s reaction from climate scientist Michael Mann, via Climate Progress:

The report is simply an exclamation mark on what we already knew: Climate change is real and it continues unabated, the primary cause is fossil fuel burning, and if we don’t do something to reduce carbon emissions we can expect far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts on us and our environment in the decades to come.

And, for entertainment value, here’s reaction from denier-ville, via the Hockey Schtick blog:

[A]ll of these fatuous figures [about likelihood of human causation] are pulled out of the air to support the IPCC ideologies and not based upon any statistical analysis or science.

Back in reality-ville, John Abraham at The Guardian thanks all the climate scientists who have donated time to produce the IPCC report and wonders whether we need them to keep spending their time this way:

[T]he IPCC has done its job. For this fifth report, they have synthesized the science and provided enough evidence that action is warranted. How many more reports of this type do we need? Will a sixth report that confirms what we already know make much of a difference? Will a seventh? …

Whatever the future holds for the IPCC, the history books will tell us we were warned. Time and time again, the world’s best scientists have sent us clear messages.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy

Jump to original: 

Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans are causing global warming

Don’t expect that hybrid minivan any time soon

Don’t expect that hybrid minivan any time soon

ToyotaThe Toyota Estima Hybrid. The Japanese text translates to “Ha ha, you can’t have one.”

For years, Grist readers have yearned, ached, and virtually begged for a hybrid minivan. Sorry, folks. Keep dreaming.

Toyota has sold its Estima Hybrid minivan (44 mpg) in Japan since 2001, but it has no plans to sell a hybrid or plug-in minivan in the U.S., a spokesperson tells the Chicago Tribune.

Why not? Green-car expert Jim Motovalli explains:

I have brought up the concept of a plug-in hybrid minivan several times to automakers, and they always dismiss it. Their claim: Minivans are big and boxy, and the fuel economy wouldn’t improve that much with a hybrid drivetrain. Plus, they’d be expensive (the Estima is $50,000). Besides, that segment of the market is really not that big, they say.

Tribune writer Robert Duffer speculates that Americans are just too demanding:

We want fuel economy but we want power and the ability to carry a lot of weight. All of these factors would reduce the effectiveness of a hybrid or plug-in on fuel economy. Other speculation on car forums clamoring for the hybrid minivan is that it wouldn’t meet stringent U.S. safety requirements. It would end up weighing about the same as the Toyota Sienna, again reducing the effectiveness of its hybrid gains.

On top of that, “Minivan owners are among the most cost-conscious shoppers, prizing utility and value.” Demanding and cheap.

Plus minivans are totally out now:

According to CNBC in March, minivans are on the decline, making up just three percent of total auto sales. Only 500,000 were sold in 2012. In 2000, there were 1.37 million sold.

Ford and Chevy don’t even make a minivan anymore. … It’s all about the crossover, or CUV, these days. It’s neither minivan nor wagon nor sport utility vehicle, shaking off the stigmas of each into its own hip sub-class. CUVs are more fuel efficient than SUVs, sharper looking than minivans and more versatile in terms of passengers than a wagon.

Car shoppers who want both roominess and efficiency could consider the crossover Ford C-Max Hybrid — “a mini minivan,” as Duffer puts it. Except that Ford just had to lower the car’s fuel-economy numbers this week and send “goodwill” checks to disgruntled customers. D’oh.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on Twitter and Google+.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Read More:

Don’t expect that hybrid minivan any time soon

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t expect that hybrid minivan any time soon

Your iPhone uses more electricity than your fridge

Your iPhone uses more electricity than your fridge

Shutterstock

So much power at our fingertips.

The global digital economy, also known as the ICT system (information-communications-technologies), sucks up as much electricity today as it took to illuminate the entire planet in 1985. The average iPhone requires more power per year than the average refrigerator. It’s like you’re walking around all day with a fridge’s worth of electricity in your pocket (but no hummus!).

This info comes from a report [PDF] by Mark Mills, CEO of the Digital Power Group, sponsored by the National Mining Association and the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity. So part of the report’s point is that coal keeps the iPhones on. But instead of inspiring gratitude for coal and all the blessings it bestows on us, knowing the source of all that juice just makes the digital economy’s ginormous energy footprint of even greater concern.

As Bryan Walsh points out in Time, the ICT system’s power hunger only stands to keep growing as our devices become ever more powerful and ubiquitous. Walsh explains:

[T]he cloud uses energy differently than other sectors of the economy. Lighting, heating, cooling, transportation — these are all power uses that have rough limits. … you can only heat your home so much, or drive so far before you reach a period of clearly diminishing returns. Just because my Chevy Volt can get 100 miles per gallon doesn’t mean I’m going to drive back and forth to Washington each day. …

But the ICT system derives its value from the fact that it’s on all the time. From computer trading floors or massive data centers to your own iPhone, there is no break time, no off period. (I can’t be the only person who keeps his iPhone on at night for emergency calls because I no longer have a home phone.) That means a constant demand for reliable electricity. … As the cloud grows bigger and bigger, and we put more and more of our devices on wireless networks, we’ll need more and more electricity. How much? Mills calculates that it takes more electricity to stream a high-definition movie over a wireless network than it would have taken to manufacture and ship a DVD of that same movie.

No matter how energy conscious you may be in your habits — religiously unplugging your toaster, screwing in CFL bulbs, and keeping the AC at 80 — as long as you’re connected to the cloud, you’ll be a first-class energy vampire whether you like it or not. Ironically, as we and others have already noted, a growing movement toward more sustainable lifestyles goes hand-in-hand with an increase in wireless-technology dependence, even if the link doesn’t represent a conscious choice:

At a moment when young people are buying fewer cars and living in smaller spaces — reducing energy needs for transportation and heating/cooling — they’re buying more and more connected devices. Of course the electricity bill is going to go up.

Walsh argues that the hidden and artificially cheap cost of electricity (“Compare the feeling of paying your utility bill to the irritation of forking out $3.50 a gallon to fill up your car”) reduces the incentive for technology companies to push for energy efficiency in their devices. Having to charge your iPhone constantly is annoying, but we don’t think of it as expensive. We don’t think about the fact that 10 percent of the world’s total electricity generation today is devoted solely to the ICT system.

But as wireless technology only grows more and more accessible — according to predictions, 1 billion people could be using the cloud by next year — its share of the world’s power will keep ballooning. We’ll need to invest more research in making digital devices more efficient. More urgently, we’ll need to wean the cloud off coal.

Luckily, we have plenty of viable alternatives.

Claire Thompson is an editorial assistant at Grist.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Business & Technology

,

Climate & Energy

,

Living

Read the article: 

Your iPhone uses more electricity than your fridge

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Your iPhone uses more electricity than your fridge