According to an article in the Los Angeles Times by eco-sustainability consultant Anthony Rubenstein, if Proposition 10 is passed in California's November ballot California taxpayers will:

Squander at least $9.8 billion in taxpayer money on Pickens' self-serving natural gas agenda.

Mr. Rubenstein admits he is not entirely impartial in this matter, claiming that Proposition 10 is entitled "The California Renewable Energy and Clean Alternative Fuel Act." in order to mislead voters that it is similar to the "California Clean Alternative Energy Act" of 2006 which was sponsored by Mr. Rubenstein himself. However, Proposition 10 is sponsored by Clean Energy Fuels Corp., a natural gas filling station company owned by Mr. Pickens.

Amongst a number of criticisms levelled at the Proposition, possibly the most damning is that:

Most insidiously, Proposition 10's lavish rebates for natural gas-powered cars and trucks could crowd out superior technologies from taking root in California, the largest transportation market in the United States.

Despite all this it seems as if Mr. Rubenstein respects T. Boone Pickens, and maybe even quite likes him. He concludes his article by saying:

I've met Pickens, and I'll vouch for his patriotic intentions to get the U.S. off of foreign oil — but not for funding his interests on the sly with billions of dollars from California's taxpayers. In fact, I'd prefer to believe that he's being ill-served by his lawyers and political consultants, because it's clear that the shortcomings of Proposition 10 could ultimately hurt his energy independence message.

This week's issue of New Scientist includes a special section entitled "7 Reasons Why People Hate Reason", plus a couple of other interesting articles.

I urge you to read the special section in it's entirety. It contains articles by nine distinguished figures – linguist Noam Chomsky, neuroscientist Chris Frith, philosopher A.C. Grayling, philosopher Mary Midgeley, sociologist David Miller, mathematical physicist Roger Penrose, bioethicist Tom Shakespeare, artist Keith Tyson, and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, together with an editorial overview of their contributions that gives the raison d'etre for the articles:

Writing these words in a pavement cafe in Brussels, capital of that rationalist and cosmopolitan project known as the European Union, all seems well with the world. A band is playing. The church at the end of the square is filled with tourists. The passing cyclists look content and healthy. You could experience similar scenes in similar squares in Boston, London, Paris or Tokyo. The streets are calm, the smell of progress towards democratically agreed political, social and cultural goals is in the air. It's hard to see what could be wrong.

Yet it seems that a number of forces are rising up to attack the rationalist thinking that has produced this way of life.

The editorial mentions Al Gore's book "Assault on Reason", in which he argues that propaganda and advertising are a major threat to reason and therefore to democracy, and argues that:

Governments and big corporations have hijacked the language and methods of reason and science in their PR and advertising to subvert the ability of people to judge for themselves – an end directly opposed to the Enlightenment values we supposedly hold dear.

Another unifying theme is:

The concern that science and reason are increasingly seen as providing not just scientific, technical and military fixes, but answers to everything that matters in the world. This alienates people because it leaves no room for morality, art, imperfection and all of the things that make us human. Is it really surprising that so many turn to pseudoscience?

A third theme is that reason has it's own limitations:

Our decisions are based on gut instinct, then justified post hoc – and they are made better when we don't consciously think about them. Individual judgements they have long been categorised as emotional and irrational may actually be beneficial when seen in the context of a group.

The editorial concludes that:

The rationalist world view has been incredibly successful, transforming human life vastly for the better. But one big misunderstanding about the Enlightenment is that it is a finished thing, that all the west needs do is convert the rest of the world to its merits. In contrast, the Enlightenment that Immanuel Kant described in his seminal essay was an ongoing process. Asking what's wrong with reason and seeking to improve it falls squarely within that Enlightenment tradition of trusting our inquiry over received wisdom.

You may be asking yourself what the relevance of all this philosophising is to the debate about climate change and the global food crisis? Here is how Roger Penrose sees it:

Most scientists say that the climate is changing and it's changing for quite clear reasons – because we are pumping in all this carbon dioxide, for one. There's no puzzle, we can see it happening, and we can see why it's happening. But a few don't agree. True, sometimes the small minority turns out to be right. But it doesn't mean you should do what the small minority say. The majority is a majority for good reasons.

To me, Reason is essential for human discourse and all forms of enquiry, whether legal or scientific or mathematical. It is absolutely central. But we have to be reasonable about it.

P.S. The online version of New Scientist only allows subscribers to see the full version of most articles. The links above may only show the first couple of paragraphs if you're not a paid subscriber.

In a podcast by Tammy Haddad for National Journal On Air T. Boone Pickens spoke about his "Pickens Plan" and his ideas to solve the "energy issue". It seems the state of Texas has agreed to a $4.9 billion plan to build new transmission lines into the "wind corridor" where he intends to build enormous wind farms. Mr. Pickens said that:

They're going to build these lines and extend it into the wind area – which is up in the panhandle of Texas – which will be very helpful for us.

In the interview Mr. Pickens revealed that 2 months ago he suggested to President George W. Bush that there should be an "Energy Czar" who should be "given the tools to get the job done". When Tammy asked Mr. Pickens what he made of Al Gore's speech on Thursday he said that:

I know it. I know Al's plan. I talked to him last week, and we talked for over an hour about energy, and I think both of us have the same concerns about the country. Al is not big on natural gas. He wants to go to the electric car, and I think you have to bridge to the electric car, and natural gas is ready to go now. We have an abundance of natural gas — it's cheap, it's clean — so you could put it into the transportation fuel very fast. He doesn't like hydrocarbons, and I know where he comes from; it's global warming that he's focused on, and I'm more focused on the $700 billion figure.

Tammy then asked Mr. Pickens "If Obama wins the election, should Al Gore go in and be the energy czar?" After some hesitation Mr. Pickens replied that:

In that case, I think I would be for Al Gore for energy czar.

Later in the interview Tammy also asked Mr. Pickens "Wait a minute, though, because part of the food crisis is being blamed on the fact that so much of corn is going towards ethanol". Mr. Pickens replied:

OK, don't do it then. I'd rather eat than drive my car.

The full transcript of the interview is available on NationalJournal.com

In a speech at Constitution Hall in Washington yesterday former Vice President Al Gore put forward his new vision of how the climate change crisis has deteriorated to the point that:

The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk. And even more – if more should be required – the future of human civilization is at stake.

Never one for understatement, Mr. Gore went on to say that:

I don’t remember a time in our country when so many things seemed to be going so wrong simultaneously. Our economy is in terrible shape and getting worse, gasoline prices are increasing dramatically, and so are electricity rates. Jobs are being outsourced. Home mortgages are in trouble. Banks, automobile companies and other institutions we depend upon are under growing pressure. Distinguished senior business leaders are telling us that this is just the beginning unless we find the courage to make some major changes quickly.

I see my role as enlarging the political space in which Senator Obama or Senator McCain can confront this issue as president next year.

As Mr. Gore sees it the solution to these apparently overwhelming problems is to move from fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy as quickly as possible. He lays out what most commentators view as a ridiculously ambitious target:

Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen.

As reported by the New York Times Barack Obama commented on Al Gore's speech that:

For decades, Al Gore has challenged the skeptics in Washington on climate change and awakened the conscience of a nation to the urgency of this threat. I strongly agree with Vice President Gore that we cannot drill our way to energy independence, but must fast-track investments in renewable sources of energy like solar power, wind power and advanced biofuels, and those are the investments I will make as president.

On behalf of John McCain, Tucker Bounds said:

John McCain has been a leader in the fight against global climate change, working with Democrats on this issue since 2003, but no one has more successfully recruited Americans into this effort than Al Gore. This is a key issue, and John McCain has put solutions over partisanship to pursue meaningful, market-driven cap and trade legislation aimed at drastically reducing harmful carbon emissions.

Whilst the US Presidential candidates slug it out over who has the better environmental credentials, you may be wondering what you can do about this issue, apart from wondering about which one to vote for if you live in the United States.

Here at econnexus we have a suggestion. Start wondering about your personal energy consumption, and in particular your personal energy efficiency. Energy efficiency didn't get much of a mention in Al Gore's speech, but he did say that:

Billions of dollars of new investment are flowing into the development of concentrated solar thermal, photovoltaics, windmills, geothermal plants, and a variety of ingenious new ways to improve our efficiency and conserve presently wasted energy.

We need to greatly improve our commitment to efficiency and conservation. That’s the best investment we can make.

Here at econnexus we agree with Mr. Gore that improving energy efficiency and conserving presently wasted energy is a really good idea. If everyone did what they could in this regard Al Gore's challenge would soon seem much less insurmountable.

Here's a video of Al Gore's complete speech:

The bit about energy efficiency is at around 18 minutes 30 seconds.

Pope Benedict XVI arrived in Australia on Sunday after a flight from the Vatican that lasted over 20 hours. Having rested for three days he gave his first public address at the World Youth Day festival in Sydney earlier today. According to UK newspaper the Daily Telegraph, Pope Benedict used his speech to urge the 150,000 pilgrims gathered around Sydney harbour, and Catholics around the world, to work harder to protect the planet:

Perhaps reluctantly, we come to acknowledge that there are scars which mark the surface of our earth – erosion, deforestation, the squandering of the world's mineral and ocean resources in order to fuel an insatiable consumption.

In a strong attack on consumerism the Pope criticised the internet and television for using violence and sexual exploitation as entertainment. He said that nonviolence, sustainable development, justice and care for the environment were of vital importance for humanity.

Critics immediately pointed to what they describe as "the hypocrisy" of the Pope's views on contraception and abortion, and the impact of the World's increasing population on climate change.

Nonetheless there seems currently to be a remarkable consensus across the political spectrum and from both ends of the moral spectrum that something needs to be done about "protecting the planet" or "embracing alternative energy".

Unfortunately despite all the speeches and learned reports there still seems to be no such consensus about precisely what should done. The G8 leaders said in Hokkaido that:

We reaffirm our commitment to take strong leadership in combating climate change and in this respect, welcome decisions taken in Bali as the foundation for reaching a global agreement in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) process by 2009. We are committed to its successful conclusion.

Fine words. Now let's see some action.

This weeks European edition of Fortune Magazine contains interesting articles on the "Solar Gold Rush" in the Southwestern United States and the chequered history of the Tesla electric supercar.

Even more interesting, to me at least, was the fact that included inside the see through wrapping was a copy of "The Mini Rough Guide to Energy and our Planet", sponsored by big oil company Shell. The foreword is written by Jeremy Bentham, who used to be head of hydrogen at Shell, but now bears the title of "Chief Scenarios Developer". Jeremy outlines two possible scenarios Shell use in their strategic planning. In the first, codenamed "Scramble":

Nations secure energy resources for themselves. Policymakers pay little attention to curbing energy use, until supplies run short, and greenhouse gas emissions are not seriously addressed until there are major climate shocks

The second scenario is codenamed "Blueprints", in which:

Growing local actions lead to cross-border cooperation to address the challenges of economic development, energy security, and environmental pollution.

Shell have even made a video in which Jeremy goes into more detail on these scenarios. Check it out on the Shell Dialogues website. His conclusion (in brief!)

Tackling these three hard truths TOGETHER is essential for a sustainable future. The next five years are critical.

Assuming that you're like me, and you prefer "Blueprints" to "Scramble" what can you personally do to make this scenario more likely to happen?

The Mini Rough Guide to Energy comes to the rescue. On page 75 it says:

Becoming more energy efficient – as opposed to merely producing more energy – is clearly the most cost effective single step. An increase in energy efficiency means we can get more – more development, more energy services – without needing more energy.

It just so happens that the United Nations Foundation agrees. The foundation was set up by Ted Turner, founder of CNN. Although the foundation is not actually part of the United Nations itself, the UN does help decide how the money raised is spent. Last year they produced a report entitled "Realizing the Potential of Energy Efficiency". Two of the key conclusions of this report are:

The report recommends that world governments exploit energy efficiency as the energy resource of first choice because it is the least expensive and most readily scalable energy resource option that fuels sustainable global economic growth, enhances national security, and does not further damage the climate system.

This report calls for the G8 nations to commit to double the global rate of energy efficiency improvement to 2.5 percent per year, provides a menu of proven policy options to help guide and inform national strategies, and suggests a framework for cooperation and action within the G8+5 and beyond.

As recent events at the G8 have shown Ken Livingstone seems to have hit the nail on the head, on this issue at least, when he proclaimed "If voting changed anything they'd abolish it!". Whilst we wait for our elected leaders to get around to implementing these recommendations another media mogul, sponsor of another Rough Guide, comes to our assistance with tips on how to increase your personal energy efficiency. You can download "The Rough Guide to Saving Energy" from the econnexus web site. In this case the foreword is written by James Murdoch, son of Rupert and newly anointed chairman and chief executive of News International in Europe and Asia.

Yesterday afternoon United States President George W. Bush lifted the executive ban on drilling for oil on the Outer Continental Shelf, which was signed by the first President Bush in 1990. Here's the video:

The President said that:

Failure to act is unacceptable. It's unacceptable to me and it's unacceptable to the American people. So today, I've issued a memorandum to lift the executive prohibition on oil exploration in the OCS. With this action, the executive branch's restrictions on this exploration have been cleared away. This means that the only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress

Obviously I'm missing something here, because I got the distinct impression that last week it was the G8 leaders, George W. Bush included, that failed to act. That is unacceptable to me. What about you?

As you might expect, the idea of oil rigs off their coast is unacceptable to California Democrats. Slightly more surprisingly, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has reiterated his opposition to such plans. According to KNBC Los Angeles Arnie says that:

I know people are frustrated with the soaring price of gas, and I welcome the national debate on solutions to lower our energy costs, but in California we know offshore drilling is not the answer. We will continue to foster a market for alternative energies because choice is the only way we will ultimately bring down fuel costs.

Here's a video from a couple of days ago in which Arnie tells us his views on the Bush administration's record on global warming:

Democrats are pushing a different agenda. The Wall Street Journal MarketWatch web site reports that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid expects "his congressional colleagues to introduce a bipartisan bill targeting oil speculators by Wednesday"

Echoing Barack Obama's comments after the OPEC meeting last month, Mr. Reid said that:

We need to crack down on excessive speculation

I wonder what the Democrats make of the Pickens Plan, and the fact that T. Boone Pickens runs an energy hedge fund eponymously entitled BP Capital?

This week's issue of the Economist magazine contains their verdict on the G8 summit in Japan – They came, they jawed, they failed to conquer.

On the positive side the Japanese hosts managed to get most of the world's greenhouse-gas emitters around a table together. The attendees included the G8, plus the so called G5 which consists of Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa. Also present were Australia, Indonesia and South Korea.

In the view of the Economist the greatest challenges facing the world today are what they refer to as "The three Fs – food, fuel and the financial credit crunch. The response of the world leaders to these challenges? A new form of words!

Last year in Heiligendamm German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

Overcame the reluctance of George Bush and got the G8 to promise to “consider seriously” cutting greenhouse emissions by at least half by 2050

Since then the price of oil and food staples has doubled. Ms. Merkel and the Japanese hosts hail a new form of words as "the summit’s biggest victory":

This time the G8 vowed to “consider and adopt” such cuts. In effect, Mr Bush has at last committed America to a quantifiable target. With just 200-odd days of his presidency to run, this may be his final input to the climate-change debate; some would call it his only contribution.

Now the debate can at last move on to consider the baseline from which these cuts are supposed to occur:

The European Union wants them to begin from 1990, while Japan (which unilaterally says it will aim for a 60-80% cut in emissions) thinks it more realistic to start from 2005 or perhaps this year. America hardly has an opinion.

Texas oil billionaire T. Boone Pickens announced yesterday that he intends to spend $58 million of his own money on a multimedia advertising campaign promoting alternative energy as a way of reducing United States imports of foreign oil by at least a third over the next ten years. The "Pickens Plan" will include a significant online presence, including Facebook and YouTube, as well as more traditional radio, television and newspaper advertisements. Here's the video from the Plan home page:

As reported by CNN Pickens believes that:

Our dependence on imported oil is killing our economy. It is the single biggest problem facing America today. Wind power is … clean, it's renewable. It's everything you want. And it's a stable supply of energy. It's unbelievable that we have not done more with wind.

Pickens is investing in a whole lot more than just an advertisising campaign too. He thinks that wind turbines built in the "wind corridor" stretching from the Canadian border to West Texas, could supply over 20 percent or more of the United States energy needs. Putting his money where his mouth is, Pickens' company Mesa Power recently announced a $2 billion investment as the first step in a multibillion-dollar plan to build the world's largest wind farm in Pampa, Texas.

Power from such farms would free up natural gas used in conventional power stations which could then be used to power motor vehicles. According to Pickens:

Using natural gas for transportation needs could replace one-third of the United States' imported oil and would save more than $230 billion a year. We are going to have to do something different in America, you can't keep paying out $600 billion a year for oil.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown recently commissioned a survey from Professor Ed Gallagher, former chief of the Environment Agency and now head of the Renewable Fuels Agency. Prof. Gallagher was asked to investigate the effect of biofuels on food prices and on the environment in general.

The Guardian recorded a podcast on the Gallagher report before it was released, which gives a useful overview of the issues involved:

The report has now been published, and concludes amongst other things :

That there is a future for a sustainable biofuels industry but that feedstock production must avoid agricultural land that would otherwise be used for food production. This is because the displacement of existing agricultural production, due to biofuel demand, is accelerating land-use change and, if left unchecked, will reduce biodiversity and may even cause greenhouse gas emissions rather than savings. The introduction of biofuels should be significantly slowed until adequate controls to address displacement effects are implemented and are demonstrated to be effective.

And that:

Increasing demand for biofuels contributes to rising prices for some commodities, notably for oil seeds, but that the scale of their effects is complex and uncertain to model. In the longer term higher prices will have a net small but detrimental effect on the poor that may be significant in specific locations. Shorter-term effects on the poor are likely to be significantly greater and require interventions by governments to alleviate effects upon the most vulnerable.

It seems Mr. Brown intends to pass this message on to other World leaders. According to the Financial Times:

When Gordon Brown meets his fellow Group of Eight leaders in Japan, he can tell them he is taking action to slow the growth of biofuels production. But the problem with a slowdown in biofuels is that it raises the question of what else the world is going to run its cars on. The answers are not reassuring.

“Second-generation” biofuels, made from plant waste such as straw, or from crops that do not compete with food production such as algae, are the great hope for the future. In spite of huge interest and growth in investment, second generation biofuels have yet to pay-off commercially