Montana Trout and Drought

The flow of water in Montana’s rivers is lifeblood for its economy, both through tourism and agriculture. Montana’s trout and the $300 million recreational fishing industry depend on cool waters flowing from melting snow high in the mountains throughout the summer. Irrigated crops play a prominent role in Montana’s $2.4 billion agricultural industry, and these crops rely on the same strong river flows during the summer when soils are driest and plants thirstiest. But a broad trend is changing the way streams and rivers flow in Montana.
The pattern over the past fifty or so years is unmistakable. Across Montana, temperatures in March have been rising. An analysis by Climate Central shows that average March temperatures have risen over 7°F since the 1950s. This rise matches general expectations from other research on effects of human-caused global warming in the U.S. West; and the climb is projected to continue (see animated map), although its steepness will depend on how many more greenhouse gases go into the atmosphere.
Warmer March temperatures mean that snow in the mountains begins melting sooner. Earlier snowmelt means less snow remains during the summer months—especially late in the summer—which translates to less water flowing down Montana’s rivers. This means less water for irrigation, and slower flows in streams. Slow-moving water heats up more easily when the weather is hot, so slower summer flows mean more opportunities for water to get above the lethal 78°F threshold for trout.
Beyond this, Montanans also have to cope with increased wildfire activity and more outbreaks of tree-killing insects. Both trends, which have been linked to human-caused warming, cost the economy dearly.
Montanans are not sitting idly in the face of these challenges. They have already begun to tap their massive potential to produce climate-friendly wind energy. In fact, it is estimated that Montana’s winds could generate as much electricity as nineteen western states consume today; currently, Montana is tapping about 4% of this potential. Making energy from wind produces essentially no greenhouse gases.
Montana also sits on about a quarter of the nation’s coal reserves. Governor Brian Schweitzer wants to build coal to liquid (CTL) plants, which use coal to make liquid fuels that can replace gasoline or diesel fuel. However, CTL plants are water-intensive, and the production and use of CTL fuels generates twice the greenhouse gases that regular petroleum products do. Recognizing the carbon challenge from coal, Montana is aiming to be a leader in a new technology that would harvest coal’s energy while capturing and burying deep in the ground carbon dioxide that would otherwise be released in liquid fuel production. Even with this step, however, using CTL fuels would still release about the same amount of greenhouse gases overall as burning gasoline or other crude oil products.
Watch the video here: http://vimeo.com/2091418

Iowa: Climate Central

The rush to turn corn into ethanol as a replacement for gasoline has been profitable for Iowa’s farmers—but recent research has uncovered some energy and climate drawbacks. Turns out it takes a lot of fossil fuel, like coal, oil, and natural gas, to grow and process corn into ethanol—so much that only about 20% of each gallon of corn ethanol represents new energy. That’s still a benefit, though; and if this were the end of the story, corn ethanol would emit 10 to 20% less greenhouse gases than gasoline.
However, the boom in corn for ethanol has also led farmers to convert more land into cropland. That releases carbon that was stored in shrubs and trees and in the soil, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. The result, surprisingly, is that corn ethanol may actually be worse for the climate than gasoline.
It’s easy to see why Iowa ramped up its corn output in the first place. The state was already America’s biggest corn producer, and over the past several years, concern over our dependence on foreign oil and worries about climate change led to a focus on biofuels—fuel derived from plants, which can be regrown season after season, within America’s borders. That resulted in the federal Renewable Fuel Standard, enacted in 2005 and updated in 2007, which dictates that by 2015 the nation must produce 15 billion gallons of corn-based ethanol, compared with only about 2 billion in 2000. A healthy government subsidy for ethanol is making sure it happens. As a result, about a third of the nation’s corn is already being turned into ethanol.
This has been a boon for farmers, who have long suffered from wild swings in the price of corn. It has also led to a major expansion in production of corn. Some land that was once used for soybean production is now devoted to corn—and land that had been set aside under the federal Conservation Reserve Program has been plowed up to grow even more corn.
While they acknowledge the economic benefit for Iowa farmers of these shifts, scientists are worried about some of their unintended consequences. Conservation Reserve Program land serves both as a buffer, to keep pesticides and fertilizers from leaching into waterways, and as a rich habitat for wildlife. Such areas can also accumulate topsoil over time. Turning them into cropland essentially eliminates all of these benefits.
The switch away from soybeans, meanwhile, may be leading indirectly to the destruction of rainforests in Brazil and other nations. The idea is that with less soy being grown in the U.S., the price of soybeans is rising, pushing other countries to cut down trees in order to make way for a cash crop.
The case hasn’t been rigorously proven, but some researchers are convinced it’s a growing danger. The felling of forests is a major contributor to climate change: trees that are burned or chopped down and left to rot add heat-trapping carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. That might not be so bad if corn ethanol were a much more climate-friendly fuel than gasoline. You might assume it is, since the carbon dioxide released in burning this ethanol was originally pulled out of the atmosphere by the growing corn plants. But it takes a lot of fossil-fuel energy to grow and harvest corn, and to convert it into ethanol. If you take that into account, only about 20% of the energy from corn ethanol is actually renewable.
For that reason, experts are now rethinking the rush to corn-based ethanol. A better source of ethanol, they think, may be crop wastes such as corn cobs and stalks, because they don’t increase the demand for agricultural land. Neither would another candidate source, native perennial grasses like switchgrass, if grown on marginal lands. These ingredients are not as easy as corn kernels to convert into ethanol, but there are a number of companies attempting to commercialize what is know as the production of “cellulosic ethanol.” For example, by 2011 the Poet ethanol plant in Emmetsburg, Iowa, plans to start producing fuel, not from kernels, but from corn cobs that would otherwise be left in the field. If they can do it economically, and in a way that keeps greenhouse gas emissions low—both “ifs” at this point—Iowa’s farmers may be able to keep riding the ethanol boom, and do it in a way that’s easier on the climate.
Watch the video here: http://vimeo.com/2607690

Aha Moment

What is an aha moment?

A moment of clarity, the aha moment is a defining moment where you gain real wisdom - widsom you can use to change your life.

Martin Luther King

Josh Groban Obama Inaugural Concert

the office public service announcements (PSA)

LiNK

A look into the life of what many North Koreans go through just to survive. What if we grew up with these types of uncertainties: torture, starvation, and no freedom? Join the movement, visit www.linkglobal.org

http://vimeo.com/2522667

Carbon Negative Fuel Source?

Time Magazine, The Independent (UK) profile pyrolysis of biomass into biochar as CO2-reducing strategy
December 8, 2008: Bio Fuels Digest

Pyrolysis and biochar have surfaced as climate change-fighting techniques in separate reports in TIME and The Independent (U.K.). Both articles point to the rich, dark “terra prete” soils found in the Amazonian basis which are, scientists say, the result of ancient civilizations adding biochar to their soils.

Biochar is the charcoal byproduct of the pyrolysis process that traps up to 90 percent of carbon from biomass. Entrepreneurs from the US and the UK have proposed large-scale pyrolysis projects, in which biomass absorbs CO2 from the atmosphere, and the resulting carbon is returned to the soil when the biomass is turned into biochar through a pyrolysis process. Other by products from fast pyrolysis include renewable biogas and pyrolysis oils that can be used in generators or refined into renewable fuels.

The Independent story tracks a venture proposed by the Green & Blacks chocolate and Future Forests, focused on operations in Belize and England. The TIME article highlights efforts by US-based Epidra to develop large-scale pyrolysis systems.

The Frontal Cortex : Dangerous Models

The Frontal Cortex : Dangerous Models

You know what I think about when I hear about the epic failure of all these fancy financial models that were designed to calculate risk? I think about the Atlantic Cod. These fish used to be everywhere. (Once upon a time, they were considered the cash crop of the ocean. Spanish fishing vessels would trek across the Atlantic just to fish the abundant cod off the coast of Canada.) Now the Newfoundland cod fishery is gone, yet another victim of overfishing.

Click the link above to read the rest of the article....

Posted using ShareThis

Boiler Up!

My first Boilermaker football game! Fortunately we prevailed over the Wolverines.