Tonight’s press conference is not the last stop in President Obama’s speaking tour on the economy.  On Thursday, according to a press release, the President will answer questions Thursday morning in an online town hall.  The project, called “Open for Questions,” is similar to the question solicitations handled online during the recent transition.  It looks like the Administration would like to continue these question periods beyond Thursday’s first effort.

To submit a question, you will need to go online, set up an account (agreeing to the terms of participation), and submit your question.  You may present a question without particpating in the system through an alternative process.

In the spirit of other collaborative web tools, participants may also vote up/vote down other questions submitted, or flag questions as inappropriate.  The only grounds for flagging are violating the terms of participation.  As outlined in that document, questions need to be civil and on topic.  If not, then they can be flagged.  How effective this will be in reducing the slag often found in online comments or the campaigns to win online votes is unclear.  Then again, even traditional press conferences have a few odd questions from professional question-askers.

I’m responding to an off-topic request from one of the comment threads on a recent post.  For the record (and others can ding me if I get this wrong), you can put those kinds of requests into writing after clicking on the Ask link in the right-hand column.

At any rate, the request, paraphrased, asked me about whether or not we would see a 100-mpg car with the same kinds of features that we see in cars today.

I was (and am still) reluctant to answer this for a few reasons.

Ultimately, my answer is I don’t know, but I doubt that’s satisfactory to some.

I’m nowhere near a gearhead/petrolhead, as I never mastered a standard shift, and the bulk of my automotive knowledge comes from a combination of Car Talk, Top Gear and Wired’s Autopia.  While I minimize my driving, and try and maximize fuel efficiency as best I can while driving, I know I have more car than I need.

(more…)

Hi everyone,

No less than 5 students are writing blogs this semester for their Science and Technology Policy graduate class project.  Please check them out and provide some comments on those that interest you!  Thanks, Lisa

The topics and addresses are:

Geoengineering:  http://geoengineering.wordpress.com/

Tracking science policy legislation: http://legislatingforscience09.blogspot.com/

Renewable energy technology and policy:  http://renewablefuture.wordpress.com/

More on energy policy: http://ourenergypolicy.wordpress.com

Tracking Obama’s first 100 days in office:  http://100daysobama.wordpress.com/

From the Bits Blog of The New York Times comes word of a Department of Energy loan guarantee. The Department has tentatively issued a $535 million loan guarantee to Solyndra, Inc. for the company to ramp up production of its photovoltaic systems.   The loan guarantee is intended to cover 75 percent of the project expenses.  The company indicated the loan guarantee would be essential in achieving the economies of scale it needs to make production cost-effective.  Their systems are intended for commercial use and lie flat, rather than at an angle.

No, this isn’t part of the economic recovery plan, and Secretary Chu isn’t trying to usurp Secretary Geithner’s post at Treasury.  While Secretary Chu’s announcement highlights the prospective economic and environmental impacts of the guarantees in language consistent with the Administration, the program actually dates to 2005 – smack dab in the midst of the Bush Administration.  Apparently the Department has struggled for nearly four years to start issuing what might ultimately be $40 billion in loan guarantees.  Better late than never?

A proposal for a Research for America found in Olivia Judson’s blog this week essentially asks this question, just not in so many words.  The idea is to have a corp of undergraduate degree holders available to serve a year or two in labs, before going on to graduate study or other endeavors.  For me this gets to a number of related assumptions behind science and engineering graduate education in the U.S. that need some exploring.

The Profzi Scheme This cartoon from PHD Comics describes the pyramid scheme behind graduate education.  There are two few faculty positions for all of the cheap laborers (graduate students) to rise up in this system.  Combine this with the prevailing myth that asexual reproduction is the only post-degree model for graduate education and you have an odd combination – an underproduction of scientists and engineers, but an overproduction of Ph.Ds.  If bachelors degree holders can function in a lab, then the need for bunches of Ph.D. students is in question.

(more…)

From The Scientist (registration required), we have a few examples of universities trying to increase the accessibility of their research.  There are many positions between a traditional subscription based journal and the open access models like PLoS Science, and they all have a place.  Brief outlines of some of the alternatives after the jump.

(more…)

This is a follow up post, commenting on remarks made in Der Spiegel by Pep Canadell, CSRIO (translation courtesy B. Peiser):

According to Canadell, the global gross national product (GDP) was 2.5 percent last year, despite the onset of the economic crisis. But it was not as strong as in 2007 when global GDP grew by 3.2 percent. Accordingly, the energy consumption of industrialized and emerging countries actually declined in 2008 – and thus also the associated global carbon dioxide emissions. [...]

GCP’s experts are unable to explain the exact reason for this anomaly since they haven’t fully analysed the 2008 data yet. However, Canadell, by its own admission, cannot imagine that greenhouse gas emissions could have accelerated in spite of lower economic growth. The CSIRO-ecologist considers it more likely that natural carbon sinks are showing signs of exhaustion and are losing their ability to soak up emissions. [...]

To evaluate these comments, lets have a look at the relationship of global GDP growth and increasing carbon dioxide concentrations, 1960 to 2006. Carbon dioxide data from NOAA, and GDP from A. Maddison. The GDP data shows how much the global economy expanded in PPP-adjusted dollars, whereas the carbon dioxide shows the increasing in concentration in parts per million.

For 2007 and 2008, carbon dioxide increased by 2.2 and 1.7 ppm respectively, while corresponding GDP growth information is not yet available in the Maddison dataset. However, what should be clear from the historical data is that there is a wide range of concentration increases associated with different economic growth rates. This is to be expected, because not only is there variability in the ocean and land uptake, but there have been dramatic changes in the carbon intensity of energy and energy intensity of the economy have changed over time.

It seems quite premature, and even unjustified, to suggest the exhaustion of natural sinks, when the recent observations do not seem at all out of line with what has been seen previously.

The IMF projects global GDP to decrease this year for the first time in 60 years (below from BBC).

When we eventually learn what happens to global emissions in response to the economic downturn, we will learn something new about the relationship of GDP growth and emissions. In recent years that relationship has strengthened. What will 2009 tell us?

[Update]

Courtesy of Benny Peiser this translation of a Der Spiegel story on this exact subject today:

CO2 emissions increase despite crisis: researchers are puzzled

Contrary to all expectations, the financial and economic crisis does not appear to have slowed down the expected increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The concentration of carbon dioxide during the past year has risen above average, despite the fact that global economic growth was significantly weaker in 2008 than in 2007. These are the provisional results of the Global Carbon Project (GCP), an international research initiative which focuseson the global carbon cycle. Their data for 2008 will be officially published in the summer.

GCP Executive Director Pep Canadell told SPIEGEL ONLINE that the 2008 level of CO2 in the atmosphere had risen by 2.3 ppm, to around 385 ppm. The average increase during the previous nine years had been 2.0 ppm. “That really surprised us because the strong economic downturn began already in 2008,” said Canadell, a biologist in the department of marine and atmospheric research at the Australian government research organization, CSIRO in Canberra.

According to Canadell, the global gross national product (GDP) was 2.5 percent last year, despite the onset of the economic crisis. But it was not as strong as in 2007 when global GDP grew by 3.2 percent. Accordingly, the energy consumption of industrialized and emerging countries actually declined in 2008 – and thus also the associated global carbon dioxide emissions. [...]

GCP’s experts are unable to explain the exact reason for this anomaly since they haven’t fully analysed the 2008 data yet. However, Canadell, by its own admission, cannot imagine that greenhouse gas emissions could have accelerated in spite of lower economic growth. The CSIRO-ecologist considers it more likely that natural carbon sinks are showing signs of exhaustion and are losing their ability to soak up emissions. [...]

Nearly two months after their official nominations, over one month since their confirmation hearing, and almost three months after John Holdren’s name was announced, both Dr. Holdren and Dr. Jane Lubchenco have been confirmed to their positions.  While Dr. Holdren has functioned as the President’s Science Adviser while waiting for confirmation as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Dr. Lubchenco has been in limbo.

While Senator Rockefeller (D-West Virginia) has issued a press release on the confirmation, the Senate website does not have the official record of the vote.  As it took place earlier this evening, it should be available tomorrow.  Congressional Quarterly reports that the confirmations passed by a voice vote, indicating little or no opposition, and no record of individual votes.  So I will not be able to see if my prediction was accurate that Senator Vitter would oppose the nominations.

OK, that question is a joke;-) However, the proposal discussed here by the head of UNEP, Achim Steiner, is notable not just because I share similar views, but also because the fact that is has even been floated suggests a willingness to consider new approaches to climate policy, which would be a good thing. The little that is reported of Steiner’s proposals looks promising. The report is due to be released April 2.