Month: April 2017

Green Energy Poverty: Are Low Income Americans Impoverished by Alternative Energy?

Green Energy Poverty: Are Low Income Americans Impoverished by Alternative Energy?

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

Sunday is Earth Day. While environmentalist groups are planning marches to support renewable energy development, several groups are pushing back by declaring April 17-21 Green Energy Poverty Week. Their goal is to highlight the effects that green energy policies have on low income households.

The term green energy poverty is a variation on global energy poverty, a term that refers to areas of the world without access to electricity. Green energy poverty is defined as a household in which 10% or more of the residents’ income is spent on household energy costs (excluding gasoline and other transportation-related costs).

Increased energy prices have a particularly pronounced effect on low income families, for whom energy costs comprise a higher percentage of household income. Energy use is not necessarily proportional to income. In fact, lower income families spend three times more on energy than higher income households.

“Lower-income households fall into something we and others call ‘energy poverty,’ which is typically recognized as when someone spends just under about 10 percent of their income on energy-related expenses,” says DeAndrea Newman Salvador, founder of The Renewable Energy Transition Initiative. “Compared to a middle-to-upper-income household that may spend 5 percent or less, as low as 1 percent, what I found in North Carolina is that a lower-income family can spend greater than 20 percent.”

Although states use a variety of different methods of electricity generation, this trend is consistent across the country.

Analysis of energy consumption survey data and energy price data from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Energy Information Administration found that in Mississippi, households with pre-tax annual incomes of less than $50,000 “spend an estimated average of 18% of their after-tax income on residential and transportation energy.” This represents 59 percent of Mississippi families. For households in the lowest income bracket, those earning less than $30,000 annually, spend nearly a quarter of their after-tax incomes on energy.

In some parts of the country, low income families spend half of their income on energy. This is the case for much of Maine and the Dakotas.

These statistics reflect the reality that low income people often live in less energy-efficient homes, meaning that although their overall energy bills may be less than those of middle-income families, they pay more per square foot.

“Lower incomes, less efficient housing, and limited access to energy efficiency programs can explain the higher energy burdens faced by these groups,” write Ariel Drehobl and Lauren Ross of the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. “We found that even though these families paid less overall on energy bills, they paid more per square foot, which indicates the relative inefficiency of their homes.”

According to a 2009 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, the tax burden of green policies would be three times more expensive for low income households than for middle income ones. This reflects the reality that higher electricity prices raise the prices of many other goods and services. Consumers end up paying for more expensive electricity in the form of higher prices.

Energy prices also affect jobs and economic growth. A study from the Institute on Energy Research found that a 10 to 25 percent increase in energy costs could result in millions of lost jobs, particularly in rural America. The study predicted that “from 2020 to 2040, cumulative job losses in the U.S. [would] range from 18.5 million to 31.3 million and national GDP cumulatively declines by $2.8 trillion to $5.4 trillion.”

On the whole, green energy is more expensive than electricity generated through fossil fuels and legislation mandated increased use of wind and solar only exacerbates green energy poverty.

The high costs of green energy are most evident in areas which used legislation to force expensive green energy on consumers. In Britain, customers saw a 15 percent hike in electricity rates this spring. The utility company, Npower, blamed the increase on green energy mandates and renewables obligations. (Britain has set a goal of getting 15 percent of its electricity from renewable energy by 2020. Despite the costs to consumers and industry, it is not presently on track to meet the goal.) In California, where state law requires increased use of renewable energy sources, electricity rates are 40 percent higher than the national average.

A report from the Manhattan Institute went as far as to call California’s green energy policies “a regressive energy tax,” with proportionately higher costs in counties with lower incomes, but higher summer electricity consumption.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

April 20, 2017 at 06:00AM

New Research: Medieval Warm Period Was As Warm As Today

New Research: Medieval Warm Period Was As Warm As Today

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)
http://www.thegwpf.com

New research papers suggest Northern hemisphere temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were as warm as recent decades.


Abrantes et al., 2017 


Otto and Roberts, 2016


Other NH Reconstructions Indicate Pre-Industrial Temps Were Highly Variable, 1940s As Warm As 2000s


Schneider et al., 2015


Stoffel et al., 2015


New Paper: Models Need ‘Forcing’ Adjustment…Underestimate Past Warmth, Internal Variability…Instrumental Record ‘Biased’


Büntgen et al., 2017

Spanning the period 1186-2014 CE, the new reconstruction reveals overall warmer conditions around 1200 and 1400, and again after ~1850. The coldest reconstructed summer in 1258 (-4.4°C wrt 1961-1990) followed the largest known volcanic eruption of the CE. The 20th century is characterized by pronounced summer cooling in the 1970s, subsequently rising temperatures until 2003, and a slowdown of warming afterwards. Little agreement is found with climate model simulations that consistently overestimate recent summer warming and underestimate pre-industrial temperature changes.

[W]hen it comes to disentangling natural variability from anthropogenically affected variability the vast majority of the instrumental record may be biased. … Although the causes of the recently measured slowdown in global and regional warming during the last decade are still debated (Karl et al. 2015; Fyfe et al. 2016), our study provides the first long-term proxy evidence for this temperature decline over the western Mediterranean basin. This finding is in line with local, regional and sub-continental meteorological observations, and consistent with the observations by Gleisner et al. (2015) that the post-2003 pause in rising mean surface temperatures is most strongly expressed at mid-latitudes.

The reconstructed long-term variability exceeds the pre-industrial multi-decadal to centennial variability in four state-of-the-art climate model simulations.

Full post

via The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) http://www.thegwpf.com

April 20, 2017 at 05:53AM

New genetics paper is not about whether climate change causes polar bear hybrids

New genetics paper is not about whether climate change causes polar bear hybrids

via polarbearscience
http://ift.tt/1oHvY57

A new paper on the evolutionary history of bears (Bears breed across species borders: Kumar et al. 2017) has concluded that hybridization is common and natural among all species of ursids. And while some media outlets (e.g. DailyMail) have framed this as surprisingly convincing proof that experts were wrong to claim that climate change is the cause of recent polar bear X grizzly hybrids, definitive evidence against that interpretation has been available for years to anyone who bothered to look: see my recent “Five facts that challenge hybridization nonsense.”

This genetic evidence is just a cherry on top of the rest but will help get the paper the media attention the authors crave.

Polar bear X grizzly hybrids were known long before climate change and sea ice decline became an issue. See also previous posts here, here, and here. In fact, as I’ve pointed out, “most polar bear hybrids said to exist have not been confirmed by DNA testing” (including virtually all of the bears specialist Andrew Derocher claimed were hybrids, including the latest one from 2016 that prompted such gems as “Love in the time of climate change”).

pizzly_andrewderocher_300dpi_2017 paper

A polar bear X grizzly hybrid, see Kumar et al. 2017. Photo by A. Derocher.

In my opinion, the most important conclusion of this paper is that occasional but widespread hybridization among bears is why it has been so hard to say with confidence when polar bears arose (which I addressed years ago, in my Polar bear evolution series: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3). You cannot use traditional methods of pinpointing the timing of speciation events from genetic data if one or more of the species have hybridized (traded genes). See the long, fuzzy “divergence times” for bears in the image below from the Kumar paper.

Kumar et al 2017 hybridization in bear evolution_fig 5

From Kumar et al. 2017, Fig. 5: “The scale bar shows divergence times in million years and 95% confidence intervals for divergence times [speciation events] are shown as shadings.”

From the Kumar et al. 2017 abstract (my bold):

“Strong ancestral gene flow between the Asiatic black bear and the ancestor to polar, brown and American black bear explains uncertainties in reconstructing the bear phylogeny. Gene flow across the bear clade may be mediated by intermediate species such as the geographically wide-spread brown bears leading to large amounts of phylogenetic conflict.

Evidence for extensive inter-specific gene flow, found also in other animal species, necessitates shifting the attention from speciation processes achieving genome-wide reproductive isolation to the selective processes that maintain species divergence in the face of gene flow.”

In other words, a species of bear (or any other organism) is the totality of the physical form, behaviour, physiology, and life history traits that make it a unique entity.

A few instances of hybridization that produce fertile offspring does not negate the unique species status of any animal (see discussion here).

All of the species of bears tested by Kumar and colleagues (see their Figure 4 below) are unique entities and true species.

Kumar et al 2017 hybridization in bear evolution_fig 4

See related post: “Paleoclimate + genetic study confirms: Arctic species adapted to sea ice changes” 9 January 2016.

References

Kumar, V., Lammers, F., Bidon, T., Pfenninger, M., Kolter, L., Nilsson, M.A., and Janke, A. 2017. The evolutionary history of bears is characterized by gene flow across species. Scientific Reports 7: 46487 Open Access DOI: 10.1038/srep46487  http://ift.tt/2pHSK0J

via polarbearscience http://ift.tt/1oHvY57

April 20, 2017 at 05:12AM

The “March for Science”–No Laughing Matter? Says Who?

The “March for Science”–No Laughing Matter? Says Who?

via Watts Up With That?
http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

The “March for Science”–No Laughing Matter? Says Who?

Some cheesy jokes about this Saturday’s March


By Sam Kazman

Back in February, Yale Computer Science Professor David Gelernter, who may become the next White House science advisor, had this to say about the upcoming March for Science and its organizers: “It’s like this is some sort of Looney Tunes thing. I must be trapped in an alternate reality. They couldn’t possibly be serious.”

But with science marches now scheduled in many cities for this Saturday, timed to coincide with Earth Day, the organizers obviously are serious. Too serious, in our view. Using street protests to handle scientific controversies like climate change is only a few steps above using animal sacrifice.

At times like this, we need some perspective. And we need some cheesy science march jokes.

1. Why did the marcher walk straight into a tree even though he clearly saw it?
Because he refused to let an empirical observation get in his way.
2. Why did hundreds of marchers kiss the feet of one woman?
Because she was a model.
3. Why were so many of the marchers in tears?
Because they were far too sensitive.
4. Why did several hundred science marchers bump into each other at a red light?
Because they refused to recognize that the march had paused.
5. What percentage of the marchers had kale for lunch?
97%.
6. What did the Mexican food vendor say when the marchers complained about his salsa?
“I don’t change my recipes; the salsa is settled.”

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

April 20, 2017 at 04:00AM