Fortune has an interesting interview with Google cofounder Larry Page. Here he is pontificating about alternative energy, one of his company's eclectic new research areas:

Chris Hondros/Getty Images

You can be a bit of a detective and ask, What are the industries where things haven't changed much in 50 years? We've been looking a little at geothermal power. And you start thinking about it, and you say, Well, a couple of miles under this spot or almost any other place in the world, it's pretty darn hot. How hard should it be to dig a really deep hole? We've been drilling for a long time, mostly for oil - and oil's expensive. If you want to move heat around, you need bigger holes. The technology just hasn't been developed for extracting heat. I imagine there's pretty good odds that's possible.

Solar thermal's another area we've been working on; the numbers there are just astounding. In Southern California or Nevada, on a day with an average amount of sun, you can generate 800 megawatts on one square mile. And 800 megawatts is actually a lot. A nuclear plant is about 2,000 megawatts.

The amount of land that's required to power the entire U.S. with electricity is something like 100 miles by 100 miles. So you say, "What do I need to do to generate that power?" You could buy solar cells. The problem is, at today's solar prices you'd need trillions of dollars to generate all the electricity in the U.S. Then you say, "Well, how much do mirrors cost?" And it turns out you can buy pieces of glass and a mirror and you can cover those areas for not that much money. Somehow the world is not doing a good job of making this stuff available. As a society, on the larger questions we have, we're not making reasonable progress.

And yet, Page is optimistic that this progress can accelerate:

Look at the things we worry about - poverty, global warming, people dying in accidents. And look at the things that drive people's basic level of happiness - safety and opportunity for their kids, plus basic things like health and shelter. I think our ability to achieve these things on a large scale for many people in the world is improving.

Germany's environment minister, Sigmar Gabriel, issued a statement today with some strong criticism for George W. Bush's big climate change speech. But the harshest words were actually in the title of his press release:

Gabriel criticises Bush's Neanderthal speech. Losership, not Leadership".

With a title like that, why even bother with a statement?

(Hat tip: The Lede)

GERARD CERLES/AFP/Getty Images

EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs has a great new blog, and he's wasted no time in taking on a controversial issue. Biofuels have taken a lot of hits lately, but Piebalgs says the relationship between them and food prices is overblown:

Biofuels, have become a scapegoat for recent commodity price increases that have other causes – poor harvests worldwide and growing food demand generated by increased standards of living in China and India. In Europe, we use less than 2 percent of our cereals production for biofuels, so they do not contribute significantly to higher food prices in the European context. Even if we reach our 10% biofuels target by 2020, the price impact will be small. Our modeling suggests that it will cause a 8 to 10% increase in rape seed prices and 3 to 6% increase in cereal prices. Increase in the price of the latest has very small influence on the cost of bread. It makes up around 4 per cent of the consumer price of a loaf.

Even if price food price distortions are minor, I'm still not convinced the biofuels are worth the trouble given that it's not entirely clear whether they really do anything to reduce greenhouse emissions once land clearance is taken into account. Still, Piebalgs' blog should be great opportunity to hear from an informed voice in the debate.

Increasing global demand for food along with biofuels production has meant that rising food prices have been hitting our paychecks hard. But the news will likely only get worse.

In a recently released National Bureau of Economic Research paper, Wolfram Schlenker of Columbia University and Michael J. Roberts of the U.S. Department of Agriculture reveal the effects of climate change on crop yields in the United States. The results are alarming: According to Schlenker and Roberts's model, which employs data on crop yields in the United States between 1950 and 2004 along with a matching weather/temperature data set, yields are likely to diminish significantly by the end of the century.

Although yields for corn and soybeans increase until temperatures reach about 29° Celcius and yields for cotton increase until about 33° Celcius, temperatures above these thresholds result in a rapid and steep decline thereafter. Global warming is expected to shift temperatures upward and produce more damaging heatwaves. As a result, Schlenker and Roberts predict that corn yields will decrease by 44 percent, soybean yields will drop by 33-34 percent, and cotton yields will decline by 26 to 31 percent -- and that's just under the "slow warming" scenario of the model. If the model assumes "quick warming," the news is even more dire. Corn, soybean, and cotton yields will plummet by 79-80 percent, 71 to 72 percent, and 60 to 78 percent respectively.

To make matters worse, "hotter southern [U.S.] states exhibit the same threshold as cooler states in the north, suggesting there is limited potential for adaptations." In other words, the prospect of crops evolving quickly to adapt to a warmer environment looks slim. Technology, too, appears unlikely to save the day just yet. The authors conclude, "[W]e find no evidence that technological progress increased heat tolerance over the last 55 years: while average yields have gone up almost threefold, the breakpoint where temperatures become harmful is the same in later periods as it is in earlier periods." As the Earth gets hotter, expect inflation to soar. Time to stock up on corn, soybean, and cotton products.

Michael Specter of the New Yorker, as he tends to do, files a brilliant article on a subject that you would think has been beaten to death: climate change and carbon footprints. It's a must read. (I still recommend his 2006 article on water scarcity to anyone remotely interested in development.)

Even though the article isn't just a fact barrage, there are some salient factoids worth pulling out:

• It is actually more "green" for New Yorkers to drink wine from Bordeaux, which is shipped by sea, than wine from California, sent by truck.
• The environmental burden imposed by importing apples from New Zealand to northern Europe or New York can be lower than if the apples were raised 50 miles away.
• By one calculation, half of the world's carbon-dioxide emissions come from just 700 million people, or nearly 10 percent of the population.
• If you figure in deforestation, Indonesia and Brazil are the 3rd and 4th largest emitters of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere (still falling short of perennial emissions powerhouses, United States and China).  

CHINA PHOTOS/Getty Images

It was already a bad PR week for the Beijing Olympics after director Steven Spielberg quit as artistic consultant in protest of China's role in the Darfur genocide. Now, in a further embarassment, the British Olympic Association has decided to allow British athletes to wear masks while competing to minimize the effect of air pollution. The masks have already been designed and tested, apparently, but details and images have been kept under wraps.

Regardless of what they look like, Chinese officials can't be thrilled about the prospect of millions of viewers watching masked marathoners running through Beijing's smog-choked streets. The U.S. Olympic Committee has decided not to allow masks in order to avoid offending the hosts. China's international coming-out party seems increasingly likely to turn into a complete fiasco for the country's image. And the worst is yet to come.

The smelter, from a photo taken between 1911 and 1916 (Via SMH).

When pricing a house next door to the contaminated site of a former uranium smelter, even a house with waterfront access, most realtors would aim low. In Sydney, though, one such house is on the market for roughly $3.6 million. The realtor describes the site nearby, full of radioactive dirt contaminated with "traces" of uranium and thorium, as just "a slight variation from the norm."

Not surprisingly, the house has been on the market for awhile. Many potential buyers have expressed interest, but so far nobody has purchased it (the crackle of Geiger counters from across the street may have something to do with this). As nuclear power expands, though, it is worth examining just how dangerous such contamination can really be.

Few specifics about the case in Sydney have been released, but it is possible to speak generally about the materials involved. Uranium is only mildly radioactive, and exposure even to high levels of uranium is not known to cause cancer (high levels, if ingested, can cause kidney and tissue damage, though). So, "traces" of it are unlikely to be dangerous. Thorium can give you cancer if you inhale it in large amounts (or possibly when you ingest it), but has not been known to cause birth defects or fertility problems, as some other radioactive materials can. Again, "traces" of thorium are likely harmless.

The wild card in this situation is the radioactivity from the soil. When certain types of powerful radiation encounter everyday materials, those materials can become "activated." In other words, they become radioactive (to a weaker degree) themselves. However, after nearly a century, the soil at this site in Sydney would have reverted to a very low, though perhaps above "background," level of radioactivity. (The New South Wales government and an independent consultancy say the radiation level is higher than background, but safe.)

While a higher than usual level of radiation in the area sounds scary, it is probably not all that dangerous. Many studies have found that constant exposure to low levels of radiation does not pose a health risk. One study, performed by the U.S. National Cancer Institute, found no increased cancer risk for people living near 62 large nuclear facilities. If nuclear power spreads, we should remain vigilant, but there is no need for paranoia.   

JOEL SAGET/AFP/Getty Images

Imagine the following scenario: 

Water, the source of human survival, enters the global marketplace and political arena. Corporate giants, private investors, and corrupt governments vie for control of our dwindling supply, prompting protests, lawsuits, and revolutions from citizens fighting for the right to survive. Wars of the future will be fought over water, not oil. Past civilizations have collapsed from poor water management. Can the human race survive?"

This is the plot synopsis for an upcoming documentary film Blue Gold: World Water Wars, but it could just as well be a quote from Ban Ki-moon at today's World Economic Forum panel, "Time is Running Out for Water." The U.N. chief painted an equally sobering picture of the potential effects of a global water shortage:

The consequences for humanity are grave. Water scarcity threatens economic and social gains and is a potent fuel for wars and conflict.”

It's not just the U.N. that is warning of an impending crisis. A report on climate change and conflict by the NGO International Alert highlights water shortages and their potentially aggravating effects on violent conflicts around the world. Although the report outlines some pretty worrisome consequences of water shortages, conflict need not lead to war, an author of the report tells the Times of London, but can result in opportunities for collaboration and innovation. For more information on freshwater resources around the world, check out the Pacific Institute's Web site.

When I noted in this morning's Brief that China's Yangtze River is facing a monumental drought, I don't think I quite conveyed the extent of the problem. This photo ought to do the trick, though:

China Photos/Getty Images

This, by the way, is classic Chinese government media management at work:

[China Daily, a state-run newspaper] said officials stored large amounts of water behind the massive Three Gorges Dam across the Yangtze last month, causing the flow volume in the river to fall by 50 percent.

Still, it quoted the Yangtze River Water Resource Commission as saying the drought had nothing to do with the dam.

The European Union is reexamining its biofuels policy after finding evidence that increased demand might be endangering rainforests and causing other nasty side effects:

A couple of years ago biofuels looked like the perfect get-out-of-jail free card for car manufacturers under pressure to cut carbon emissions...Since then reports have warned that some biofuels barely cut emissions at all - and others can lead to rainforest destruction, drive up food prices, or prompt rich firms to drive poor people off their land to convert it to fuel crops.

It's hard not to get excited about the biofuel breakthroughs on the way (switchgrass, anyone?), but sorting out sustainable supply chains will take some time. One thing seems clear: Ethanol from corn ain't the answer. And with the Iowa caucuses now behind us, some presidential candidates may even be able to say so.

RAVEENDRAN/AFP/Getty Images

Are you an unemployed youth in the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh? If so, the government may have a job for you: monkey sterilizer. 

The state has become so overrun with monkeys that curbing them became a major electoral issue last month. On Thursday, the chief minister unveiled a solution that would solve two problems—the monkey menace and youth unemployment—at once: Train young people to capture and sterilize marauding wild monkeys. Or as the state's press release puts it, "lazer [sic] sterilization of the monkeys on war footing."

This monkey madness probably sounds wacky to those who don't live near monkey habitats, but it may well be a pragmatic solution to a vexing problem. For devout Hindus and conservationists who don't want monkeys to be killed, for instance, sterilization might be more benign. And let's not forget that in India, the monkey population is out of control. Monkeys ravage farmers' crops and even attack people such as New Delhi's deputy mayor, who fell off his balcony and died while fighting off a gang of monkeys last October.

Admittedly, part of the problem is us humans: We're encroaching on monkey territory and taking away their habitat. To that end, Himachal Pradesh is also considering developing dedicated wildlife preserves for monkeys. (Puerto Rico, by the way, is simply shipping theirs to Florida.)

In all, the monkey eradication plan doesn't sound as bizarre once all the hype is stripped away: Train young adults to capture, enumerate, tag, and sterilize monkeys.

Of course, what happens if novice sterilizers botch a case? One dissenting conservationist asked:

Can you imagine what having badly sterilized monkeys running around will do to the levels of aggression?

Perhaps there's nothing to worry about. According to Himachal Pradesh's press release, the young adults are only going to be assisting "experts" in carrying out the project. Presumably, the experts know how to wield a sterilization "lazer."

The Weather Channel recently announced something called the "Forecast Earth 2007 Hot List," billed as the world's most influential people when it comes to climate change. Most of the list is predictable, if a bit myopically focused on New York (New Yorkers always think their glorified provincial town is the capital of the universe):

• Al Gore, former U.S. vice president
• Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC chairman
• Stephen Schneider, IPPC scientist and Stanford professor
• Thomas Friedman, New York Times columnist
• Andrew Revkin, New York Times science reporter
• Eileen Claussen, president, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
• Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor, the Republic of California
• Majora Carter, executive director, Sustainable South Bronx
• Van Jones, president, Ella Baker Center on Human Rights

The last honoree on the list? Wal-Mart. That ought to set some tongues wagging.

iStockphoto.com

We've all heard about cars powered by wacky biofuels, including switchgrass and leftover French fry oil. Now, two British men who love the environment are trekking from Britain to Timbuktu in a truck whose fuel comes from cocoa butter extracted from waste chocolate (as in, like, misshapen Easter bunnies).

The vehicle is a Ford Iveco cargo truck, and as it travels 4,500 miles to Timbuktu, it will burn 2,000 liters of biodiesel originating from 4,000 kg (8,800 lbs.) of misshapen chocolate. That's enough of the sweet stuff to make 80,000 chocolate bars.

On Friday, the chocomobile crossed the English Channel by ferry, and after a sweet ride through France and Spain, it will hop onto another ferry to Morocco. Once it vrooms through Mauritania, it will plow through Mali's deserts until it arrives at Timbuktu, the city once regarded in the West as being at the ends of the Earth and which today is in a region that is being buried under sand.

The two Brits behind this stunt are, of course, trying to bring attention to biodiesel, a renewable resource that generates lower carbon emissions than fossil fuels. It seems unlikely that fueling vehicles with cocoa butter could be achieved at a large scale—that would require a tremendous amount of chocolate or, perhaps, tanning oil—but if the men's journey makes more people aware of the benefits of biofuels in general, that would be a sweet success.

I'm a big fan of recycling. I love it. Give me a rectangular blue bin and I'll fill it with newspapers, bottles and cans.

And yet, I can't help but be disturbed by a report that some folks in Guangdong province, China, are reprocessing used condoms into rubber bands. You gotta draw the line somewhere.

Local doctors have warned that using these rubber bands could lead to the spread of AIDS, genital warts and other sexually transmitted diseases.

"There are a lot of bacteria and viruses on the rubber bands and hair ties made from used condoms," a dermatologist at the Guangzhou Hospital of Armed Police, who asked to be identified by his surname Dong, said.

"People could be infected with AIDS, warts or other diseases if they hold the rubber bands or strings in their mouths while weaving their hair into plaits or buns," Dong was quoted as saying by the paper.

A better form of sex-related recycling, in theory, is this British company's initiative to recycle used vibrators. It turns out that under British law, electronic sex toys are considered e-waste, so you can't just throw them in a landfill when you've, uh, worn them out. But don't worry: The company isn't putting the old vibrators back into the rotation, as it were. They're just promising to dispose of them properly.

NATALIE BEHRING

Still, all of this unusual recycling activity kinda makes you wonder what's really going on in places like this "digital dump" in China, featured in a recent FP photo essay:

It can be 10 times cheaper for a "recycler" to ship waste to China than to dispose of it properly at home. With the market for e-waste expected to top $11 billion by 2009, it's lucrative to dump on the developing world.

By now, we've all heard about old cell phones and laptops leaching toxic chemicals into the soil in places like India, China, and Nigeria. But are used Western dildos piling up in some dark corner of Xinjiang somewhere, too?

(Hat tip: On Deadline)