Apple Crop Destroyed. 90 Percent loss in Michigan, Ontario due to Bizarre Spring. Deniers: “More Co2 Needed”.
June 30, 2012
LANSING — Michigan’s apple crop will be about 90% smaller than usual this year because of spring weather damage.
The Michigan Apple Committee said Thursday that growers, shippers and other industry insiders predict about 3 million bushels will be harvested. In a typical year, the state produces 20 million to 23 million bushels, pumping up to $900 million into the economy.
The committee says it’s the biggest apple crop loss since the 1940s.
Apple trees bloomed early because of an extraordinary heat wave in March. Then came a series of frosts and freezes that killed most of the blossoms. Some areas suffered more than others.
Gov. Rick Snyder has requested federal disaster assistance for Michigan’s fruit growers. The Legislature has passed a bill offering low-interest loans for farmers with ruined crops.
It’s worse than feared for apple farmers in Ontario.
Ontario Apple Growers association chair Brian Gilroy says that it looks like Ontario apple farmers have lost about 88 per cent of their crop this year.
“It’s devastating,” said Gilroy. “The estimates that we gave of there being 20 per cent of the crop left is probably optimistic. We’re looking at probably 12 per cent.”
Warm weather in February and March led to early blossoms that were, in April, burned by frost. A killer blow.
The Ontario Apple Growers surveyed apple farmers in the province. Of more than 220 farmers, only 37 reported back, but the numbers don’t look good.
“On my farm, there’s hardly a McIntosh there,” said Gilroy. ”There’s a large Spy block. You’ll walk by four or five apple trees without seeing anything. The real conundrum is what to do with such a spotty crop as that.”
Gilroy estimated that on his farm, a tree that might normally produce 12 to 15 bushels will only produce one this season.
That also means fewer people needed to pick apples. Gilroy said the damage this season could mean 600 fewer jobs in the Georgian Bay area alone where he farms apples.
Brenda Fletcher of Fletcher Fruit Farm in Binbrook said of the 23 varieties she usually sells, only four or five will produce enough to make it to the market.
Once she gets to the market on Ottawa Street, she’s not sure how long she can stay.
“We may lose our market for the winter,” Fletcher said. “We’re hoping to let our customers know we will be back next year. It was just the weather.”
June 30, 2012
Jerry Mitrovica of Harvard discusses some of the counter-intuitive details of sea level metrics.
June 29, 2012
The irrational exuberance around natural gas has been a cause for unsupportable predictions of 100 year supplies and energy revolutions in the US and elsewhere. Some folks have been concerned that natural gas will crowd out renewables in the future.
More and more evidence suggests that these ideas are not panning out – sobering if this information is even half right. I ran this by a few pretty smart and well informed people, who tell me it’s for the most part realistic
..North America is collectively dreaming with regard to unconventional natural gas. While gas is undeniably there, the Energy Returned On Energy Invested (EROEI) is dramatically lower than for conventional supplies. The critical nature of EROEI has been widely ignored, but will ultimately determine what is and is not an energy source, and shale gas is going to fail the test.
As we pointed out in Get Ready for the North American Gas Shock in July 2011, the natural gas situation is not what it seems at all:
The shale gas bubble is a perfect example of the irrationality of markets, the power of perverse short-term incentives, the driving force of momentum-chasing, the dominance of perception over reality in determining prices, and the determination for a herd to stampede over a cliff all at once.
The perception of a gas glut has driven prices so low that none of the participants are making money (at least not by producing gas) or creating value. We see a familiar story of excessive debt, and the hollowing out of productive companies dead set on pursuing a mirage.
Many industry insiders know perfectly well that the prospects for recovering substantial amounts of gas are poor, and that the industry is structured as a ponzi scheme. Still, there has been money to be made in the short term by flipping land leases and building infrastructure to handle gas.
The hype is so extreme that those who fall for it contemplate, in all seriousness, North America becoming a natural gas exporting powerhouse, and a threat to Australian LNG producers, or to Russia’s Gazprom.
This concept, constructed from a mixture of greed and desperation (at the lack of conventional gas prospects), is entirely divorced from reality. (See here for Dimitri Orlovs excellent piece on why Gazprom has nothing to worry about.)
Nevertheless, euphoric hype is extremely catching. Given that prices are driven by perception, not by reality, hype has the power to change the dynamics of an industry, exaggerating boom and bust cycles in practice. The hype has resulted in the perception of glut – that North America is drowning in natural gas. The inconvenient fact that this peception is completely wrong does not alter its power in relation to prices.
June 28, 2012
Ah, FOX News and GOP politicians at the federal level will harp on clean energy subsidies all day… but won’t drop fossil fuel subsidies for anything (note: many local- and state-level Republicans are actually supporting clean energy industries). But the fact remains: fossil fuel subsidies are much larger than clean energy subsidies.
Julian Scola of the European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) writes: “It makes me wonder — how do politicians and media can get away with talking about removing subisidies from renewables without even mentioning the existence — let alone withdrawal — of much larger subsidies for much more established energy technologies? It is hard to understand.” [sic]
It is a wonder. Julian goes on to point out the difference between fossil fuel and wind power subsidies:
… public subsidies for wind power are dwarfed by those channelled to fossil fuels and nuclear. OECD figures show that coal, oil and gas in the UK were subsidised to the tune of £3.63 billion in 2010, while onshore and offshore wind received only £700 million in the year to April 2011 — that’s more than five times less than fossil fuels.
Moreover, International Energy Agency figures show that coal, oil and gas subsidies in 37 countries received a total of $409 billion in 2010, compared to $66 billion for renewables.
Shockingly different, eh?
June 28, 2012
In a surprisingly sweeping win for the Obama administration’s climate policies, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the Environmental Protection Agency is “unambiguously correct” in the legal reasoning behind its regulation of greenhouse gases.
The Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit strenuously backed the EPA’s finding that the climate-altering emissions pose a danger to public health and welfare. It also upheld the agency’s early requirements for vehicles and new industrial plants while rejecting every challenge brought by a host of industry groups, states and other critics.In addition, the court approved the EPA’s attempts to narrow the number of companies that must comply with its greenhouse gas rules. And the three-judge panel rejected attacks on the EPA’s interpretation of climate science, including critics’ argument that the “Climategate” email scandal required the agency to reconsider its decisions.
The court even mocked the critics’ claim that the EPA had improperly “delegated” its scientific judgment to outside groups, such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “This argument is little more than a semantic trick,” the judges wrote, adding that building on past research “is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”
While opponents can try to take the case to the Supreme Court, EPA supporters hailed the scope and tenor of the ruling as a victory that should have staying power.
A federal appeals court has put climate change front-and-center in the Presidential election.
The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit June 26 strongly upheld a series of Environmental Protection Agency decisions over the last three years on regulating greenhouse gases.
EPA in March proposed GHG limits for new generating plants and other large emitters, but top EPA officials said limits for existing plants won’t be proposed till after the rules for new plants are final.
That means the most politically sensitive rules won’t be issued till after the November election, leaving the controversy smack in the middle of the ongoing campaigns.
Industry analysts say the GHG rules proposed so far effectively bar any new coal plants in the US, at the same time that other EPA rules, especially the Mercury and Air Toxics Standard, may be the last straw forcing many older coal plants to shut.
June 27, 2012
When you have a history of epic swan dives, pratfalls, and face plants such as those in my checkered career, you don’t automatically assume that everything will come off smoothly.
There are still 16 days to go in the fundraiser, but the rules make it clear that you must make the original funding goal, or you receive NONE of the pledges. Now that we’ve met that goal, the additional contributions still coming in just help firm up my bare bones funding proposal. What I’m saying is, don’t feel you have to stop now. Any additions to the $4000 base proposal will definitely go to good use, and directly help improve the frequency and quality of these productions.
Deepest gratitude to all who pitched in, blogged, face booked, emailed and tweeted this project to their circles. I’m looking forward to taking this series to a whole new level.