If you read the blog, you know that I try hard to save energy. Wasting energy is bad for one’s pocketbook and creates extra pollution that we don’t need. I didn’t plan to turn off my lights this weekend for “Earth Hour“, but I was already in bed by 8:30 p.m. so my lights were not on anyway. One thing I have done for the last 7 years in order to save energy (and stay healthy, and save money, and to give me good energy for the morning shift) is ride my bike to work. If more people moved closer to work and either walked or rode bikes, the nation would be a lot healthier and wealthier. I know it is not possible for everyone, but I like to encourage people to give it a try at least.

One would think that state and Federal governments would promote riding bikes, again based health considerations of not only the environment but for individuals. One would think this would be especially true in the state of Washington given that it is the seat of many environmentalist organizations and because state government leaders like to loudly proclaim how environmentally conscious they are. This is not the case. In fact, Washington has now decided to actively discourage the use of bicycles. The newest budget has a proposed bicycle tax of $25 for any bike that costs over $500. At least they are not targeting poor people, but why punish people who are saving the environment (and probably saving the government a lot of money in reduced sick-care bills). If the state government in Washington was serious about pollution, “climate change”, and such things, they would be PAYING people $25 to ride bikes, instead of driving cars.

California Freeway

Unfortunately, many times politicians are known to think short term, plus as a country we have a lot of sunk costs in old infrastructure built to support the automobile. That means there are a lot of jobs and tax revenue to be handed out supporting the “sprawl”. So on the one hand, we have a lot of people proclaiming to be “environmentalists”, while on the other hand supporting huge sums of money to support urban sprawl. In California, they are planning on taxing driving in order to support the humongous and ailing auto-mobile infrastructure, while they are also trying to build a high speed rail. If they really wanted to change the state of affairs they should use the driving tax to support the high speed rail. If they were REAL environmentalists, they would tear up I-5 and lay down train tracks in the same spot. I know, quite a radical idea.

Another place where priorities collide is in the automobile itself. You have probably heard a lot of talk about raising the CAFE standards for autos in the U.S. The current planned regulation is to raise the average fuel efficiency up to 54.5 mpg by 2025. Whatever you think about the government forcing manufacturers to produce cars and trucks in a certain way, 54.5 mpg might seem like a lot. It isn’t. I grew up with many cars that achieved 50 mpg on the highway – 30 years ago! Little diesel VW Rabbits would easily achieve 50 mpg on the highway and with a little practice at hypermiling, probably closer to 60 mpg. I remember the GEO metro easily hitting 50 mpg. So what happened? How come you can’t find a good small cheap car with great gas mileage right now? One of the smallest cars available, the “Smart” cars only get a pathetic 38 mpg on the highway. My 96 Mazda Protege got 38 mpg and it was bigger. And cheaper. So how did even the smallest cars become more expensive and less fuel efficient than 20 or 30 years ago? A lot of it has to do with safety and environmental regulations. It is a trade-off. Airbags, anti-lock brakes, pollution control systems, etc. all add to the weight and the expense of a car. Most people wouldn’t give up the safety features, but it invariably has led to less fuel economy, which adds up to more pollution over the past 10 to 15 years (and might make it tougher to achieve carbon emission goals in the future). Thankfully, technology is helping us out. Newer composite materials are making their way into more automobiles. Manufacturers are also dropping some things that used to be standard, like the spare tire. Wireless systems might also be coming to a car near you. All the electric cables in a vehicle add a bit of weight. If different components of the car communicated wirelessly, no need for so many wires.

Another way in which technology is helping is with the advent of electric cars and driver-less (robot-driven) cars. Government programs to assist with the purchase of electric vehicles are at least not in conflict with environmental concerns (such as with the bike tax).

The latest in driverless autos comes from Japan where they are testing long-haul trucks with the technology.

Also, Audi is testing out their auto-park system. In the article it is stated that real self-driving cars are still ten years away. I doubt it. The cars have already been tested on roads in full traffic and have a stellar record of safety, which shouldn’t come as a surprise. The bots running these cars can sense, act, and react faster than any human. The only remaining hurdles are cost and legal concerns. Unfortunately, these sometimes to take a decade to sort out.

The most interesting EV news comes from BMW. They are going to test out a program where a person who buys an electric vehicle will be able to loan out a gas powered model when they need to take a long trip. Sounds like a good idea to me.

Have a good Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Environment, Pollution

Colder weather is putting thicker ice on the area lakes allowing ice fishermen to enjoy a little safer conditions and this will continue for the next week or so (the ice build-up) as daytime high temps will stay below freezing. We will probably not have temps above freezing again until we have a “January thaw”. The only lakes that are lacking much ice are the Great Lakes. The latest ice analysis (for Lake Superior and Michigan) shows only a little bit clinging to some of the bays and islands as well as some frozen conditions on the north shore of Lake Superior around Thunder Bay.

Ice Conditions on the Great Lakes

Considering how warm it has been for most of this December and how far above normal the temps were in the lake (Superior) for most of this year, I am surprised there is much ice at all. I think it was one year around 1998 (El Nino Winter) or perhaps 2000 when there was hardly any ice that formed in the Duluth/Superior Harbor. That probably will not happen this year, but if we continue to have warmer than normal temps, it will change the Great Lakes ecosystem. Besides ice conditions changing, there is also a lot of man-made stress in the form of pollution that is affecting the Great Lakes. According to this recent tabulation, lakes Michigan, Ontario, and Erie are under the most threat. Considering that the Great Lakes are one of the largest stores of surface fresh water in the world, we should make sure to take care of them into the future. As I mentioned in the past, if we begin moving away from our internal combustion engine, auto-centered, “build-build-build”, “consume-consume-consume” society, it would make the job a lot easier.

Happy Holidays everyone! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Ecology

And the good news keeps rolling in! Yesterday I discussed a recent study showing a decrease in carbon emissions during recessions and reminded everyone of how the U.S. emissions are the lowest in 20 years! The tone of the study was pessimistic, preaching to everyone that we are still screwed (wrong for multiple reasons) even if the recession continues, which – by TRADITIONAL metrics - is quite likely….because…. the birth rate in most of the world continues to decline, including in the U.S. In fact, the birth rate in the U.S. in 2011 hit an ALL TIME LOW of 1.9 per woman!

The article I linked to paints this in a negative light. Don’t fall for it. This is great news in most regards – especially for the environment and for future generations. Hear me out here.

Sprawling Freeways in the U.S.

The negative spin on the low birthrate is that social/government programs (in developed nations) such as Social Security/retirement, Healthcare, various forms of government “insurance” will suffer. Why is this? Because in a very ponzi-like manner, these systems and government programs were designed upon the idea that the economy will grow forever because the population will grow forever. We tried that. We filled the world with people and pollution (worse pollution in some areas, getting better in others). In the U.S. we built huge sprawling environmental disasters we call cities with pavement, freeways, McMansions, power lines, gas stations, and strip malls as far as the eye can see. It is most likely that we over-built. Now 10 of millions of houses, office spaces, and retail spaces sit empty and rotting. We can barely pay for our infrastructure anymore. Some people say we are losing that battle.

So for a nation OVER $16 trillion in debt, with way too much far-flung expensive infrastructure, with basic commodities (even water) becoming more scarce and expensive, why would we want a population explosion? Just to build, buy, and consume more crap in order to fulfill some archaic economic models and support too-big-to-fail banks?

Poorly Built Urban Sprawl in Brazil

As I have mentioned many times before, if we start defining “growth” more along the lines of health, happiness, and efficiency, we will be much better off. We can still take care of the people who need support and were trapped into dependency. Focusing on the community and a future NOT defined by consumption, is a better way forward, in my opinion.

Population growth is slowing. Many people will try to tell you this is a bad thing. They have an agenda. Building more stuff and having more children just for the sake of economic “growth” is a 20th century idea. The world is crowded enough. It is the 21st century. Time to start thinking differently.

Have a pleasant Tuesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Community, Environment, Pollution

When I saw this story a little while ago “Five Years After Crisis, No Normal Recovery“, it reminded me of a blog entry I penned a while back entitled “Housing Starts Are Negative“. My main point was that there is not much reason for a lot more houses to be built in the U.S. right now. By many estimates, there are more than 10 million vacant homes in the U.S. I understand that some people want to build their own home, but with so many nearly new houses on the market, there should be plenty of options. There are whole subdivisions (in pretty much every state) which are sitting nearly empty!

So why are more people not buying the vast inventory of new homes? It is part demographics and part economics. On the latter point, the prices of houses have still not come down to the level needed to clear out the old inventory. Prices need to drop more (more sarcastic economic analysis found here). When (former) million dollar McMansions start selling for a quarter million or less, then the market will clear a bit. Even then, in a world of higher energy prices, there are less people that can afford the energy bills that come with living in 3,000, 4,000, and 5,000 square foot homes.

Which, leads into the demographics. Young people are not starting families at the same rate as in the past. The job market is bleak and real incomes are in decline which means young people are just not buying as many homes. Retiring baby boomers already own most of their homes outright, so they will not be buying either.

I don’t view these trends as completely negative. Even though I own a house, and the value has dropped by about 40%, I would rather see house prices fall a bit more if it meant less new (empty) homes being built.  From an environmental and pollution perspective, it would just be better if less houses were built. I know this goes against the traditional thought that “growth” and “building things” are signs of progress. They are not as good of metrics as in the past. We have reached the point in the world where it is getting tougher support economic “growth” and an expanding population (without more great leaps technological progress). Pollution is intimately tied to traditional metrics of economic growth. AGW theorists note carbon emissions are tied closely to economic activity.

Please don’t label me a Luddite. I would certainly love to see more progress in the future. I just don’t think building more roads, more strip malls, more sub-divisions, and more parking lots is the answer to our economic woes. All the policies currently in place to prop up the housing markets are ill-conceived and will only make the problem worse in the future. Instead of prodding people who cannot afford a house (or do not want a house) into buying a house, how about we get people thinking about a different future. Instead of buying things and building things for the sole purpose of propping up the economy, how about we strive for better health, longer lives, more comfort, higher efficiency, and more happiness.

Don’t label me a totalitarian either. Although I wouldn’t mind seeing the population come down, less new homes being built, and greater energy efficiency, I can’t imagine forcing people to adopt new ways of living. I am more in the persuasion business. In the end, if people continue building with abandon and paving over more of the planet, mother nature might end up forcing some changes.

Posted under Environment, Pollution

As I mentioned yesterday, I am a techno-optimist, which means I am confident that technological progress will continue in coming years and help us gain better control over our environmental impact and create cleaner energy sources. Progress is certainly continuing but there are still some shocking statistics that could bring any optimist back down to earth.

In recent years I have praised the U.S. for using less coal to produce electricity. The U.S. is no longer the biggest polluter in the world – China is. You would think that with the U.S. using less coal, that total coal consumption around the world would be growing more slowly or not at all. After all, the U.S. still consumes a large fraction of the world’s coal. Unfortunately, coal consumption over the last decade has continued to climb. In fact, it is shocking how much more coal is being burned around the world. Check out this article for some details and graphs.

“Only a very small portion of the global public is aware that global coal consumption has advanced by over 50% in the past decade. According to data from the just-released BP Statistical Review, from 2001 through 2011, global consumption of coal rose an astonishing 56%. Using the energy unit Mtoe (million tonnes oil equivalent), global coal consumption rose 1,343 Mtoe, from 2,381 to 3,724 Mtoe. And this trend shows no sign of slowing down.”

Coal Consumption Rising Dramatically

Remember all the stories from a couple years back about how the Chinese were building a new coal power plant every week. I guess this is the result and it is bad news for the environment. In the U.S. almost all metrics of pollution have improved markedly in the last 50 years and by using more natural gas recently, pollution levels could improve even more. Just the opposite is happening in emerging Asian economies like China and India. The pollution is getting out of control. A dark haze (that can be seen by satellite in space!) permanently covers much of these countries year-round. A significant amount of particulate and carbon monoxide pollution reaching the west coast of the U.S. is from Asia, China in particular. If coal use continues to rise as fast as it has in the past ten years, we won’t have to worry about any theoretical future climate warming, the world will be poisoned to death before any of that trouble develops.

It is the reality of energy production. Most people are going to use the cheapest option available. It is hard to blame the people in Asia who are trying to raise their standard of living. Why should they pay higher prices for clean energy when a lot of the rest of the world uses coal, natural gas, and other fossil fuels? Even here in Northcentral Wisconsin the Weston power plant uses coal. The fact is, coal is cheap, and unless the supply comes under pressure (as it has in oil a bit in recent years), the price will remain low and there will not be too much hope for a more rapid adoption of alternative energy sources. If the signers of the Kyoto accord cannot reliably cut their emissions, then it is unlikely the developing world will be able to do it either. If even Apple is choosing cheap coal-based electricity in siting their data centers, then we are in trouble. (Aside: Apple is promising to use more alternative energy in the future).

On the techno-optimist side of things, at least there is a little hope for burning coal cleaner. Check this past blog post for some of the positive trends and new technology. Taking most of the crap and carbon dioxide out of the exhaust of industrial plants is within our technological capability, although it will not be cheap.

Have a good Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Pollution, Technology

Last week I used most of my blog entries to recap the top events of 2011 and present the year-end statistics. Almost lost in the conversation were the month-end statistics for December. Fear not faithful blog readers. I did not forget about December which ended up being the most above normal month of the year (with respect to temperature). In fact, it was December that put us a shade above normal for the year. If December temperatures would have ended up around normal then we would have been a shade below normal for the year. So the biggest news coming out of December was the warmth and because of the warmth, much of the area did not have a White Christmas. In Wausau it was just barely a White Christmas. Even though it was quite warm, we did not break any daily high temperature records. No other daily records were set either. We usually have a couple of below zero temps during December, but not this year (in Wausau). The oddest trend in the numbers was a three day stretch (12th-14th) where each day the low temperature was 33. Otherwise, the most common high temperature of the month was 36, which we hit on 4 different occasions. Here are the final stats:

Average High: 31.6  (normal: 26.5)

Average Low: 18.3  (normal 11.4)

Total Precipitation: 1.52 inches  (normal 1.36″)

Total Snowfall: 8.6 inches  (normal 13.9″)

Highest Temperature: 45 on the 26th

Lowest Temperature: 1 on the 10th.

 ________________________________________

I am going to start out the new year of blogging by continuing some of the science and weather themes that I have developed and followed for several years now.

One big story that I have followed for almost a decade is the Peak Oil theory. I even interviewed Dr. Hirsch about the subject in case you wanted to review. Another year has passed and there is still no huge crash in fossil fuel supplies. It is hard to argue with Peak Oil theory because it is based on pretty solid science of geology and knowledge of extraction technology. Still, we are now more than a decade passed the time when the Hubbert originally predicted a crash in oil production. It hasn’t happened yet, despite the dire predictions happening year after year. I don’t see a huge crash coming this year either. I suspect there will be some supply shocks due to some oil fields getting more dry and socio-economic forces conspiring against the free flow of oil from different parts of the world. The price will probably stay high even though we are still in the great recession. I just don’t see a huge crash because more cheap natural gas keeps coming online and more alternative energy production continues to be installed. Even flying wind turbines are now on the table! These aren’t going to be a huge part of our energy supply by any means, but a sign that new innovative things continue to be developed.

 Also, The “fossil” theory of fossil fuel formation might not be the only game in town. More and more people are investigating the abiogenisis theory and carbon cycle of the earth.  This might point to a more ample future supply of oil and gas.

Whether you believe there is going to be a huge crash in oil supplies or not, one of my blog themes that I think will continue into the new year is how urban sprawl is unsustainable. I hate to use such a cliche term such as “sustainability” but the American urban landscape is not in the greatest of shape and the effort to continue building expensive new far flung infrastructure is unlikely to end well. We just don’t have the money or resources to keep paving over more land in order to build more strip malls and sub-divisions. I highlighted the ponzi-scheme nature of urban sprawl a while back and just recently a ran across a story about how the nation’s sewage systems are also falling apart. More and more sewage overflow is ending up in lakes, rivers, and eventually on beaches. The problem - local governments do not have the money to upgrade old sewer systems. The sewage systems are so big and sprawling that the upgrades would completely swamp most budgets. So it seems the U.S. might start looking and smelling more like a third world country in the near future.

One possible method for countering the unsustainable drive to build upon and pave over the natural landscape that I brought up last year and will touch upon periodically in 2012 is using different metrics to measure economic “growth”. One metric that might make sense is happiness. Who cares if a new strip mall or box store is built, if you are not happy. As long as happiness is increasing, that should be a sign of positive “growth” for the country. The trouble is, how would one measure happiness? Some scientists are using twitter and unfortunately they seem to have found that happiness went down in 2011.

Have a happier new year! Focus on the things that matter.

Meteorologist Justin Loew

Posted under Alternative Energy, Monthly Recap, Peak Oil, Pollution

A big environmental story broke today that intertwines tightly with many of the themes I have been covering here in the blog over the last few months. The news is that world wide carbon dioxide emissions grew rapidly last year. Some headlines called it a “monster” growth in emissions. Other played the “worst fears confirmed” and “worse than we could ever imagine” theme. It isn’t worse than I imagine. As you know, I am optimistic about the future of alternative energy. I expect fossil fuel usage to climb for the next decade or two, before falling dramatically by the middle of this century and continuing to fall by 2100. A few months ago, I used a little web applet to help me plot out the scenario and its effects on global temperature. So it might look bad right now, but progress toward a cleaner future continues.

Delving inside the numbers we find more interesting facts. Carbon emmissions continue to go down in the U.S. Hooray for us! Emmissions are going down in the EU as well. A couple of the reasons for the decline in the U.S. is the ongoing great recession and more usage of natural gas. In the eyes of a mainstream AGW theorist, the use of natural gas is not all that great, but it is much better than using oil and coal (you wouldn’t know it by the tone of the article, sigh). Not only does natural gas usage emit less carbon dioxide, it is stupendously cleaner burning so almost all other metrics of pollution would go down as well! Not only that, the U.S. has enough natural gas to last for decades, if not centuries!! AND it is dirt cheap!!! It is beyond comprehension why national leaders in D.C. are not promoting natural gas as a bridge fuel to a cleaner future. Instead we continue to get billions in ethanol subsidies and more failed investments in alternative energy companies. I like the thought of investing in new start-ups, but that should be left to the private sector. I am tired of my tax money going up in smoke.

China continues to be the biggest polluter on the planet and India’s emissions are growing dramatically as well. This brings up an interesting question about the Kyoto treaty, that many people realized from the start. The critique was: if the Kyoto treaty did not include developing countries, then it would be useless. It turns out, it was nearly useless (or toothless). As predicted, China and other developing countries are now the world’s biggest (or rapidly getting there) polluters.

This story also hits on the progress theme I have been highlighting lately. Many governments around the world, such as in the U.S. and the E.U., have policies in place to “make the economy grow”. Most of the policies are intended to make people by more stuff, take on more debt, spend more money, build more houses, build more roads…etc. If the goal is to not pollute so much then perhaps we should be focusing on of the metrics of “growth”, as I oultined in more detail in this past blog post. Spending billions of dollars on NEW infrastructure guarantees that there will be more pollution in the future. On a bright note, I saw a report on TV the other day that home builders are getting more requests for multi-generational houses. In light of the “American Dream” scenario promoted during the last few decades, this might be seen as negative, but I think it is a good thing. Traditional farm families from a century or two ago, used to live in multi-generational homes. Families took care of each other. It is not a bad thing, as long as everyone is contributing. College dropouts, vegging in their parents basements playing video games for years on end, doesn’t sound so great, but it is probably better (for the environment especially) than if they took out a home loan they couldn’t afford and were living alone. Owning a home is not for everyone. There are many other “dreams” you can achieve and have a fulfilling life, without owning a home for most of your life. I don’t like the constant pressure coming from the federal government to spend-spend-spend, build-build-build.

Lastly, based on the latest carbon emissions story, can we now stick a fork in the Peak Oil theory, anyway the “major-crash-back-to-the-stone-age” part. Natural gas and oil sands development, while not panaceas compared to past “easy oil”, are certainly keeping the world afloat and look to continue doing so into the next few years.

__________________________________________________

Before checking out for this Friday, an update on the US Drought Monitor. Conditions are about the same right here in Wisconsin. Some abnormally dry conditions continue in the northeastern corner of the state and have increased slightly in the west. No real problems. The worst drought in the country remains in Texas, but at least they have seen some slight improvement over the last month or so. Even better news is that they will have some more relief late this weekend and early next week. The northeastern part of Texas around Dallas-Fort Worth, could end up with a couple inches of rain. It will not be a drought buster, but it is better than nothing.

Lastly, don’t forget to partake in the archaic illogical ritual of turning the clocks back one hour Saturday night.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under AGW, Alternative Energy, Climate Change, Peak Oil, Pollution

It is that time of the week for the US Drought Monitor update. Once again it is pretty good news for Wisconsin. Even though we did not have a drop of rain for the first 10 days of October, the abnormally dry conditions only expanded by about 17% and we don’t have any “official” drought. With the heavy rain that occurred yesterday we will likely see the “abnormally dry” area shrink again next week. Of course, now that we are past the growing season, it is not all that critical if we have adequate rainfall, especially since we have had a little surplus this year. In fact, even if we did not have another drop of rain for the entire year, we would still have about normal precipitation for 2011 here in Wausau. So far this year we have received 32.25 inches of precipitation and the normal for Wausau is 32.41 inches. If this looks different that past years, it is because we got an updated set of normals this year based on the temp and precip statistics from 1981 through 2010.

The worst drought conditions continue in the far southern part of the country. Although, things did get a little better in Texas and Oklahoma due to some recent rain.

_______________________________

Following up on the AGW chatter/discussion from the last couple days of blog posts, here is another story that brightened my day: The world’s 7 billionth person will be born on October 31st of this year. Considering what I wrote yesterday, you might be a little perplexed by my sunny disposition. The good part about the story is not that the U.N. expects 7 billion people on the planet by October 31st, it is that many demographers do not think we will hit 7 billion until next year and there is even an extreme scenario where we would not hit that mark until 2020. Many demographers claim that the U.N. is under political pressure to put an exact date on the “7 Billionth Person”. Even the U.N. says there margin of error would allow for the population mark to not be hit until sometime next year. So while it might sound bad on the surface, there is much uncertainty. What the U.N. is n0t accounting for very well is the dramatic drop in the fertility rate among women for a few decades now in the developed world. I wonder if the markets and debt-ridden economies of the world are projecting the reality that population growth has slowed dramatically and that just maybe we are not going to reach the 9-10 figure
(by 2050) that the U.N. has publicized (and that the IPCC uses to figure future anthropogenic global warming scenarios). Sometimes markets move mysteriously and can only be understood in retrospect. Only a few years down the road does it become obvious. What might be happening now is that all of the developed countries that have huge social welfare programs are running out of money because there are not enough new people to pay for the promised benefits (just like how a ponzi scheme usually collapses). In the markets, maybe the malaise is due to the “invisible hand” not foreseeing as much traditional growth (housing starts, roads, expansion, etc…) as what linear-thinking economists have been “trained” to see.

This is all ok with me. I think the world has enough people. I would rather see people focus on other metrics of prosperity other than more roads, more skyscrapers, more houses, more suburbs, more strip malls, more  gas stations, etc… Let’s start focusing on other things.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Drought, Environment, Pollution

Earlier this week I mentioned how the trip back from my fishing vacation was somewhat ruined when I heard on the radio that the Times Atlas of the World had wildly exaggerated the amount of ice that had melted off of Greenland. That wasn’t the only thing that bugged me. I also heard some financial news and once again it was trumpeting a rise in housing starts during the past month – as something positive for the “economy”. I did a little reading and found some other articles talking about the housing “problem” here in the U.S. I am flabbergasted that there are by some accounts over 10 million empty and/or for sale homes in the U.S. and we are still building a half million new ones every month!

Now why would I be upset to hear that more houses are being built – that the housing sector might be turning around? I could go through the entire argument again but it would be better if you read this past blog post. The gist of it is that we should start looking to other metrics for judging how good the “economy” is. The main theme throughout the last couple of centuries (particularly here in the U.S.) is build build build! If there is more building, traveling, shipping, flying, and consuming going on then the economy will be “good”. If we aren’t out there paving over more of nature, then the economy is “bad”. I am saying that I have had enough with sprawl. I have had enough with expansion for the economy’s sake. If we want to have a better and cleaner place to live we should start focusing on different metrics to judge the health of the “economy”. We should stop judging our economic well being on growth alone. How about focusing more on quality instead of quantity? We can still enjoy great progress without constantly building more roads, more houses, more box stores, and more parking lots.

So what would be a better metric than housing starts, or GDP, or infrastructure expansion? What about health? If the aggregate health of the population increased every year or lifespans increased every year, wouldn’t that be a sign that things are good – even if we never build another freeway? How about energy efficiency or productivity? If we get more use out of every unit of energy year over year, isn’t that progress – even if we never build another sub-division with cookie-cutter houses? Some people have even suggested happiness. If happiness could be reliably measured and it increased every year, wouldn’t that mean we have a good “economy”?

I am not sure at this time what the exact solution is but I am happy to see that someone agreed with me the last time I wrote on this subject. Thanks for the comment! I am also glad to see more websites that are pushing this issue. Many of them mix leftist politics into the discussion a little too much for my taste but here is one that I recently stumbled across – PostCarbon.org. One of the contributors to that site has written a book called “The End of Growth“. While I don’t agree that we have reached hard limits on how many resources we are able to use (a counter argument to Peak Oil here), I do subscribe to the thought of re-evaluating what is important to a society as an alternative to just building more houses to make things better. Also, to say the there will be no “growth” in the future, is not the best way to frame the issue. Growth can come in many forms and I wouldn’t want to live in a future with no progress.

Sadly, the “jobs” bill coming out of the government right now boils down to building more roads, a tried-n-true but worn out and environmentally disastrous way to put people back to work. Hopefully some dissenting voices will be heard.

Have a good weekend! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Environment, Nature, Peak Oil, Pollution

We apologize to all the blog readers for the recent outage. We haven’t been updating the content for the last 6 days because of some software/technical problems that developed outside of our control. Those nameless faceless IT people in a building far away figured it out and we should be updating the blog more often now.

What happened during the last few days? Not too much in the weather. Even though we did have major heat wave across most of the nation and here in Wisconsin, we did not end up setting any new records in our area, but it was close. The only record I found was a daily record tied in Wisconsin Rapids on the 20th when the high was 96. A record of a different sort was broken in Wausau on the 19th. It was a record precipitation of 1.57 inches. A precipitation record might be the next one to fall as well because today we could see another round of rain and thunderstorms this afternoon in to early evening. We have already received a half inch of rain at the time of this writing and the record precipitation for today is only 1.39 inches (set in 1983). That being said, the highest chance for an additional inch or two of rain this afternoon or evening will be south of Wausau. There is also a slight risk of severe weather, mainly in the form of high winds with any thunderstorms that do form later today.

________________________

Other than the warm and humid Summer weather withless than expected records, one of the more interesting environmental stories from the past week was “carmageddon” in Los Angeles. The highway department in Los Angeles shut down the 405 freeway for one day and everyone was warned to stay off the roads for fear of congestion. It turns out that most everyone did heed the warning. The streets and highways were extremely quiet. It was a revelation. It has gotten Angelenos talking (at least a little) about ways to keep the traffic down a bit - which is a great thing.

I have driven in Los Angeles several times and I write about the problem of sprawl quite often. Most of our environmental pollution is due to the fact that most of American society is built around the autmobile. It was not designed for humans – not directly anyway. Los Angeles and most metropolitan areas in the U.S. are grand monuments to the automobile. Ameliorating the problems due to sprawl has proved quite intractable. I have written about this in the past and I haven’t seen much change in policies. Even here in Wausau, the roads keep expanding. Right now there is construction on County Highway X (Camp Phillips Road) to make it a 4 lane road. I am unsure the reason for the expansion except that the county expected an increase in traffic along the road in coming years so it MUST be expanded now. I haven’t heard if the accident rate has gone up on that stretch of road or that people were complaining about traffic jams. If neither was a problem then perhaps it didn’t need to be expanded. At some point someone has to stand up and say no. To say we aren’t going to pave over another 1,000 acres of land for a new highway – we are going to find a better solution. A similar situation is in the works for the new national guard building in Wausau. Instead of remaining in the city center and using up some old dilpidated space right next to the original National Guard building, they are going to pave over 40 acres of green space at the edge of town. This of course will require an expansion of roads and other services out into the country, while the old space remains unused (most likely).

The problems we face here are miniscule compared to Los Angeles, so maybe I shouldn’t complain to much. It is a shame that Los Angeles is choked in smog and noise pollution because they have great weather and a great location. Imagine what the Pacific looked like before the automobile haze obscured the view.

What if any solutions are there? Conservation ALWAYS helps (intelligent street lighting could cut electricity cost by 80%), but is not the ultimate solution. Seeing as so much of the country is paved over already, the easiest way to clean up the air would be the adoption of electric cars fueled by cleaner energy sources. Bullet trains and other mass transit would be harder because the cost is so much more and people are creatures of habit. We do love our cars.

Have a nice Wednesday! Meteorologist Justin Loew.

Posted under Alternative Energy, Pollution, Records