Victims of Global Warming: The "Lucky Ones" Got Shot

I'm back in Iceland, and although it might seem strange if you are familiar with my previous adventure here in the dead of winter I'm happy to report that July is definitely a better month for visiting than December. No howling winds or pounding rain. Fleece is still the garment of choice but the sun never goes down. I'm here at an annual cradle to cradle conference (well more like a gathering) with eco architect Bill McDonough who first came to Iceland with Benny Goodman thirty five years ago. (Bill put himself through architecture school working as Goodman's chauffeur and the two became good friends.) McDonough is now the leading authority on cradle-to-cradle design in which there is no end to a product's usefulness, everything is continually recycled, eliminating the concept of waste entirely.

The conference schedule in Iceland sure takes some getting used to. Salmon fly fishing by day, lunch at three, dinner at ten, discussion begins at eleven...pm! Ideas really sound good around then. You don't know what a long summer day is until you've spent one in Iceland! Hitting the hay at three in the morning requires an eye mask and heavy drapes.

The most impressive fact about Iceland is that they went from a completely fossil fuel dependent nation to a completely coal independent nation. Not a single chunk of coal is burned for electricity there. Instead, they power their booming economy with renewable geothermal and hydropower (and they heat around 90% of their buildings with geothermal too). (Iceland has no nuclear plants either.) It can be done. They proved it!

But even though Iceland is energy independent, they are seeing firsthand the effects of global warming. Two weeks ago a couple polar bears, sitting atop two separate icebergs drifted all the way from Greenland to Iceland. The first bear was spotted by a ten-year-old girl walking along the beach, and because of its proximity to a farm, it was shot immediately. The second bear, because of the public outcry to the first shooting, had a slight reprieve. An expert was brought in from Denmark to try to figure out how to save it, but ultimately that bear was shot soon after as well.

I heard about this rare occurrence of polar bears drifting to Iceland from the fly fishing guide Hallur Lund (a mechanical engineer during the off season) who thinks global warming is the reason the polar bears ended up in the wrong place. "They would never swim from Greenland to Iceland. No way," Hallur said. If two polar bears hit this tiny little island I wonder how many end up floating past, never bumping into a shore and end up drowning. You could say the two who landed were the lucky ones; at least they found land.

Comments

[belladawna]

hope you're home safe.
i wanted to add this in your other blog on the trash in airports, but for some odd reason i cannot reply there.. lol so here is this from huffington post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/16/trash-power-dumping-energ_n_112953.html
like i said and glad people are thinking of solutions. i just finished watching the six degrees dvd documentary from national geographic, and i have SO many ideas to help but not sure who to say this stuff too........... hmmmmm
p.s. heard gunshots...

[mamacat]

I have often read bloggers state that it is unfair that the government uses our money to encourage alternative energy development, and that an open and free market should determine which industries prosper. One of the best assertions that I have read of why that argument does not fully describe the reality of our situation was written by Mr. Scott Sklar, of Renewableenergyworld.com:

"...I must continue to question why U.S. taxpayers continue to subsidize mature energy companies, in mature energy markets with mature energy technologies at literally tens of billions of dollars per year? These tax subsidies .... distort the market against the newer energy technologies, and sustain pollution and energy imports -- more than any other industrialized country. This needs to stop and Congress needs some backbone to increase these clean energy incentives for 10 years."

The point is that there is no free market, but that U.S. government outlays and tax breaks are heavily influenced in favor of already established technologies and companies. Just making the playing field level for alternative energy industries would greatly spur their development, but government investment in them could produce a drastic explosion of growth in these new technologies.

[gevan]

The human population of Iceland is less than the county I live in. Perhaps if we industrialize Yellowstone we could supply Wyoming (also more populated than Iceland) with all the geothermal power they need. It's way too expensive to drive there anyway.

[mamacat]

The conversion of Iceland's electrical production methods to geothermal (starting in the 1970s) was ambitious, but the largest single geothermal plant producing electricity in the world is not in Iceland, but in California. "The Geysers" (a misnomer, as there are no geysers there) electrical plant north of San Francisco provides all of the electrical needs for three California counties, and the partial needs of two more.

Furthermore, The Geysers facilities produce more electricity than all of the facilities in Iceland combined.

Geothermal is a resource that currently provides only about 0.4% of all of the electrical needs of the United States, but it could reasonably produce more. This resource is so underutilised, that it hardly matters how much it could be used, only that it could be used much, much more than what it is now.

It is a common misconception that geothermal development requires magma on the surface of the earth. It does not, it only needs magma near enough to the surface as to be able to heat water. This circumstance is actually rather common on our planet.

[Schallvain]

I can't figure out why, but my main comment keeps getting censored. But I will try one more time:

As many have made here, the argument that the US is not a leader is alternative power is deceptive. Per capita, that is correct. There are many countries that, per capita, use more alternative energy than the US. But in overall alternative power produced/used in the world, the US is, by far, the leader in producing/using alternative energy. The US is the #1 producer of Geothermal Energy in the world. Technologically, the US invests significantly more into the development of alternative fuels and technologies than any other country in the world. In actuality, the US is the leader in the development and use of alternative energy.

It is difficult to prove an argument when one is comparing a country of < 1 million to a country of >200 million.

[mlaiuppa]

Iceland looked at what they had, what they could do and they made a concerted effort to get it done.

Why is the U.S. lagging? Why is Germany of all places leading in Solar. WE should be leading in solar. Likewise wind, geothermal, methane, hydro, etc. We're slackers when it comes to alternative energy.

As for the bears, so very sad. Yes, the lucky ones were shot. I wonder how many other poor bears ended up drowning or starving in the middle of the ocean, wondering what happened.

[demfriend]

It frightens me to see people so very stupid as to think Global warming is a myth and it happens wheither man is here or not. If the crap in the air doesn't get you how about the lack of clear drinkable water in the mountains? How about the trash piles on beaches where the tide takes it? Sad to think people just go about the "easiest way possible" to get through their lives without a single thought for their own children. The very idea that it happens if man is on the earth on not has not bearing when your very actions or inaction will cause your children and grandchildren harm. But heck it happens anyway so they wil suffer if you try to change things or not. Call me a tree hugger a fool or whatever rings your chime but I have no children to worry about and you do. My kid diedbecause she was damaged genetically by where I lived. I damaged my genes too so go figure are you that lucky that it will miss your kids?

[Bladernr1001]

You Know if you tree huggers could ever talk about this issue sans the emotional triggers like polar bears and baby seals perhaps I would dain to listen to the chickenlittle side of the story.

There is some plausible points to the idea that man contributes to global warming but there is also some strong counter-arguments that this is not the case. The debate is not over. This is a very complicated issue. Pulling the heart strings by talking about polar bears at the end of the day does not add a thing the highly technical/scientific debate that should be taking presidence in the arena of debate.

[markie1111]

oh yes, there is no debate. and adding NaCl to water doesn't change it's melting point.

[ChrisFL]

I'm so sick of hearing this from the right wing! So fear of terrorism is not an emotional ploy? You got to be kidding!!!

[GuyRC]

So calling people tree huggers is legit discussion? Fact is, the only debate about greenhouse gas and global warming is occurring in the political arena. Some deniers go with the "it's all a farce" form of denial which is simply comical to read. You have opted for the "competing theories" option we see used against evolution and geology. I think that is a far more mature form of misinformation, good job. Who do you work for?

[research]

Frankly, the global warming issue is irrelevant.

Oil coal and Nukes cause wars, shortages, mountain top removal and extensive pollution and 25 year of nukes and deadly million years waste. They are all more expensive and slower to install the solar and wind.

1T$, ten years, less then oil subsides or 2 years of oil purchases for the usa, will convert all us energy to wind and solar with plug in hybrids.

this year 30GW of winds, 1.4$ per average watt.

2 GW of solar. But new Nano solar 2 M$ manufacturing machines can produce 1GW of solar per year at 1$ per average watt.

Solar and wind are the fastest cheapest most sustainable course for the future.

Oil drilling, coal plants and nukes plants are all 7-14 years away, more expensive by 10 times, and polluting and unsustainable.

[Schallvain]

Your arguement is a good one, but your costs only revolve around the direct costs for solar and wind and do not address the environmental impact. For both of these systems to produce the power that you have stated here, it would take more than the available, useable surface area in the US. Keep in mind that solar is very inefficient in the Northern regions of the US and take roughly 3 - 5 times the surface area to produce the same power as in the south, and also wind farms require a certain wind/weather pattern to be viable on the scale that you propose.

I think for your plan to work, we would have to also promote a very extensive conservation plan that, frankly, would be almost impossible to implement without severe regulations (ie. traveling restrictions, power caps on users, even temperature control regulations for homes and offices).

[research]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/research

[darnit]

I see most of the posts are skeptical of geothermal power. The whole west coast of our country is part of the "circle of fire" that goes all the way from the tip of So.America up and around to S.E. Asia. Let's just build some more of those "clean" nuclear power plants instead of using all of the above....wind, geothermal, and solar. Anything that helps us is better than not doing anything!!! Oh yeah what about tidal power too?

[hampshire]

Iceland is an unusual case. Living on top of a volcano has its advantages but what about the down side?

[emcslead]

It amazes me that so many people think that this article says that America should use EXACTLY the same renewable sources of energy as Iceland does. OF COURSE that's ridiculous! The point is that it IS possible to tap your country's renewable resources on a large scale.
Americans say they are a forward thinking people, but man we love to fight change, even when it is clear that the change is not only necessary but a moral imperative. Instead of saying "well we're bigger and don't have that particular resource so there's nothing to learn there," how about "well, we don't have quite the geothermal resources, but we sure do have areas that get a lot of wind. Could we do this with wind power?" While dams have been the technology of choice for centuries to capture hydroelectric power, there are companies developing underwater propellers that use currents and tides to capture energy and generate electricity, negativing the need to dam up a single river and allow us to take advantage of our thousands of coastal miles in additions to inland rivers.
More drilling inandof itself is not helpful- most refineries in America operate at full or almost full capacity. Instead of spending the capital to make more refineries and more drills, why not as another user said take advantage of tax breaks for renewable energy and begin making those technologies viable? We will have to someday take advantage of renewable resources - why wait for $10/gallon gas?

[norkas]

Obama should go on the internet and first check out the new electric cars. All he has to do is google it. Is his people sleeping, it is obvious so. The tesla auto goes 185mph 0-60 mph on under 4 seconds cost about .4cents a gallon if you were comparing it to gas. Yes it cost allot aprrox $85, 000 and they sold out again this year. Ther are other autos for much less and tesler autos will be comming out with a much cheaper version that will be affortable to almost anyone although it is not so exotic. There are others that will be out next year and MANY more the year after.

None of this could not of happened unless the internet age was here people would of been threaten and even worse perhaps killed to keep this off the market.

Please check on new energies, solar and others this is now not 3, 4 , 5 years down the road.

What the hell is wrong with the canidates and there consultants do they have NO clue to what is going on and how fast everything is moving.

We wil have a new economy beyond most people dreams and the planet will be much better off because of it , but it is not the long future . It is here now.

[1099]

So how long have you been working for Tesla?

Personally, I'll hold out for one of the cheaper models you mentioned. Maybe they'll drop the price to a reasonable 75K. That's something everyone can afford in this economy.

[NL207]

"What the hell is wrong with the canidates and there consultants do they have NO clue "


Hint: It is not the consultants and candidates who have no clue.

[NL207]

Anybody who thinks this is a realistic solution to the energy needs of teh United States has not even conducted a cursory evaluation of the situation. This is the most optimistic assessment of Geothermal I could find:

"in 50 years the nation could achieve a capacity of 100,000 megawatts – enough to supply about 25 million homes – at an eventual cost of just $40 million a year. That would represent about 6% of the current US electricity supply"

source: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/energy-fuels/dn11010-us-urged-to-boost-its-geothermal-power-capacity.html

Iceland's total Geothermal power equals about 0.2% of US power generation. Iceland's total POTENTIAL geothermal power represents about 1.2% of current US generation.

source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=US and http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/country/country_energy_data.cfm?fips=IC

[leftcoastindy]

I we can't possibly invent ANY NEW WAYS to drill down lower to take advantage of the heat under us.
Please inlighten us on all the other things we CAN'T POSSIBLY DO in the next 10 to 20 years.

[mamacat]

It reminds me of the children's book, Thomas the Tugboat, I think it was, that we used to read our children. Thank goodness Thomas didn't give up the first time he came up against a problem. We would have had to change the refrain in the book to

"I think I can't! I think I can't! I think I can't!" The poor little tug-boat that couldn't.

And, imagine what Benjamin Franklin or Thomas Edison would think of today's revolution in industry. Would they bemoan the difficulties, or be thrilled at the challenges?
Tremendous strides are being taken, whether naysayers say it is impossible or not. The investments in geothermal, wind and solar for next year are on track to exceed those of any previous year, if the Republican minority in the Senate is not successful in stopping the efforts.

[NL207]

The first posted reference contains a link to this: http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf

The bibliography of that document leads to myriad other resources. Both the pdf and many of its underlying references discuss the costs and lead times associated with construction.

Why do you suppose that major engineering projects can be constructed overnight? Major power systems take YEARS and great capital expenditures to accomplish.

One thing I doubt seriously can be accomplished in the next ten to twenty years: We will not be able to convince you that a gropup of engineers from MIT know more about poweer plant engineering and construction than you do.

[mamacat]

I have seen estimates that rate geothermal potential at well above 6%, but let's go with that number.
If wind gives us 25%,
and solar gives us 20%
and hydro gives us 15%,
then we will have drastically reduced our dependence on imported petroleum and the burning of coal.

While we are working on building the plants to implement already available technologies for renewables, who is to say that scientists and engineers can't work on newer and more revolutionary ways to make our electricity?

[NL207]

Where did you find these numbers? Certainly not from any authoritative or reliable sources I have seen.

And how are any of these technologies going to replace oil? 67% of oil use in the United States is consumed in transportation systems. source: http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm None of them are portable.

Here' a revolutionary thought: Get the government's incompetent, greedy and meddling hands out of the energy markets and let free enterprise provide actual COST EFFECTIVE energy supplies. This government mandated and subsidized corn ethanol program has been an unmitigated disaster and should be immediately abandoned. The rest of the government's idiotic energy production subsidies are no more cost effective or successful.

[ZeRealBigBoss]

Another one of those idealistic irrealities: >>everything is continually recycled, eliminating the concept of waste entirely.

[marlin336w]

By the way, you said a farmer shot one of those bears and the government shot the other one....

Who go to eat the bear meat and keep the bear skin?

If the shooter gets to keep what he kills, SIGN ME UP!

I could use a good ton of meat and a nice rug!

[Bladernr1001]

Send it over to PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals

[Silknspark]

Ric - is that you?

[websmith]

Because of the high gas and oil prices, we have a real opportunity to come out of the dark ages and get rid of oil as our primary energy source. We are on the verge of celebrating 100 years of no advancement. You might mention nuclear energy but the technology is so dangerous that it brings forth visions of Wiley Coyote attempting to capture the Roadrunner. The hazardous waste that it produces defines the term.

It's unfortunate that the American people have to suffer before they start to demand that things get changed for the better but, suffer they must. When the American people suffer, a need is created. The people with the money recognize the suffering as a market and begin to pour their money into relieving the suffering knowing that their investment will be returned. Not many people want to suffer.

Iceland is an example of what can be done. America has plenty of wind, sun, rain, and technological capability. We just need to take the tax rebates and pour them in.

[wild1a]

In the long run the most promising source of energy is geothermal. Iceland uses geothermal exclusively for stationary energy needs. ALCOA is building its largest smelter in Iceland due to the rising cost of energy elsewhere. They are teaming with the Icelandic government to develop geothermal energy and also hydro electric energy sources. The methodology already exists to develop pollution free geothermal energy sources. Development to enhance the technology and reduce cost would seem to be an attractive proposition to engage in aggressively at this time. Dry rock geothermal energy is abundant and pollution free. In January, 2007, an MIT group headed by Professor Jefferson Tester published the results of a study of the feasibility of large scale dry rock geothermal energy production funded by the US Department of Energy. The results of the study would clearly support the immediate initiation of a project of the scale of the Manhattan project during WW2. Successful implementation of dry rock geothermal energy production could provide all the energy required for millennia. For details go to
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.htmll
It can only be that the investment in current oil production is so huge and the profits so great that geothermal energy development is stifled by those in power. I am surprised that so many asre ignorant of the feasibility of geothermal. Scientists engaged in geothermal studies have published but seem to have been ignored.

[research]

Geothermal has two big problems:

Earthquakes

eventual cooling the earth core.

If the core solidifies, the magnetic field goes away, and everything on earth dies.

Wind and solar are the cheapest, fastest way to eliminate Nukes, coal oil and geothermal.

See my profile for details and links.

[marlin336w]

1) The ice on both caps are either staying the same with a small increase (the Artic, North Pole) or it is having the largest increase in recorded history ( the Antartic, South Pole).
2) CO2 is assisting in record crops due to the amount in the atmosphere.
3) The Sun spots are inactive causing the Earth to cool DESPITE the fear mongering Global Warming nutcases.
4) Hurricanes were predicted in 2005 to be overwelmingly large and destructive, not to mention numerous. Turns out they weren't numerous (until the NOAA "adjusted" their figures to claim storms that had 70 mph winds for "at least" 30 minutes...instead of the prior 12 hours as before) they weren't destructive at all, and then only barely matched the average season for the last 200 years (Hansen REALLY hated that fact coming out didn't he?).
5) Every single weather prediction the Global Warming fanatics have made for the last 100 years has proven false. Including Ice Age, then Burn Age, then Ice Age, and now Burn Age again.
6) The VAST MAJORITY OF WEATHER SCIENTIST have said that the Global Warming freaks are not accurate. In other words, BULL__it is all they are spouting.
Now, I am going to go fill up the Diesel Truck (100 gallons), fill up the wife's SUV (40 gallons), and go fishing in my 30 foot boat (150 gallons) this weekend...have fun whining about Global Warming!

[leftcoastindy]

I hope you are trying to be funny, because everything you just said is completely rediculous.

Unless you are rich and can really afford $1500 for transportation for one weekend.

[Pquilson]

Ah, there's your problem. Wealth envy.

[mamacat]

Sounds like the Limbaugh Litany; forget reality, just say the opposite.