Via Joe Romm, I see that our nation’s competitive disadvantage in clean energy investment is getting even more…disadvantageous.

Each year, Pew does a report to survey this booming global industry. Last year, the report (covering developments in 2009) found that we’d slipped behind China, “the world’s clean energy “superpower–but this year, the report (covering developments in 2010) finds that we’re now also behind Germany, which is racing ahead in rooftop solar installations.

Overall, China saw $ 54.4 billion in clean energy investment in 2010, Germany saw $ 41.2 billion in investment, and the U.S. saw $ 34 billion. Our unfavorable political and policy environment, of course, is a key factor in driving this outcome.

Andrew Revkin‘s posted this amazing “explainer” for kids on what’s happening at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in Japan:

Noticed via @lilliloquy on Twitter (and her blog): “Unique way to explain the situation in Fukushima..” She’s not kidding. The English translation of the animation includes: “Everyone jumped as Nuclear Boy let out a big bang… Did he just poo?? We measured the stinky level around Nuclear Boy…”

(Subbed) Nuclear Boy うんち・おならで例える原発解説 (by GenkiRadio)

What do readers think?

I’ve been thinking a great deal about nuclear energy lately in preparation for last week’s Energy at the Movies event at UT. We included clips from 1979′s The China Syndrome followed by real news reports immediately following the Three Mile Island accident–which took place just 12 days after the film premiered. Some energy experts believe that movie contributed to halting nuclear development in the U.S.

Thirty-two years have passed, so I became interested in whether attitudes on nuclear energy may have changed. A few days before the earthquake, I conducted this poll via facebook and twitter:

Within hours, I had 71 response: 63 yes, 2 no, and 6 undecided. How do you think the same question would fare now?

It’s too soon to speculate how U.S. energy policy will be influenced by the weekend’s tragic events in Japan, but regardless of advances in technology and safety measures, public sentiment will likely play a tremendous role in what happens next.

One of the most inspiring events I’ve attended in past years was the 2010 Clinton Global Initiative meeting. It’s a unique environment where heads of state, government and business leaders, scholars, and NGO directors come together “to analyze pressing global challenges, discuss the most effective solutions, and build lasting partnerships that enable them to create positive social change.” Members at last years meeting made close to 300 new commitments on issues involving economic empowerment, energy and the environment, education, global health, and more. Since launching CGI, they have put $63 billion toward improving nearly 300 million lives in over 170 countries. In other words, CGI demonstrates that we are truly becoming a global community.

Today President Clinton announced the Fourth Annual Clinton Global Initiative University Meeting, which will take place at the UC San Diego from April 1-3. Approximately 1,000 students will come together from all over the world to meet with non-profit leaders, entrepreneurs, and celebrities engaged in efforts to create positive change. Each student will make a Commitment to Action – a detailed plan for improving lives within one of CGI U’s focus areas: education, environment & climate change, peace & human rights, poverty alleviation, and public health. Since 2008, this university event has brought together more than 2,500 students from 575 schools in 99 countries.  As Clinton explains:

“Their work has improved the lives of thousands of people around the world. I am looking forward to convening the next generation of global leaders once again, so they can learn from each other and gain practical skills that will help them turn their ideas into real change.”

What comes out of CGI U? (more…)

My latest DeSmogBlog item is about an upcoming hearing before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Energy and Power, entitled “Climate Science and EPA’s Greenhouse Gas Regulations.” What’s strange is that previously, the committee (or at least its GOP majority) had appeared to have its mind all made up about climate science–namely, it’s just plain bunk.

Now, though, we’re actually going to hear from a lot of scientists, albeit including several “skeptics”–which is certainly an improvement, but still a mixed blessing:

My view is that it’s certainly better to hear from scientists than not to hear from them—but “science fight” hearings are rarely very enlightening. Some members of the media, the Congress, and the public are able to parse the flurry of claims and counterclaims. But most walk away with the impression that there’s a big “debate” and a lot of “uncertainty.”

You can read the full  post here.

So, I really, really, really disagreed with this Judith Warner piece in the New York Times magazine over the weekend, drawing an analogy between left wing postmodern attacks on science and present day right wing climate science denial. I’ve just done a lengthy rebuttal at DeSmogBlog, showing that if anything, climate deniers are clueless about science studies and its insights; if they weren’t, they wouldn’t be able to take the positions they do. Brief quote:

…the idea that science is the embodiment of “truth” is something with which climate deniers blithely agree. They think that they are right and that the scientific consensus about global warming is wrong–objectively. They’re not out there questioning whether science is the best way of getting at the truth; they’re out there talking as though their scientists know the truth.

Can you picture James Inhofe citing Derrida or Foucault? The very idea is comical.

Frankly, if climate deniers were more conversant with science studies, I have to believe that they would feel a lot less sure of themselves—and they would never have been able to make such a big fuss about “ClimateGate.” “ClimateGate” is the quintessential example of scientists showing, through their private emails, that they’re people too; that they have passions and feelings, that they say things they shouldn’t and make mistakes. No shock at all to people in “science studies,” who can tell you the same thing about, say, the private writings of Isaac Newton.

You can read the full DeSmogBlog piece here.

I just watched this video of Cornell University engineering prof Anthony Ingraffea giving a lecture on fracking–a long, long lecture. But it’s tremendously informative, gives more perspective than I’ve found anywhere else, and I would recommend it to anyone who wants to know more about the issue:

Did I say this issue was heating up, or what?

A series on the environmental risks of fracking has just begun in the Times; the first installment is here. It focuses on a less discussed issue than flammable tap water–so central to Gasland–although one wonders if a piece on that topic is still forthcoming from the Times.

In any case, the current article is about wastewater from the fracking process, which apparently contains lots of radioactive material and is being sent to water treatment plants which (the piece claims) can’t handle that material, or adequately remove it before it ends up in waterways.

If what the Times says is true, this is the sort of expose that is going to cause an uproar. The central paragraphs from the piece:

With hydrofracking, a well can produce over a million gallons of wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium, all of which can occur naturally thousands of feet underground. Other carcinogenic materials can be added to the wastewater by the chemicals used in the hydrofracking itself.

While the existence of the toxic wastes has been reported, thousands of internal documents obtained by The New York Times from the Environmental Protection Agency, state regulators and drillers show that the dangers to the environment and health are greater than previously understood.

The documents reveal that the wastewater, which is sometimes hauled to sewage plants not designed to treat it and then discharged into rivers that supply drinking water, contains radioactivity at levels higher than previously known, and far higher than the level that federal regulators say is safe for these treatment plants to handle. (more…)

In the past half decade or more, I’ve covered a lot of science fights–related to vaccines, the environment, evolution, reproductive health, and many other topics. They all have a lot of parallels, things in common. One of thoses is that, at a certain point, due to political or cultural rather than scientific events, they tend to escalate.

At that point, like an intensification of artillery fire, the “scientific” claims really start flying fast and furious.

Right now, that’s happening with the issue of “fracking,” or hydraulic fracturing. The precipitating event is clear: Josh Fox’s documentary Gasland, which is up for an Oscar tomorrow night.

As the film has risen in prominence, there have been a bevy of scientific counterclaims to it from industry, and scientific counter-counterclaims to those from Fox.

One central issue: Can all the complaints being made by homeowners living near drilling sites, that suddenly they have contaminated water (which sometimes even catches on fire), be explained away somehow? Can these occurrences be natural? Coincidental? Or does this anecdotal evidence already count as something stronger–even if it is pretty hard to document in many cases precisely what is in the water, or to prove that industry is responsible for it being there?

It seems to me that what’s missing, amid this furious science squabbling, is an attempt to step back and put it all in context so that one can judge where the burden of proof lies, how much we can reasonably believe at the current point in time, and how much th e remaining uncertainty cuts in critics’ favor, rather than industry’s. Huh. Maybe we have to wait for the EPA to release its comprehensive study on fracking and drinking water contamination–expected in 2014, if the agency still has a budget by then. Or, maybe we don’t.

What do readers think?

Reuters reports there are normally more than 14,000 earthquakes a year in New Zealand, of which ~20 are over 5.0 in magnitude. The country sits between the Pacific and Indo-Australian tectonic plates where there has been a great deal of activity in recent months–most notably on September 4 when a 7.1-magnitude quake struck.

Now a 6.3 magnitude quake shook Christchurch just before 1 p.m. Tuesday, followed by a 5.6-magnitude aftershock. Our thoughts are with the residents there as a large-scale evacuation is now under way. Details at CNN…