If you really care about global warming, there are a whole bunch of things you probably think you shouldn’t be doing that you should, and vice versa. The environmental religion of the modern age, in which an angry Gaia will punish us for our sinful ways, but we can redeem ourselves by sacrifice and self-denial, has spawned a mythology of classical proportions. The problem is that many of those myths, spouted as accepted wisdom by an uncritical media and special-interest activists, appear to be just plain wrong.

Wired magazine goes to the actual science — remember science? — and makes some proposals for those who really care about climate change, and think not only that reducing carbon emissions will actually help, but delude themselves that it is possible to reduce them enough to make even a little dent in anticipated warming.

Here is its list, each of which is explored further in a separate article:

• Live in Cities: Urban Living Is Kinder to the Planet Than the Suburban Lifestyle
• A/C Is OK: Air-Conditioning Actually Emits Less C02 Than Heating
• Organics Are Not the Answer: Surprise! Conventional Agriculture Can Be Easier on the Planet
• Farm the Forests: Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming
• China Is the Solution: The People’s Republic Leads the Way in Alternative-Energy Hardware
• Accept Genetic Engineering: Superefficient Frankencrops Could Put a Real Dent in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
• Carbon Trading Doesn’t Work: Carbon Credits Were a Great Idea, But the Benefits Are Illusory
• Embrace Nuclear Power: Face It. Nukes Are the Most Climate-Friendly Industrial-Scale Form of Energy
• Used Cars — Not Hybrids: Don’t Buy That New Prius! Test-Drive a Used Car Instead
• Prepare for the Worst: Climate Change Is Inevitable. Get Used to It

It doesn’t say all of these are good ideas, of course. There are excellent reasons to slash-and-burn overgrown, bug-infested jungles, to plant more productive crops, sure. But there are also plenty excellent reasons not to cut down old-growth forests. However, if your policy goal is to reduce carbon emissions, which seems to be the sole fetish of environmentalists and policy makers, then all of these points, including razing the rainforests, are valid.

Meanwhile, the US Congress is about to debate a cap-and-trade scheme that will vastly expand government powers and revenue, cost consumers trillions in bureaucratic red tape, tax and lost economic growth, and achieve very little indeed. In welcoming an open floor debate on these mushy measures, the Wall Street Journal writes:

The vehicle is a bill that principal sponsors Joe Lieberman and John Warner are calling “landmark legislation.” They’re too modest. Warner-Lieberman would impose the most extensive government reorganization of the American economy since the 1930s.

Ouch. Nothing like a fat bureaucracy to infringe on the liberty and prosperity of the people. Nothing like a first-country moral crusade to give developing-country leaders ideas to foist upon their long-suffering people. Nothing like an overbearing state to hold down the development of the poor.

As if $130 oil isn’t reason enough to consider more fuel-efficient cars, reduce energy usage in industry and invest in alternative energy sources.

While we wait for this legislative disaster, however, would the disciples of St Al please report to the consistory, so they can get cracking on Wired’s measures?

(Hat tip: Climate Skeptic.)

There’s a ton of hype over the crisis in food prices. Apparently, food is too expensive. One would think this constitutes a “price signal”, but no, whenever something is too expensive or too cheap, NGO activists, special-interest lobbyists and populist media argue that “government must do something”. This is untrue as often as it is true that “government must stop doing something”.

In this case, it could probably stop slashing and burning our food.

I argued some of the reasons for food inflation in a previous post, and noted in particular that biofuel subsidies are perverse incentives, and eliminating them is the first answer to the misguided, knee-jerk question about what government can do. (The second is to drop all other tariffs, levies and subsidies, first on agriculture, and then on fuel, which constitutes a major input cost for producers.)

South Africa has a national biofuels strategy that is barely out of its diapers, complete with taxpayer-funded subsidies, imminent fuel-composition mandates and government-owned shares in private companies. (The company I have in mind, in which the government took a 25% stake in 2005, has been too busy spending taxpayer money to bother constructing a website.) So that first answer will probably be the last to be considered by the motley crew of interventionists, statists, socialists and marxists that populate our government. Reflection, review and self-criticism aren’t among their strong points.

Let’s see how the rich US is faring with biofuel. Two Washington Post writers today write of what they call ethanol’s failed promise (via Blue Crab Boulevard, which also has news of, wait for it, food shortages and panic hoarding, right there in the rich ol’ US of A). Neither of the writers lack in green credentials, and in fact, they cite environmental concerns and energy use before noting the impact on food supply:

These “food-to-fuel” mandates [i.e. ethanol subsidies and fuel composition laws] were meant to move America toward energy independence and mitigate global climate change. But the evidence irrefutably demonstrates that this policy is not delivering on either goal. In fact, it is causing environmental harm and contributing to a growing global food crisis…..

[…] It is now abundantly clear that food-to-fuel mandates are leading to increased environmental damage. First, producing ethanol requires huge amounts of energy — most of which comes from coal. Second, the production process creates a number of hazardous byproducts, and some production facilities are reportedly dumping these in local water sources. Third, food-to-fuel mandates are helping drive up the price of agricultural staples, leading to significant changes in land use with major environmental harm.

If the United States can’t afford ethanol subsidies, why on earth is South Africa hell-bent on burning its food stocks for fuel? When the biofuels strategy was first adopted, maize prices were low, and a surplus was being produced. Biofuel, said the government, would “soak up” that surplus. I’m no expert on the state of our agricultural markets or on prices of specific farm produce, but elementary economics suggests that if a surplus causes low prices, but farmers are not induced by the price mechanism to switch to different, more profitable crops, because they can sell their surplus to the government’s pet biofuels makers instead, this might explain why the supply of food is now under pressure.

Not to mention this business of “requiring huge amounts of energy”. My electricity will probably be cut two hours from now, for four hours. This can happen two or three times a week. What for? To produce ethanol? So we can run our cars on biofuel while the poor go hungry? So we can bash SUV owners for driving environmentally-friendly food-guzzlers?

Meanwhile, the UN too is dithering, waffling about how the Green Revolution that has halved world hunger since the 1960s was actually a failure, and we should all switch to organic farming. Yeah, that’ll help. Let the poor eat boutique honey. Douglas Southgate, of the Free Market Foundation, has a more elaborate take on its latest sustainable agriculture report (the link might only work for a week). And South Africa’s policy makers simply swallow what the green lobby and the UN wonks feed us.

Sometimes, the depth of insanity among government bureaucrats, whether American, South African, or global, is truly amazing. Slash and burn, guys. Go ahead. Good intentions never fed anyone, but then, hunger victims don’t vote.

At a press conference this afternoon, Louise Flanagan, who wrote a useful feature yesterday describing the inside of one of Eskom’s power stations, told me that the company’s sacrificial lamb, Ehud Matya, had described himself to her last Friday afternoon as “head of generation”. By Friday night, however, word was out that he had been ousted, and Eskom confirmed his sidelining to me in an interview on Saturday morning. MiningMX.com quoted Reuters about a management shuffle only yesterday, and the local media carried the story today. One wonders when Matya, a 20-year Eskom veteran, found out that Brian Dames had been given his job.

My comment on his sidelining stands:

If true, Eskom’s sacrificial offering is pitiful. It should enrage the gods of public opinion, instead of appeasing them. And as for Ehud Matya, if he has indeed taken the fall for his employers after more than 20 years of loyal service, this episode would strengthen his CV, not weaken it.

I just returned from a press conference in which the Minister of Minerals and Energy Affairs, Buyelwa Sonjica, explained that “we have been very lax in the use of electricity because it has been cheap”. Yeah, that’s true. It reminded me of what I wrote in October last year: Classic price control crisis. Or in my first post on Eskom, less than a month after this site was started: Eskom: we’re light-years behind, so pony up.

Some points of interest from the press conference are confirmation that switching off geysers will not, in fact, save electricity, but merely shift the load. The ministry’s recommended times for switching the geyser on is between 5:00 and 11:00, and again between 18:00 and 21:00. I fail to see how shifting loads to peak times, rather than to off-peak times is in any way convenient, but hey, the ministry knows best.

Minister Sonjica appeared rather testy when I questioned another suggestion: Using “any alternative energy source for heating and cooking rather than electricity, e.g. gas, coal, wood, etc.” First, she denied having recommended this, though I quoted from the Energy Saving Tips brochure in the media pack. Then she accused me of trying to “spin” the story by asking what the health and pollution impacts of wood and coal fires might be. After all, it is well documented that indoor cooking and heating fires are hazardous, especially to children. Not to mention that it causes lots of visible smog and used to be a major cause of devastating fires. The deputy director-general for electricity did point out that the department will be reviving a programme aimed at educating people how to make cooking and heating fires safer, but a photographer next to me just mumbled: “We made so much progress getting away from Primus [paraffin] stoves and open fires, and now this.”

A representative from Philips was quicker on the ball, spotting an opening to punt his company’s wonderful near-smokeless wood-burning stoves aimed at very poor countries.

The minister also had harsh words for those (like me) who made fun of her comment in parliament that we should “go to sleep earlier”, so we can “grow and become cleverer”. “A good message was trivialised,” she said. Apparently, she hadn’t intended to insult the intelligence of all South Africans, but meant her good message as a jab aimed at opposition MP and former leader of the opposition, Tony Leon, who asked what they should do when the lights go out. “You’re stupid, go to bed early, so you can grow and become cleverer,” she said, apparently only to him. I feel much better now I know only Tony Leon needs to get cleverer.

I’ve long said I’d prefer a nuclear reactor in my back yard to a coal-fired power plant next door, since the former is safe and clean, while the latter emits lots of smog and radiation. Looks like I could soon have one!

Noted on Slashdot is a remarkable story in Next Energy News about a tiny nuclear power plant, developed by Toshiba. Tiny, but developing 200kW nonetheless — enough to drive a workshop full of power tools, several computers, a pool pump, as many home appliances as I can afford, all the 100W incandescent lightbulbs my heart desires, and have enough left over to sell to the neighbours to cover the hire-purchase agreement.

The device measures two by six (by something, presumably) metres, which is roughly the size of a car. It will produce enough power for a cluster complex, a block of flats, or a city block. Says the news report:

The 200 kilowatt Toshiba designed reactor is engineered to be fail-safe and totally automatic and will not overheat. Unlike traditional nuclear reactors the new micro reactor uses no control rods to initiate the reaction. The new revolutionary technology uses reservoirs of liquid lithium-6, an isotope that is effective at absorbing neutrons. The Lithium-6 reservoirs are connected to a vertical tube that fits into the reactor core. The whole process is self sustaining and can last for up to 40 years, producing electricity for only 5 cents per kilowatt hour, about half the cost of grid energy.

And it’s not pie in the sky, either. Toshiba claims it will install the first units in 2008, and begin marketing the idea worldwide by 2009. If the price per kWh is to be relied on, a unit will cost about $3 million, or R21 million. That’s not cheap, but it’s not unreasonable either. And taking everyone who can afford a BMW off the national grid will be music to The Bolt’s ears.

This could put Gore Inc. (and the Gorebusters) out of business for good. It’s party time!

Some people seem to be getting very excited about a new Boeing hydrogen propulsion project that uses a hydrogen engine in an unmanned, high-altitude aircraft. They couldn’t have read the whole release, because they’d realise we’re basically talking about a small aircraft with a propeller that can carry a bakkie-load or so. So it’s about as advanced as Baron von Richthofen’s tri-plane, except that the wings are mounted end-to-end so it flies a little higher, and it has better spy cameras.

The Register rips into it, and I won’t even try to compete:

World-straddling arms’n'airliners behemoth Boeing yesterday … made an unexpectedly loud splash, with the new motor being described as a “wunderengine” and the “future of aviation”, not to mention “a good option for reducing carbon emissions”. It even got Slashdotted, by the put-it-in-a-car dept.

Actually, it’s in a car - the Ford Fusion. That’s because it’s really just an ordinary four-cylinder car engine, fitted with a turbocharger so as to run at 65,000 feet. Ordinary car petrol engines can run on hydrogen without too much trouble; the problem is building a tank which will hold the cryogenic fuel without it all boiling off.

…

As for this sort of gear being the future of aviation, or reducing carbon emissions, steady on. Very slow prop planes aren’t going to be much use for anything except surveillance and comms relay, really - that’s what the military want them for. Maybe it will become easier to run ordinary piston engines on hydrogen lower down, where it’s noticeably warmer and the fuel will boil off somewhat quicker - indeed, BMW has a demonstrator car that can run on hydrogen now (though its fuel does all boil away in a matter of days, potentially causing the garage to explode if you’ve rashly parked it inside).

You could run ordinary turbofans on hydrogen too, with a bit of fiddling; but you’d never fit much of it into ordinary planes. It would only be a goer in various exotic hypersonic designs, where advantages in speed might make it worth one’s while to fill most of the fuselage with weight-efficient cylindrical hydrogen tank. That might be the future of aviation; car engines and propellors won’t.

The stats on this electric bike are pretty impressive. Zero to 60mph in under a second, for example. Which is one reason why attempting a burnout to show off for the cameras is probably not the smartest thing to do. A video of the interview and subsequent disaster is at TG Daily. Whee, bang, ouch!