Odograph.com

This makes sense:

I suspect a lot of people will do the math and decide this is a deal they can’t afford. Here’s why: If your old car or truck gets less than 18 m.p.g., you can qualify for a voucher of $3,500-$4,500 toward a new one, but the old one has to go the shredder. (The idea, after all, is to get ’em off the road.)

So the credit is all you get, no trade-in value. (You might be better off with a conventional trade-in.) Even with the credit, you’re going to spend $10,000-$15,000 or more for new wheels. Now, if you’ve been driving an older vehicle because you can’t afford a new one or aren’t sure you’ll have a job next month, are you really ready to take on a car payment? Can you even get credit?

Should I hope the full set of credits won’t go out?

Or, will it just be a windfall for those few rich folks who have an extra truck or SUV moldering behind the barn?

I really can’t believe they are going to pass this stinker:

A group of senators led by California Democrat Dianne Feinstein were pushing an alternative version that would require consumers to trade up for more fuel-efficient cars and trucks to qualify. They complained that even a 2009 Hummer H3T, which gets 14 mpg in city driving and 18 mpg on the highway, could qualify for the incentives under the House bill.

When we have a budget problem we should not be giving $4500 free money to shoppers. We should be kicking the gas tax up a few cents and let that sink in.

One of the arguments I’ve made over the years, one which has annoyed economists no end, has been that catch-to-limit fisheries will always fail. The basic framework of the argument is that while, yes, economists can devise effective rules for fishing given basic knowledge of the fisheries – we don’t actually have that knowledge. We too often fool ourselves into thinking we have the fisheries biology down when there are millions of dollars on the line. Everyone, from the boat captain to the Senator, wants there to be an answer so that someone can get fishing and make some money. On the other hand, there isn’t a real strong constituency for “we don’t really know enough” or “we don’t have the answer.” It’s just a sad flaw in human reasoning that any scientist who says that is shunted off, and a scientist who says “we can catch exactly 1234 tons of cod” is preferred. We foolishly think that a precise answer is an accurate one.

(The second part of the argument is the mathematical intuition that fishing to a limit amplifies errors, and that errors on the “take too many” side are more cumulative than errors on the “take too few” side.)

Anyway, more evidence that not only don’t we know, but that nature can bite us on the butt:

Did the North Atlantic fisheries collapse due to fisheries-induced evolution?

We are becoming more aware that our fishing changes not just the inter-species dynamics, but the species themselves.

[As I wake up a bit, I realize that I should have made clear that by "catch-to-limit" I mean fishing to "maximum sustainable yield." That is sailing too close to the edge. The alternatives are extremely conservative limits, "certain sustainable yield" or going over to rely more on MPAs, Marine Protected Areas. MPAs are better from a black-box perspective. We don't have to know so much about what goes on inside them, just as long as we set them aside and don't mess with them.]

About time. Now let’s kill the ethanol funding.

(I’ve done a number of posts over the years on hydrogen and why it was a wrong-headed non-solution. I was disheartened that the fairly clear science was stonewalled in politics. I wasn’t sure, in fact, that I’d see this day. There is more than a parallel with ethanol and its supposed benefits for energy independence and greenhouse gas mitigation. Killing this one will be harder, the ethanol lobby is bigger than the hydrogen lobby ever was.)

A sad one from Some Assembly Required:

Are We That Stupid? Because we have done nothing yet, now we must prepare for a world 4° C warmer. This used to be the ‘worst case‘ scenario and is now the best we can hope for, accompanied by abrupt and irreversible climate shifts. And new studies show that it is the total amount of CO2 released, not the emission rate nor the atmospheric concentration that is the deciding factor. The longer we wait to Do Something, the quicker we will have to stop burning fossil fuel. Not cut back, stop. No oil, no coal. And, yes, we are exactly that stupid.

I’m afraid so.

From BoingBoing, When the Engineer Gardens:

[...] last week, Baker brought home a copy of The All New Square Foot Gardening guide, a book written by a retired engineer, which manages to make home veggie patches appealing to both my laissez-faire approach to plant life, and Baker’s (who is, himself, an engineer) tendencies towards efficiency-obsession and Maker glee. The book promises to help you grow more, in less space, with less work. OK, I’m game.

I remember Square Foot Gardening from the ’70s, and I have room for that.

This TreeHugger post looked interesting too, though I don’t really have room:

18 Beautiful Edible Landscaping Plants

Treehugger reports:

Experts are saying that if depleted fish stocks in the world’s oceans are to recover, there needs to be a 20-year fishing ban covering 20-40% of the oceans. Not only would that require cooperation of the fishing industry, but it would also mean lots of additional marine protected areas (MPAs).

I’ve been arguing that fishing-to-limit faces too many black swans, and that those MPAs are the only safe course (if we can make them large enough). Defenders of limits, trade-able coupons, etc., point to managed fisheries that haven’t crashed “yet.”

That’s a little like a banker’s Value At Risk that hadn’t been proven wrong, “yet.”

This report from TreeHugger sounds promising:

Professor Jochem believes that a “commercially profitable 80 percent boost in energy efficiency in the industrialized nations” is possible before the end of this century. By combining his theotical and practical expertise, Professor Jochem has proven that hypothesis, making him a particularly effective advocate for energy efficiency. The key contributors to this tremendous goal are described further below.

I’m kind of skeptical that we’ll get at it, here in the US, anytime soon.

Via Treehugger:

The Center for Biological Diversity in Tucson, Arizona has sent out a warning about the unsustainable harvesting of American turtles to feed Asian diners. They’re urging several mid-western and southern states to implement a ban on turtle hunting to help give the numbers time to bounce back.

On the morning of March 26th, on the ‘dry’ Lake Ivanpah, The Ecotricity Greenbird driven by British engineer, Richard Jenkins smashed the world land speed record for wind powered vehicles. The Greenbird clocked 126.1 mph (202.9 km/h) , eclipsing the old, American held, record of 116 mph , set by Bob Schumacher in the Iron Duck in March 1999 at the same location.

Audio and Video here.